Rare AP Photo Captures Deadly Attack on U.S. Marine in Afghanistan -- Pentagon Protests

Going back to 2002, I have been writing about the shameful reluctance, even refusal, of U.S. media outlets to carry graphic images of the true cost of our wars, to Americans, in Iraq and Afghanistan -- fatally wounded U.S. soldiers and Marines.

Earlier today, the Associated Press -- bucking the wishes of the Pentagon and the victim's family -- decided to go ahead and transmit such a photo.

It was not a one-off bit of "sensationalism" but part of a tasteful and remarkable tribute package profiling the dead Marine and the experience of the photographer, Julie Jacobson, who was there to capture his final moments before he was gravely injured. He later died, three weeks ago.

Yet Secretary of Defense Gates today blasted the AP for carrying the image, calling it "appalling" and lacking in "common decency" -- and many news outlets (at E&P we are now surveying this) are refusing to run it. Just one example: this paper carried the package but in an editor's note explains that it refused to run the picture finding it in "poor taste." Others, such as the Salt Lake Tribune, have followed this path, deleting the photo from galleries that they run with the story. Some papers such as the St. Petersburg Times and Honolulu Star-Bulletin did carry it online. Top papers such as The New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times carried the AP story, but not the image. The Post even ran an image gallery, without the picture. Later in the day, it did include the picture, with a warning -- and said it would not print it in the newspaper itself.

"AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is," said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP. But a top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee has tweeted that he agrees with Gates on this issue.

We have published the image at our blog, here. Updates on media using and refusing to use photo here. The New York Times now has a full discussion at its Lens blog. NPR.org decided to carry the photo--but put it behind a warning screen.

Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." His previous book, "So Wrong for So Long," chronicled media cover-ups, photos and otherwise, in Iraq. He is editor of Editor & Publisher. He can be reached at: [e-mail]

Follow Greg Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregMitch

Comments

[iralarry]

Everyone feels anguish and pain for this kids family. The fact that Defense Sec Gates finds it objectionable clearly supports his philosophy that what we do not see we can not object to. This war is far bigger than this one boy. It is the thousands of other soldiers that have died, the billions upon billions spend, the tens of thousands of civilian lives destroyed and umpteen injuries and amputations and loss of vision and hearing not to mention the depression and lifelong despair wrought upon young boys who see and do what they could not ever have imagined prior to entering the wars.

My kid was a Marine but he was finished just before the war in Afghanistan began. If he had died there, I would have wanted his corpse plastered in every paper and TV to remind us who sit here and armchair command the action in comfort. War sucks and the people who send us there suck. Either we go in with such overwhelming force or we get the hell out. All this little bit more here and there is bull dung. Crush the crap out of the enemy, swat the fly with a canon, finish it. I voted for Obama but he is only adding to the delay in resolution for this war.

[janeycat]

i remember when i was young seeing pictures of the war in newspapers all the time....i quit reading the paper for a while because it bothered me so bad.
i had a friend when i was 16 that had a leg at the knee gone and left arm gone above the elbow.he got it blown off in Vietnam when he stepped on a land mine...i loved him no less and respected him more for serving our country.i thought nothing less of him for smoking something that he learned to use while he was there.it helped him cope.he had night terrors and was kinda Leary of someone coming up behind him.

war is hell...it leaves nothing but pain behind...
i too think the public needs to see the results of what we are involved in any where overseas and in Mexico.
it brings home what we have started there and now have to finish.

if this gets through the moderators then i will be pleased.i have not said anything against anyone on this site to insult,ant­agonize,or hurt anyone.
this is true and factual and i stand behind every word i said

I'll pray for the family that has lost this loved one.just as i do for all our young boys involved in this senseless war.
god bless them all and keep them safe.
peace

[indy100]

"We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is" Exactly. WAR IS HORRIBLE AND UGLY. Maybe if it was actually in our faces it would be harder for the so-called "supporters" to keep up their blind support of something so violent and terrible. War is death, destruction and grief; for everyone, no matter which side they're on. It's time to get our troops out of the black holes of Iraq and Afghanistan, and preferably ALIVE. It's time to help our soldiers and their families begin healing. It's time to start spending the billions of dollars here at home on healthcare for Americans and on putting people back to work.

