A Person Of Interest

Re: Valerie

(I am replying here to post pictures) I agree that Rosenberg should not have been a credible source in this case. As I said... If I were covering this story, I would never use Hatfill's identification because there was no hard evidence to prove he could be convicted.

The handwriting on the envelopes of anthrax powder is very distinguishable. And I think if the FBI asked Hatfill for a writing sample that he would not have remained a "person of interest." Detectives can identify characteristics within an individuals handwriting quite easily...

Although the FBI claims only 30 people in the US have the knowledge to do this. And even though the FBI eventually announced Bruce Edwards Ivins was responsible ... I really think that it is apparent that somebody from Al-Qaeda perpetrated the anthrax attacks.

Envelope & Letter Containing Anthrax

What kind of American would write the note above a week after 9/11...

I think the anthrax came from Al-Qaeda... I think this is very distinguishable handwriting. And it would not take a rocket scientist to distinguish this from a sample of Hatfill's writing.

I think as prospect and working journalists, we must take into consideration:

• What did we learn from this assignment?
• And how will it make us stronger as journalists?

In response to Hatfill's case... I think that journalists should consider concealing the identity of a "person of interest" or a suspect to avoid destroying a person's reputation, in the event they are never formally convicted.

I believe that by keeping a person's identification confidential unless there is sufficient evidence to charge them under the legislation, will not induce the general public to shun an innocent individual or inhibit a journalist from generating groundbreaking coverage. For example New York Times journalist, Nicholas D. Kristof referred to Hatfill as Mr. Z in the majority of his articles about this investigation. Also if all the journalists whom covered this story addressed Hatfill by his initials or Mr. Z, and not had used his real name, unless he were charged for the anthrax attacks, it would not have destroyed his personal life to the same extent.

Although Hatfill had legitimate reasons to charge the US Department of Justice and Donald Foster with defamation. And he also might not have deserved the extensive media coverage either.

I can't feel sorry for Hatfill since he blames the world for his problems. At the end of the day, the negative coverage did not ruin his life. I think it is safe to say that Hatfill devastated his own life by forging educational credentials on his resume. And I think that is malice itself. Not only did he lie and cheat with his employers and career, he lied and cheated on himself, as well as his friends and the educational institution.
And it looks like we are watching Hatfill getting a taste of his own medicine... Hatfill possessed poor morales and values, and that should hurt him the most. "Two wrongs, don't make a right", and I think I am being brutally honest, and not malicious.

A person of interest ...

As I tried to squish everything I had down to 750 words for our "Person of Interest" assignment I came across some very fascinating information about Dr. Steven J Hatfill, aka "Mr. Z" - most importantly that Dr. Hatfill was exonerated by the FBI in 2008 of any association in the anthrax attacks.

As I read and read and read through articles about the anthrax attacks, Dr. Hatfill, and the F.B.I.'s investigation I began to see how important it is to question all sources of information and evidence - especially if the evidence is circumstantial. We had discussed linkage in our last class - and it is something I saw a lot of when reviewing our assignment and articles. In the New York Times article, "New Details on F.B.I.'s False Start in Anthrax Case" Dr. Hatfill's lawyer, Mark A. Grannis was quoted saying "... an accumulation of claims from acquaintances can cast an innocent person in a highly suspicious light." Never is this more true, especially when the innocent person is in the line of some very public scrutiny. Just look at the damage that Dr. Barbara Rosenberg's gossipy comments through the FAS forums had done. I really did not know that a lifelong academic pursuit of microbiology would equip someone with the psychological expertise of a criminal profiler! It's amazing how easy it is to link someone to an action with a little bit of imagination and a desire to "pin the perp". Our society demands such swift justice that we tend to avoid steady reason and opt for a brut force reaction.

