Cry Me A River: New DOD Photo Rules Prompt Outcry

October 15th, 2009 (9) Posted By Hardball1911.

091015_afghanistan_photo_ap_297
By JOSH GERSTEIN
U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan are retreating somewhat from an effort to ban embedded journalists from publishing photos or video of American soldiers killed in action there, according to ground rules issued Thursday.

But the new limitations on embeds – put in place after a flap between the Pentagon and the Associated Press over a photo of a wounded soldier – have elicited deep concerns from military journalists and press advocates.

“It’s punishment for war photographers. They’re saying if you want access, you have to play by our rules. And our rules are this — the public will NOT see dead U.S. soldiers,” the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, said in an email. “For thorough reporting on Afghanistan, I guess we’re just going to have to rely on unembedded reporters running around on their own — posing a danger to themselves as well as the troops they’re trying to cover. It’s a trade-off. It’s very unfortunate.”

Ground rules issued Sept. 15 by the U.S. military’s regional command for Eastern Afghanistan imposed a strict ban on any imagery of American personnel killed in the fight.

“Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action,” the earlier rules said.

However, after inquiries and protests from news organizations and journalism groups, the command based at Bagram Air Base near Kabul modified the policy on Thursday.

“Media will not be prohibited from viewing or filming casualties; however, casualty photographs showing recognizable face, nametag or other identifying feature or item will not be published,” the new rules declare.

“This change better synchronizes [our] ground rules with those of our higher headquarters,” a statement issued by the military public affairs office at Bagram said.

Military officials told POLITICO earlier Thursday that the no-KIA-photos policy was under review at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.

The rules issued Thursday are at least the third revision to the embed policy since mid-September. The photo ban appears to have been put in place just days after Defense Secretary Robert Gates chastised the AP for what he called an “appalling” decision to publish a photo of a wounded 21-year-old soldier who later died, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard.

“Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me,” Gates wrote in a letter to the AP. “The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right—but judgment and common decency,” said Gat

Photographers who have embedded with U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war there in 2001 said they did not face any explicit restrictions on photographing soldiers killed in action.

The concession in the latest ground rules allowing photographs of unidentifiable war dead didn’t do much to assuage critics of the military’s restrictions on reporting.

“The question has to be asked: are you trying to censor this war?” asked Carl Prine, a military reporter for the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review. “We’ve been doing this for eight years now—eight years, and now you’re trying to change it?”

Prine said he was baffled by the demands for privacy in war. “If an American soldier dies in a car accident in the U.S., you can photograph him, but in Afghanistan you can’t?….If there’s one place no expects privacy, it’s on the battlefield.”

Asked about the latest revision, Prine said: “Still unacceptable. Don’t honor it.”

A military spokesman at Bagram noted that the rules apply only to those on official embeds with U.S. forces. “Media have multiple ways to cover the war in Afghanistan and embedding is only one of the choices available,” Master Sgt. Thomas Clementson wrote. “Embedding is a reporter’s choice and….embedded access does come with some limitations.”

Jihadi Killer Radio Hour
Follow Pat on Twitter
  • Monkey3531

    I think that the media are now giving the lawyers a run for the money as the lowest forms of life on Earth.

    • http://www.accdf.com toldyouso

      :beer:

  • http://www.thunderrun.us David M

    The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 10/16/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

  • Steady

    A bullet to the back of the head of any jounalist embedded with our guys would be welcome.

    • RojoNixon

      Don’t shoot Michael Yon. :shock:

  • Independent

    I believe this was prompted by the picture of the badly wounded Marine in Afghanistan who later died.

    I have a different take on this. I think that type of picture actually honors this mans heroic sacrifice. I think it is incredibly powerful picture of a MAN giving it his all for a massive ideological battle.

    It is honor to die in combat in such a way and it goes to the heart of White Western mans creed and the spirit all his ancient culture of this mans Germanic Celtic Anglo Saxon ancestors.

    The problem is once again the Cultural Marxist want you to belive he was a sucker fool and died for nothing. Its the same thing they did in the 1960′s in Vietnam

    They twist what is noble and call it criminal

    • Joe Mudd

      Are you saying it’s no sacrifice if a black or hispanic
      dies in the same way?

    • Hardball1911

      “It is honor to die in combat in such a way and it goes to the heart of White Western mans creed and the spirit all his ancient culture of this mans Germanic Celtic Anglo Saxon ancestors.”

      What exactly does this mean? An honor to die in combat?

      You seriously believe this? George S. Patton would have called you daft and ignorant of the facts. The fact is, it is not a soldier’s job to die in combat, it is a soldiers job to make some other poor bastard die for his.

      The photos of wounded and/or fallen soldiers don’t do a thing for anyone other than create political ammunition for those opposed. I have also seen, in the case of CNN reporting during the Mogadishu Somalia incident, where the “news” of a soldier’s death reached his family prior to the military contacting them with confirmed information thanks to satellite links.

  • Carry On

    Why don’t the Gov make the assholes sign an agreement that all photos and storys belong to the milatary. Then they wouldn’t be able bitch about it. It worked in WW2.