[OdinsEye]

As one who has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan and having "seen the elephant" up close and personal, I fully support us being in Afghanistan and think that we need to increase our presence there.

[alanmartin]

As the father of an American Soldier about to leave for his 2nd tour in Iraq, I feel I can discuss this from a position of logic.
I supported the war initially, but now like most Americans I feel the focus is lost and the occupying is well underway and terribly counter-productive.
Yet, to try to make a political statement over the demise of this fine young man is not just wrong, it is abhorrent. Yeah I know all about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc and I don't argue on those points at all.....but whether you are left or right, republican or democrat, what happened to common decency, respect, and integrity?
Unless you are a family member of a person in the service, you can never understand the "year of fear" or the anguish this family is enduring. To have it plastered about is not doing anyone any good, it is not furthering the anti-war cause, and it isn't going to reshape anyone's opinion...it is just going to hurt some folks who don't deserve that.

[OdinsEye]

Afghanistan isn't Iraq. Other than that, I agree.

[indy100]

I truly feel for you, and for the family of this soldier. I would be terrified if any of my children were in the military at this point in time. I don't believe publishing this photo is necessarily a "political statement", other than WAR IS TERRIBLE. That isn't even a statment, it's a fact. You asked what happened to common decency, respect and integrity? I don't believe those terms even belong in a sentence about war. There is no decency or respect in war. Never has been, never will be. War is about aggression, destruction, violence and murder. It's also often about rape, pillage and donimation. Where's the decency in that?

[OdinsEye]

The US military operates under strict rules about what is allowed and not allowed. In fact we are required to give a wounded enemy as good of medical care as we give out own troops. We are not allowed to shoot at hospitals, religious facilities, cultural objects, or schools unless the enemy uses them as platforms to attack us. We are not allowed to use the above facilities in any way or to even be so close to them as to put them in harms way. We are not allowed to kill troops who have surrendered or have been rendered hors de combat. I could go on, but the point is that decency, respect, and integrity are very much part of how we are supposed to execute war. Rape and pillage are not allowed. Aggression and destruction are only permissable to the point that it achieves the military objective. And killing an armed and fighting enemy is not murder.

Is war terrible? Yes. Does that mean we should never engage in it? No.

[HarkaDahl]

Americans love any war where they wont be shown the blood and the tragedy.

[nccanuck]

Yea, just like American's love abortion when they dont have to see the real effects or costs to society.

[Aimleft]

And how would you know?

Your brief tirade is completely off topic. Go promote your anti-choice views elsewhere.

[indy100]

Great analogy. NOT. How about sticking to the actual subject at hand?

[ghurley09]

A political point at the expense of a dead marine and his family.... I can only imagine how I would feel if a picture of my brother, father, cousin, uncle, friend or anyone else i loved dying was plastered all over the place for everyone to see and not to mention how I'd feel if I had a constant reminder all over the internet of someone I loved dying....

[Yermammy]

I'm more worried about the other five thousand that died for nothing and for a war prosecuted on damned lies. I want to see photographs of Bush and Cheney in court fighting for their freedom and their very lives.

[ElmCreekSmith]

Cheese?

LCpl Joshua Bernard died as a result of wounds suffered in Afghanistan. Get your story straight before you pop the cork on your whine.

ECS

[Yank in France]

I agree that I would not like being in the position of the brother of the dead Marine either. I have nothing but respect and admiration for our soldiers in Afghanistan (and elsewhere), but his death and its photo belongs to the American nation. There no reason to bar its publication and, in fact, the people must be allowed to see what is happening there.
Having said this, I support our efforts in Afghanistan, although I think the previous Administration managed that war and political situation terribly. I hope Obama does better, but I am far from sure...