Here are a few links about Dr. Hatfill & the Anthrax Investigation:

New York Times' topics page on Dr. Hatfill:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/steven_j_hatfill/index.html

New York Times' topics page on Anthrax:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/anthrax/index.html

Article on the effects of the FBI's anthrax investigation on some of the suspects:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/washington/10anthrax.html?fta=y

OpEd column by Nicholas D. Kristoff that includes an apology to Dr. Hatfill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/opinion/28kristof.html

This case reminded me a lot of Richard Jewell, a security guard during the 1996 Olympic Bombing in Atlanta - Jewell was caught in a media firestorm that pinned him as a hero, then a bomber and back.

Here is the New York Times topics page on Jewell:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/richard_jewell/index.html

Cropping?

My last post is getting quite a reaction and I wanted to pose a question about cropping images ...

Is this ...


the same as this?




Original image borrowed from MSNBC's "The Week in Pictures: Sept. 17-24" :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33011521/ns/news/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1

The Chop Shop - Newsweek, Kennerly & the cutting board

So we're asked - What is all the hubbub over David Hume Kennerly's denouncement of Newsweek's use or rather "misuse" of his photograph?

Context & Thievery (per se)

Kennerly's very public denouncement of Newsweek's use of his image and the contextual change he felt happen when they cropped it can almost be compared to someone crying foul over stealing - and in this case it's all about the context of the original photo and what was robbed from it when cropped.

The argument over the context of imagery is definitely not new, you often see this with the fair use of images in fine art and parody. Appropriation artists (pop artists, street artists, and even comic book artists) often fight the fair use battle and in some cases successfully defend their appropriation with an argument about context. If an image is altered, i.e. by cropping, reproduction, alteration or through incorporation into another image, it is often argued that the context of the image is changed - therefore the appropriated image becomes an entirely different one from the original.

The most recent and high profile instance of appropriation artist vs. "The Man" happens to involve Shepard Fairey and the AP.

For reference, here is a quick look at the images and a link to an article in Photo District News:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/legal-news/e3i423339706237af10532f29eea64b9a9f


So what does the appropriation artists battle with fair use and the context of imagery have to do with journalism - especially with the Kennerly-Newsweek controversy?

I would have to say A LOT!

Just look at the two images:

Kennerly's Original



Newsweek's Crop


These images along with the accompanying blog/article "News Photographer Excoriates Newsweek for Cropping to Make Cheney Look 'Sinister'" can be found here: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/legal-news/e3i423339706237af10532f29eea64b9a9f


The two images become completely different images although one is derived from the other. The focal points, the framing, the important aspects of each image differ almost entirely.

Although I would have a hard time proclaiming that Newsweek's "appropriated" ... errr, I mean (awkwardly) "cropped" image of Cheney portrays something "sinister or macabre" like Kennerly did - I would not hesitate to say that it misrepresents the truth of the original photograph. The family, the setting and the overall scene is notably absent in Newsweek's version. This is where Kennerly's outrage - which has been shared by many - is almost validated, not only as an artist, or as a photographer, but as a journalist. Newsweek altered the truth in Kennerly's original image to suit it's editorial need.

Are photos & images immune to the ethical standards of written word in journalism? I hope not.

Cropping Debacle: Is the Public to Blame?

The controversey over the Newsweek article which presented a cropped image of former Vice President Dick Cheney, is in my opinion, ridiculous.

The original article published was an interview with the former Vice President which brought up the topic of his stance on the lengths the CIA went to while still under the Bush administration in regard to interrogation. Cheney has been openly pro-torture for his entire tenure as second in command, and only reiterated such sentiments in the interview conducted by Newsweek.

When the photo taken of Cheney, originally a scene of his entire family while the former Vice President was butchering some meat, was cropped to just him and the bloody cutting board, blogs and opinion columns in newspapers exploded with controversy. This is what I find ironic.

Rather than people openly discussing the sensitive topic of torture brought up in the article, they find debating the implications of an image of an old man cutting some chicken as more important?

