Why do I think this image from Thursday's NYT is so profound?
It's because the military has been so overwhelmingly effective in muting the war, and the war photographer, that -- practically without notice -- many of our best shooters have found themselves turning, in a disproportionate way, to the technique of irony.
For example, Cristoph Bangert has been masterful in articulating the surreal nature of a long incoherent strategy in an alien land. And now, photographer Ashley Gilbertson -- whose work I've shown and discussed a number of times at BAGnewsNotes -- is back "in country," and again "firing wit-tipped darts" attempting to wake us up.
Of course, if we weren't so anesthetized, we might actually sit forward and wonder about the outlandish contrast in this photo, or more particularly, to consider what an all-too-stealth-like picture might have to do with still one more headline confirming the latest non-development concerning Iraq's Babel-ish, seemingly permanent stalemate-for-a-government.
The agrarian scene, confounding associations of Iraq as a mostly arid, desert-like place, uses the really hilarious device of cows grazing to mirror how we in the U.S. have become so thoroughly pacified (or, dare I saw, "cowed?") by the pictorial censorship and fundamental lack of context in the war reporting as to basically reduce the whole subject -- despite the shadowy war machine still silently screaming overhead -- to the significance of, well, grazing.
If you've been following my site and this "Reading The Pictures" series, you're aware of a few humble efforts here to poke pin holes in the blackout.
Although I'm still not certain of the claim, I believe the Nov 09, 2005 post "Beyond Dover: MSM's First Published U.S. War Fatality?" ("thirty-two months and 2,000+ American deaths into the campaign," as I wrote at the time), shows one of the first (and only) published U.S. fatalities of the war in the traditional media. And then the post "Have We Just Seen The Last Combat Injury In Iraq?," co-authored with the incomparable war photographer Michael Kamber a year ago June, calls out the military for a procedural power play, effectively precluding any more pictures of injured U.S. service people from hitting the presses.
However, the visual blackout and all the ironic carom shots were punctured two days ago -- at least for one day -- by a story in the New York Times. In a courageous piece, Kamber penned a concise exposé not only outlining the pervasive, hypocritical and ever-more manipulative visual censorship being practiced by the U.S. military, but also specifically detailed the castigation and persecution of embedded photographer Zoriah Miller for documenting -- without any blinders -- a June 26th suicide attack outside of Fallujah.
(Iraqi and American victims of the June 26th suicide attack in a slum area of Fallujah)
If Zoriah captured and, ultimately, posted the images of U.S. and Iraqi fatalities on his website, incurred the terrifying wrath of the military for it, it wasn't for any lack of professionalism and commitment to journalistic practices, or subjugation of military rules of embedding, or any disregard or disrespect for the soldiers and their families. No, it was merely in service of truth and of seeing.
If I have earned any credit at all as an advocate of visual politics, I urge you to read these two piece, first Michael Kamber's story, "4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images." (As mentioned, I pay respect to The Times for running the feature, although I think it's slightly chickenshit they chose to land it on a Saturday.) And, as soon as you've finished, go immediately to Zoriah's blog and read/look at Suicide Bombing in Anbar - Eye Witness Account, the post graphically documenting the suicide bombing that put Zoriah at odds with the man. (You might also be interested in his July 3rd and July 7th follow up.)
To the extent this war has been about what hasn't and can't be seen -- including the casualties on all sides; the caskets; the literally millions of Iraqi refugees; the intense American bombing; the permanent U.S. bases; and most recently, the U.S. military running invisible interference for the Iraqi government assaults on the Mahdi -- thank God for Zoriah. Because, as much as Ashley's "cattle prod" calls out our myopia, more than a handful would likely take it for Iowa.
For more of the visual, visit BAGnewsNotes.com.