[xrepublican]

Far too many of the enthusiastic supporters of our military efforts have never participated directly in such things and never will participate in such things. The families of the rich and powerful would be horrified if their children actually volunteered to fight in our military - THAT is reserved for those not wealthy enough to avoid such things. The most enthusiastic supporters of our recent military endeavors overseas - to a man - avoided service in Vietnam, pulling strings to get multiple deferments - or cushy positions in the National Guard (back in the days when they were kept in the US and not sent overseas along with regular Army troops). Bush, Cheney and all of the neo-con war mongers were more than eager to put the lives of others on the line for oil - while putting the REAL 'war on terror' on the back burner. BTW what ever happened to binLaden?

Perhaps if those who are so willing to sacrifice others actually SAW first-hand the results of their decisions, if they'd seen how war REALLY was, if they'd bothered to actually WATCH the news in 1968 - when such images were not so uncommon - they might have developed a hesitancy in putting our soldiers at risk. Instead they would BAN any 'unpleasant' photos - even simple flag draped coffins, and keep reporters away from combat operations to carefully control the image of their 'war' seen by the public.......

[Snig]

Funny how Americans get all worked up over a dead Marine but are happy to post dead Iraqi and Afghanis all over their media, including children.

It speaks volumes.

[nicole5]

Really? Americans are "happy" to post photos of dead Iraqi and Afghani children in our media? You think we're actually happy about it? Please elaborate on who precisely is happy, and how you could possibly know such a thing.

[Hugatreetoday]

I think the poster meant that there is no outrage as compared to that being generated by this photo.

[skibiketrash]

A picture is worth a thousand words. If the 98% of Americans who have not participated in or have been affected directly by these wars were consistently shown the gut wrenching realities, there would be more calls to just bring our heroes home! Too many Americans have been insulated for far to long and it is well past time they get a taste of what is happening and what our heroes see almost daily.

[kuwaitamoment]

Really?

Pictures of blood, death, and mutilation is going to affect "the 98% of
Americans who have not participated in or have been affected directly"?

So they will still have their comfortable chairs, warm beds, and big screen t.v.s
to come home to nightly. No draft to worry about, no kids, friends or neighbors in
the military to worry about. But because blood and guts are on the news and
on the newspaper, they will now automatically tune in and start caring?

As long as it's not against the family's wishes then the press should have a field day.

If it bleeds, it leads.

Bloody pictures on EVERY page of the newspaper, not just page-1. EVERYDAY.

If you think people will tune in and buy newspapers, I 'm sure the press will go for
it. After all, we love our bloody movies why not bloody newspapers? You should
contact all editors and pitch your idea!

[cylindrical]

Interesting..

War is still just that ,"DEATH.."

Against the republicans real issues.. or should I say "real consequences. "

~Atheist in a fox hole..

[Blakely]

Let's put freedom of the press aside for one moment and say if we choose the action, we choose the consequences. The consequences of war, as in other actions should be faced. If we send men and women into modern combat to form a wall between us and madness than we should not close our eyes when they fall. We should not whitewash their sacrifice. At the same time, it is important to limit the time such photos are used. No family should have to watch loved ones killed again and again for years to come. Rather than a full embargo, perhaps a seven-day window of use would be sufficient.

[mongoose63124]

interesting, many liberals think that its important to show war's "real consequences" even against this soldiers parent's expressed wishes-yet oppose anti abortion activists for showing posters of aborted fetuses, apparently that's called emotionalizing an issue, but in reality they are the same.

[gettingitright]

I don't know any pro-choice advocates who object to pictures of aborted fetuses. What they object to is the effort by some to take a very difficult choice away from women who find themselves pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant. They object to the paternalism, the arrogance, the single-mindedness of the anti-choice movement. They do not object to the realities of abortion. It is what it is.
On the other hand, why do so-called conservatives object to showing falling soldiers, but think nothing wrong with exploiting pictures of aborted fetuses. And there is a difference between a dead fetus and a dead baby.

[nicole473]

No they are not the same. Far from it.

[IndyMarine]

Why not, Nicole? Please explain. Do you believe you have the right to see my death front page for everyone to get their rocks off or learn a lesson? All that for under a grand every week? Go ahead and tell me why my wishes or those of my parents should be ignored for the "greater journalistic good."