I'm not trying to get into my own political opinion regarding torture. I'm not saying that torture is empirically evil. I'm also not saying that it isn't empirically evil. What I'm saying is that torture is a very, very serious and real subject. It's irrelevant as to whether the readers were pro-torture or otherwise against. What matters is that rather than bring up the contents of such an important issue, they're upset with a picture of Cheney making some dinner for his family.

How is it that we've become some self-absorbed as a country, and so inherently and chronically addicted to drama, that we cast ourselves into massive public debates regarding the implications of a picture of a man preparing some meat for dinner? Yes, there's blood. Yes, he's holding a knife. So? Is it a human? No. Did Cheney shank a live chicken to death in his kitchen in front of his family, laughing in maniacal pleasure all the way? No. He's making dinner, just like all of us do each and every night. We as a nation are just so addicted to drama that we feel the need to take such an obvious act which should really have no implications on the contents of the article and blow it exponentially out of proportion so that we have something to fight about.

Don't be fooled - the United States is addicted to dramatic mass news. A former pop singer and accused paedophile dying completely consumed the media for weeks on end, all while there are two simultaneous wars being fought, the largest recession since the Great Depression is under way, and the progression of health care is tied up in Congress with seemingly no end in sight. Yet we prioritize the death of a drug-addicted Mtv icon as more newsworthy than the aforementioned issues.

I cannot fathom why this has become a national issue. Mr. Cheney is clearly preparing dinner. If you honestly want to let the image of a bloody cutting board echo his sentiments in the article, then perhaps a soap opera would be better for you than the news.

Choppping Cheney

In replying to David Hume Kennerly's outrage at the cropping of his photo, Frank DeMaria's response for Newsweek sounded more like an unprofessional attack than a dissemination of ideas and information. However, with that being said, my initial impressions of the photo were not of anything "sinister" or "evil" as Kennerly suggested.

Though cropped, the Newsweek photo is clearly set in someone's home with the granite topped cabinets and casual accesories in the background. It is also a somewhat social setting with at least one additional person that we see to the left. If it weren't for Kennerly's editorial, I would not have made any connection to Cheney being a butcher.

In debating whether Kennerly has a right to be upset that his photo was taken out of the intended context, consider for a moment the original photo with Cheney and his family. If the Cheney family knew that Kennerly was shooting pictures, the original shot was already somewhat staged. This is a practice well known to the public. If Kennerly's outrage is because Newsweek did not use the photo the way he expected it to be used, which was to show Cheney in a positive, family oriented setting, I can understand Kennerly being upset, but it doesn't seem to be a breach of ethics. If I sell an item that I made to a customer, I cannot get upset when the customer takes it apart and uses the pieces separately, simply because it has my name on it and I intended a different use for the item.

This may be an oversimplification, but Kennerly's photo was not significantly changed or airbrushed, it was cropped and I would imagine that cropping is done all the time when there are space requirements. An image that focuses on one subject from a photo does not seem to cross any major ethical lines. The cropped photo certainly does not seem to reflect some egregious opinion that "embarrassed and humiliated" him, as Kennerly stated.

Former vice president Cheney, in a starched shirt and blazer, cutting on white china in an expensively appointed kichen, does not come close to representing a butcher. Cropping the photo does not seem to change the context of the picture, it is only the words of the article that do this. If in the end, this picture was used to illustrate a point or to grab the reader's attention, in my opinion, Newsweek failed on both accounts.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/essay-9/

To crop or not to crop

Here's an interesting point/counterpoint that appeared in the New York Times photojournalism blog this morning. David Hume Kennerly discusses how Newsweek cropped a photo of his in an article about Dick Cheney. He doesn't think their use was ethical. The Newsweek editor disagrees.

Read both sides and weigh in here. Who do you agree with, and why? Should the photographer have a say in how his photo is used, whether it is used or abused? Are there broader implications beyond just this one photo as Kennerly suggests?