(image 1: Ashley Gilbertson for the New York Times. July 2008, Diyala Province, Iraq. image 2 & 3: © Zoriah/Zoriah.com. All rights reserved. June 26, 2008. Anbar Province)
Follow Michael Shaw on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagnewsnotes
If journalists want to distinguish the deaths from wounded, fine, but in my opinion, the American public should be hearing the casualty figures, over and over.
The wounded are not men and women with scabbed knees. I believe to use only the statistics for the dead is misleading. It also fails to honor the wounded. It would appear our military in Iraq only have value if they are dead.
Then I heard it again on C-Span
Then I heard it again on another news show.
The wordsmiths are at it again - pay attention. The subtle difference between battle casualties and 'injuries' is powerful.
A football player sustains an "injury" We expect him to get better and perhaps play again. The "injury" may end his career at worst.
Soldiers become casualties - they become wounded, or they are killed - they have done so for time in memorium. The reason that the language is shifting is the same reason that photo-journalists are being censored.... because this war is still being "marketed" to the American people.
And our Congress is still buying it.
http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4190041.html
Under the shameful guise of Democracy, this Administration, this Military Establishment has gone to great lengths to keep our generation of citizens from the truth. It’s called censorship, the kind that is practiced by the very totalitarian regimes we criticize.
“The Best and the Brightest” (1972) is a book by recently deceased journalist David Halberstam that describes the genesis of the Vietnam War. In the edition I own, John McCain writes the following forward:
"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay."
Whatever happened to "Freedom of the Press"?? I didn't understand the "no pictures" mandate when it was instituted, and I STILL don't understand it!
Did you think we were a free and open society...?
Think again...
Laura Bush said much the same thing but I don't remember when or where, I think on Larry King too.
Can anyone imagine what the media would do if ANY Democrat talked that way about our troops?
And, they'd never let a Dems forget it, they'd destroy the person's career.
Look how McCain outrageously, brazenly lies about Obama and visiting the troops right now and gets completely away with it in the MSMedia .... NOT on the internet, lol
Barbara Bush was speaking dismissively of the pre-war news coverage and its endless discussion/speculation over how many body bags, bombs, etc would be involved. Snopes has a good info page on this Bush quote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/barbara.asp
If everything we are doing over there is so righteous and glorious
If everything we are doing over there is for the good of America
If every sacrifice makes us stronger...
Then why hide the realities from us?
Why is it ok to show me graphic "fake" violence every day and night on TV but when the real thing is happening, ostensibly in the best interests of America and it's people, why is it censored?
What have the Bush Administration to hide? Is it perhaps that they fear the backlash of public opinion? Is their belief in the "goodness" of this mission so tenuous as to require they adopt the tactics of Mao or Castro?
Media censorship has no place in America - we may not like the truth but we always have a right to it.
A Right...
A first-ammendment right.
Without the 1st ammendment, no other ammendment is worth the paper it's printed on.
As a photographer I know that images evoke powerful emotion. The administration wants no one to have the slightest emotional response to the war, knowing that sadness and empathy are followed quickly by anger and outrage.
And, I loved the word you used to describe our current state: anesthetized.
The military soldiers have inordinate amounts of blogging and doxens and dozens of correspondents are with the service people everywhere. All you have to do is look.
However, most of the news is good news. That is about 90% of the news.
You are so right when you say that we need to see what our dollar has purchased. It would be just the small beginnings of some kind of accountability. The public would not be able to continue justification for this.
If your post Mike was from MinneapolisMike I would take it as satire a la the New Yorker cover but I fear you were serious and therefore I say to you "Yes you do need to see these horrors on your TV...it might wake you up!"
Where is MinneapolisMike when we need him?
It is their family members on the screen. In your liberal compassion you could cae less about those you hurt. All you care about is cheap political theatre.
Too many of the dead (including the military personnel of our country and others) are victims of criminal acts.
It does not take years and Trillions of dollars to hunt down criminals.
Remember the Korean War was once referred as a simple 'Police Action' not a war.
How do you base this assumption ?