[Scarborian]

There are two separate issues here.

The first issue is that the family asked that the photograph remain unpublished. It was not, as some have suggested, a photograph capturing the moment of the marine's death but it captured the moment of injury that eventually lead to his death. Nevertheless, the family's wishes were not respected and that's wrong.

The second issue is that the only place American citizens are given any idea of what it's like in a war is to go to the movies. These brave young people are dying in our name and yet we are fed the "Busby Berkeley" view of the armed forces, all marching bands and baton twirling and no one ever gets hurt.

It's time to show Americans the true cost of these wars, not just the dollar amount.

[weatherwaxx]

Get a grip.

[brahdog]

fair point

[mooregardening]

As American's and a lot of younger Americans, never see the true cost of war. I think that this kind of thing needs to be increased, to show American's the real cost of war.

[shockwave11]

Maybe we need to direct them to watch the first 15-20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan." Gore in action is there and it's incredibly disturbing to watch. You can find it on YouTube. I think the family's wishes needed to be respected on this one, though I do understand your point of view.

[nicole473]

I agree, but I also believe that the family's wishes should be respected.

[donphoto33]

I wasn't quite finnished.
The support of these unwinable wars would evaporate.

[ElmCreekSmith]

Define "unwinable wars."

We kept hearing that in Vietnam, and it was BS there*. We heard it in Iraq, and sonuvagun if the surge worked. Now, we're hearing it about Afghanistan. I guess if you don't agree with the reasons we went to war it's "unwinable," right?

*(The North Vietnamese were ready to sue for peace when Nixon inexpicably stopped the bombing of the North. Guards at the prisons where American POWs were held were asking prisoners to say they treated them well "When the Americans come.")

[MarkFradl]

Have a source for that info? I have a source that debunks the usual "The North was ready to surrender!" crap

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm

[donphoto33]

I am truly sorry for the loss of this young man and the trauma it has cost his family and friends.
Taken into perspective, however, how is the publication of this picture any different than those of returning men and women who have lost arms and legs and have been blinded or burned almost beyond recognition. The subject of their stories is not the horrors of war, but the almost miraculous healing capabilities of modern science. In other words, look how wonderful we are that we can save these young people after they have paid a horrible price for an undeclared and unjust war.
The uproar over this is ludicrous. Maybe if we could take our heads out of the sand and face the facts of what war really is like, our support of these unwinable

[kuwaitamoment]

No one is complaining that this image is particularly graphic.
The image is irrelevant, it could easily be a solider brushing his teeth.
The point is that the family of this man didn't want his picture published.
What is so freaking difficult to understand about that?

When people die, we jump over ourselves to find the "right" picture to place in the
funeral phamplet. Every family has a picture they want the world to remember their
child by, this particular picture is not the one HIS family wants. It's their child and
their decision.

When you die, YOUR family will make the same decision for you. Not some random
stranger who hopes to gain fame and forturne.

[weatherwaxx]

The image is not irrelevant. The image is the truth of what war does.

When a nation sends its children to WAR, they need to realize what it means.

This young man was sent to war IN OUR NAMES. It IS our business. And as a US Marine pointed out on another thread, when that soldier was inducted, his life and de@th ceased to be a private matter.

The Bush government has been censoring images of war in order to sell it as an "Excellent Adventure." Reporters were "embedded" -- that is, hemmed in by the military, allowed to take and transmit only those images that the military allowed. Even pictures of flag-draped coffins, surely nothing that could show the identity of any of the fallen soldiers, were cen sored so that Americans would not be disturbed by the consequences of war.

I am sorry that this soldier's family has lost him. But this issue is bigger than any family's loss... and consider the possibility that if Bush had allowed our troops to finish the job in Afghanistan so many years ago, instead of being sent to a trumped-up fraud in Iraq... this man might be home with his family right now.

If I were to wind up losing my life in a similar situation, I would want the picture to be used in a way that would most effectively convey the stupidity and waste of war.