NYT vs Sullivan Links (aka as "The Heed Their Rising Voices or Shut Up" Blog)

Here are some links relevant to our lecture about New York Time vs Sullivan:

Supreme Court Case Decision -
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZS.html

"Heed Their Rising Voices"
Text-
http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/commstud/freespeech/cont/cases/nytsullivan1.html
Image -
http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/commstud/freespeech/cont/cases/nytsullivan.GIF

Justice Brennan's Statement -
http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~drechsel/j559/readings/sullivan.html

Enjoy.

It's a family decision

Joshua Bernard's story should be told. I believe that the story itself, along with the stories of other veterans, provides a chilling insight into a war that we at home cannot fully understand because we are not the one's physically fighting it. The media presents it to us as they see fit, as in the case of Joshua Bernard. I think the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" does not apply in cases such as this because the words in these stories are powerful enough to conjure up a mental picture for the reader, should the reader choose to create one. One that remains private and personal without publicly exploiting a family's tragedy.

On a different note, should a fallen soldier's family choose to grant the release of graphic war time photos for publication, let those families' photos be the ones that grace the front pages of newspapers, magazines, ect. But it should be the family's decision and the family's decision alone to share their story of loss through photographs to the world. Joshua's family specifically said they did not want the photo to be published, but AP decided to do it anyways. In response to their decision Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote a letter to Associate Press and stated "Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
I couldn't have said it better than Gates did.

Fallen Soldier

I finally had a chance to see the slide show of photos and I don't believe they were orverly graphic or in poor taste. However, the question remains as to whether the pictures should have been run based on consideration of the major stakeholders. While his fellow officers may have been able to adjust to photos of combat that they are involved in everyday, Bernard's family would be be much more affected. I can only imagine how his family must feel to see, what later became, some of the last moments of their loved one's life. Yet, it was a great point made, that Bernard's father had only recently written to his congressman in an effort to change some of the military's policies. These images give a personal face and may in fact give more credence to need for change. No one would want their loved one's injuries or death to be the image for change but the story, along with the pictures, give a personal face to a war that is destroying thousands of lives and becoming relegated to the back pages. I also think that going through the ethical considerations, as outlined in the Poynter's Tool, makes the paper's reasons for running the pictures clearer and more easily accepted. I actually think that after viewing the images of combat, the picture that is most poignant is the photo of Bernard in full dress with the American flag in the background. This really brings home the reality of kids losing their lives. One thing I do hope, is that the debate over whether or not the picture should have been run, does not overshadow the reason for running the photos: to bring focus to a continuing war that is destroying more and more lives every single day.

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

How Audiences Values Impact A Journalists Ethics

Pertaining our class discussion about the Fallen Marine, and concerns surrounding whether or not it is ethical to publish photo's of the fatality; combined with Professor Herrin's lecture about news values and topics that make a story newsworthy...

I believe that at the end of the day we all value being ethical individuals and strive to serve public interest. However the news industry thrives on delivering stories about controversy, conflict, interest, objectivity, and etc. Since we retain reader loyalty through providing our audience with groundbreaking information on emerging controversies. It makes our audience feel like the "proud innovators", as they circulate the latest stories amongst their family, friends, or colleagues.

Everyday on television and in the newspapers we don't just see pictures of Obama, MJ, and Madoff. We also see photos of ordinary faces and I think it is absolutely meaningless.

I think via delivering a story with photo's of people taking action/heroism, the story becomes much more meaningful, as our audience is empowered to listen and they will more likely acknowledge our key messages. Therefore we need to do more qualitative research to gain insight -- on how our audiences value's impact our ethics as journalists, and the information, photo's, and media we incorporate into the stories we cover.

If the press only published the following photo to cover Mr. Bernard's story, would we gain a similar perspective on his story?

If the AP did not incorporate the following photo of Mr. Bernard wounded on the battle field bleeding, could they convey their key messages about the tragedy of war? Would we acknowledge Mr. Bernard's story in a similar perspective?

I don't think we would receive the same message if they only published the first photo of Mr. Bernard's face because he looks like an ordinary marine. This is just my opinion....

Fallen Marine - Don't print the gore

After reading the rest of the class blogs it seems I am in the minority, as I would absolutely not post the photo of Joshua Bernard’s mangled body.  Ben Macintyre from The Times eloquently captured my sentiments when he said that this “photograph violates one of the oldest taboos, by intruding into the sacred privacy associated with the moment of death”. I think entertainment and journalism is heading the wrong direction if we have the right to capture or steal that moment from somebody in the name of truth.  Dying is personal.

 That is not to say that Joshua Bernard’s story should not be told because as many of the class have already commented it gives a personal and compelling view to an otherwise impersonal war.   However, the story can be told without the gore.  In the summer school pro seminar we looked at Jim Sheeler’s slide show and articles titled Fallen Heroes. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/special-reports/final-salute/ and this was much more emotional and compelling than the bloodied images of Joshua Bernard. 

 A number of the class blogs argued that the photo was necessary because journalists need to tell the truth.  Why is it that the American media feels it’s important to show images of war to be truthful but it’s absolutely taboo to show naked people?  Is it selective truthfulness?

 Heightened emotional states (fear, panic, jubilation, anger) always make compelling photos, but does that mean we have equal rights to see all in the name of truth? 

 As I watched the class video and this scenario was put through the Poytner ethics tests I wondered if there are any limits to what we are likely to see in the future.  Will we be watching real time executions slide shows all in the pursuit of truth? 

 The Associated Press should have respected the family’s wishes not to print the picture. 

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Fallen Marine

It is the job of a journalist to bring the truth to the people. In running pictures, photo journalism, I would have to say that I agree with their decision to run the photo. The picture brings truth to the exact momement of which the reporting was done about. People were able to see first hand the reality of the situation for themsleves. It was not as if the picture was taken and then described by the journalist for the people. Instead, the people were able to see first hand what the journalist saw and were able to infer the truth of the moment and the situation for themselves.

But, things are never that cut and dry. I agree with a lot of what has already been said on here about the privacy of the family and the father's wishes and the humanity issue behind the publishing of the photograph. I can be just as swayed by that side in most cases, except when it comes to journalism. I think that journalists would be cheating themselves and the public if they neglected to bring everything they had to the table. We are not in the situation as journalists are and because of this, they have a duty to bring the truth of the moment to the public and that is what I believe the journalist did in this situation.

I also do not believe that papers need to explain why they made the decision that they did to run a photo. As discussed in class with the Vietnam cover. I believe that by running an "explanation" of why they came to the decision to run a piece is like printing a retraction of sorts. "We ran the pic, but just in case we offend someone, here's why." I feel that situation is sort of a scapegoat. Run a pic, and stand by it. Report the truth. Some may feel that this is a hard core or irresponsible approach, but I strongly feel that journalists shoudl not wade through and only present diluted versions of situations. Run everything you have or do not run anything at all.

Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard

During our class discussion about the AP's decision to publish this story:
http://www.ap.org/fallen_marine/story.html and the accompanying set of photographs, including one of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard's mortal injury; a classmate questioned the contextual merit and the necessity of the photo in relation to the story. This question has been nagging at me since then - Is the graphic image of a fallen Lance Cpl. Bernard's necessary?

I find it hard to think that the impact of Julie Jacobson's Death of a Marine: A photographer's journal would have been the same without the image of Bernard wounded with 2 troops at his rescue. Jacobson's series of photos follow a very distinct chronological order, and I find that the series itself speaks more than the article it accompanies. Through Jacobson's article, I not only read what had transpired but got a first person visual on the reality of war and the reality that Lance Cpl. Bernard had to face in his last moments. If the image of a wounded Bernard was left out of the set, a major piece of a remarkably documented battle would have been ignored and the brevity of Bernard's loss would have been muted. People die in war, to avoid that fact would be irresponsible. The image in my opinion, was not overly graphic, gorey or excessive, but very necessary. These images give us faces to names - of American men and women who are fighting for our country as well as Afghani men and women who are fighting for theirs.

Another question posed to us in class was - What if the scenario had been different and Bernard had survived?

If Bernard had survived, I would feel differently about publishing the photo. Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, was directly and adversely affected by the events caught in the image. To minimize any pain Bernard could suffer, we must consider what is at stake for him through recovery and in his future; especially if Bernard or his family were to specifically ask that the photo not be published. I may have revised my article and set of photo's to respect and possibly reflect the request of the Bernard family.

So this is where the dilemma lies, Bernard's father had expressed his disapproval regarding the image, so when does a journalist's responsibility to report the truth trump the request of the bereaved?

The section of the Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics, "Minimize Harm," guides us in tackling such issues and the bullet point that hits home in either the hypothetical or real case is:

• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief:

I can't help but feel sympathy for the Lance Cpl. Bernard's family, it would be callous of me not to consider their request and feelings - However, the SPJ Code of Ethics also begins by stating, "Seek Truth and Report It." Unfortunate as the Bernard family's circumstances are, there is a certain responsibility that journalists have - reporting!

Julie Jacobson's piece is not simply a "once in a blue moon" opportunity but a chance to report on events that are common in war but are rare in such a complete record. Jacobson's photographs provide an objective view of the war in Afghanistan. A war - Operation Enduring Freedom - which is America's longest currently active* war. A war whose coverage has been overshadowed by reports on the woeful economy, a historical change to our presidency, health care reform, H1N1 and unfortunately, Britney Spears.

The AP, despite resistance, made the correct decision to publish a first hand account of what happened to Lance Cpl. Bernard and his batallion - in doing so, the AP brought back mainstream coverage of a war that affects thousands of Americans and their families every day. Would there have been such a response to this article if it weren't still important?


Speaking of Americans affected, here are some links I'd like to share with you -
DOD's "Recruiting and Retention Numbers for August 2009":
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12964

DOD's "Casualty per Month" statistics sheet for Operation Enduring Freedom: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oefmonth.pdf

*note the word "active" - the Korean War is technically "paused" because of armistice
_______________________________________________________

Just a little aside about me (for the sake of an introduction):
My name is Crystal. I'm a fledgling math student interested in statistical analysis, and will hopefully be able to use the skills that I am learning to generate numbers and information that will help the world one day. I'm taking Ethics and Journalism because of my interest in journalism (I'd like to minor in journalism) and the parallels I see between truth in numbers, truth in words and the importance of accuracy in both. So .... who are you people and why are you taking the class? :)

Fallen Marine

I delayed viewing the slide show for several hours the other night because I was not looking forward to a graphic depiction of war time violence. When I finally mustered up the nerve to watch, it was with trepedition. However, I think that it was tastefully done considering the content. I rewatched it a second time to ensure I had an objective viewing from which to comment on. While the family is a significant stakeholder to consider, I believe that this story and corresponding photos should have been published as some news institutions choose to do because it is based upon the foundation that this was the worst battle to date. After viewing the other photos from war that were shared in class, including the Pulizter Prize winning one, my opinion is stronger that this photo should not have been withheld.
Jeanette

href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Military Reaction to Soldiers Blogging

This story, which was published on the bottom half of the front page of the New York Times today (September 9th), can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/us/09milblogs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpw

The article raised a very interesting issue which I personally haven't heard much dialogue on. The explosion of social networking, and the influence it has had upon media and the public it has carried with it, (as well as the potential for even greater influence should it keep progressing at the rate it has been) is unparalleled throughout the history of reporting and networking. Since MySpace rose to prominence only five short years ago, social networking has exponentially grown to become a pivotal part of the public forum.

The ability to be heard through blogging has been hotly discussed amongst the political, corporate, and private world. Blogging has given what would have been otherwise unknown, every day private citizens a means of getting their thoughts out to gigantic audiences. The effects this has had on the media are, as I said, very openly discussed and prolific. What has not had much discussion, though, is the effects and implications of soldiers blogging. More specifically: the effects of currently enlisted soldiers currently in the middle of active tours of duty blogging.

The implications of soldiers blogging, comparatively to private citizens, are profound. While we already hear the opinions of the war from private citizens from day to day and in real time, we do not hear them from the men and women executing the orders all other third parties are only speculatively writing on. Soldiers blogging offers a real time, instant first hand account on what's going on in the wars from someone who is directly engaging in combat operations, or otherwise stationed overseas and indirectly contributing.

The implications of soldiers blogging are numerous. The military believes this should be limited and regulated for security reasons. The obvious conflict with this is whether it violates the rights of the soldiers or not. Does the First Amendment apply to soldiers currently engaged in combat operations?

On one hand, yes, there is the potential for soldiers to either purposely or accidentally release classified information that could harm wartime operations. This is, however, making the assumption that soldiers are not able to hold information they should not be disclosing. Should the military have that little faith in it's personnel?

On the other hand, soldiers blogging offers an invaluable and totally unprecedented real time, first hand perspective into the results and consequences of our political war time agenda. What better way to be informed about the war than from the men and women in it, while it's happening?

It seems to me, that more than anything, this is a matter of the higher ups in the military not wanting soldiers to taint their image. Soldiers blogging on their experiences in war could potentially place a very grim outlook on the military up on a pedestal for the whole world to see. Is this really a matter of maintaining security, or is the military trying to initiate preventive measures against any potential for loss of face amongst the public?

I personally believe it's the latter, and I find that highly unethical. The military is an institution funded by the public. They belong, largely, to the public, and should be totally transparent in their actions. Further, I believe they should hold full accountability for their actions. I don't see their attempts at regulating the voices of soldiers as a matter of security, but rather a blatant attempt at censorship. I find this whole situation to be a very selfish, immoral approach to their portrayal in the media on behalf of the military.

While regulating the blogging of soldiers doesn't hide the actions of the military entirely, it certainly moves their actions from being transparent to slightly blurred and translucent. Is this an ethical approach on their behalf to their own portrayal to the world, or a blunt avoidance of morality in the name of potentially saving face?

Fallen Marine

I think everyone left great comments. However the controversy between the AP and smaller news outlets must be addressed at the root of the problem.

According to the Associated Press "739 Americans have died in Afghanistan since 2001". http://www.ap.org/fallen_marine/story.html. Therefore it is obvious, people must acknowledge the tragedies of war in Afghanistan because numerous men and women sacrifice their lives . Through leveraging the images of the deceased marines fatality, Mr. Bernard during his last moments on the battle field via the AP, it gives both the story and issue a human face.

The photo's of Mr. Bernard dying are not necessarily "gross", they are much more heart wrenching. It is understandable that nobody wants their son, brother, and friend commemorated in the news bleeding to death on a battle field. However Mr. Bernard's story and photo's left a profound impact on American society and prove war is an issue of substance. And Americans must do something about this issue before more innocent people are wounded and killed just like Mr. Bernard.

It is safe to say:

Despite the repulsiveness of Mr. Bernard bleeding to death, the photo's emphasize the significance of the key messages the AP is conveying to their audience about "the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.” -Mike Allen, Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26759.html

Fallen Marine

I continue to go back and forth about whether I myself would run Jacobson's photo of Joshua Bernard. I honestly don't feel the AP was wrong in doing so, but I can't help thinking about Bernard's father's wishes for privacy.

But if we must look at things objectively, this photo is indeed a visual of the war and all its hard truths. This particular photo isn't shock journalism. It's the reality of war and journalists have an obligation to report the uncensored truth to the public. At the same time, the public has a right to know what our soldiers are facing in the service of our country.

Post Number Two

Just because...

Welcome!

Hi all,
Welcome to our class blog. You should all receive by the end of the week (once TA assignments are done) an invite. Please accept the invite and register with you real name.

If you are commenting on an online article, use the link icon above to embed the link in your text. If you want to have your post title be your link, put the link in the box above (that's what the gobbly at the bottom of of the post entry box is for).

Happy Posting!