1
   

Woman loses her job over dead GI coffins photo

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 11:47 am
How can the fault be the paper's? There's absolutely no law or rule against what they did. The rule is a military policy that governs only what they control.

If I managed to take the picture and publish it they could do nothing but whine about it.

The reason the woman was fired is because the rules govern the individuals and companies that work for the military.

Thankfully the Seattle paper doesn't.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 11:55 am
Sorry, Craven. I just read up on this and was about to edit my post when I saw your reply. You are absolutely correct about the reason the woman was fired.

I will still be anxious to see what kind of reaction the Pentagon, etc. has. I expect there to be some pressure on the media.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 12:03 pm
I kinda hope the military is dumb enough to push this one. If they do it can backfire.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 12:11 pm
My sentiments exactly!
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 01:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's the intent. What was her intent on taking those pictures? She knkew the rules, she broke them and now she is facing the consequences. There is no need for sainthood for this woman.


The intent of this woman was to take photos, sell them and make money from the sales. Sad
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 01:08 pm
Photojournalism is a valuable and highly respected profession, Miller. Confused The problem is that she went against the rules of her employer.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 01:13 pm
Miller wrote:

The intent of this woman was to take photos, sell them and make money from the sales. Sad


LOL!

Ok, how much did she make?
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 01:33 pm
How to make a war popular? Lower the taxes, hide evidence of death, and make everyone immune from the draft. What a nice war!
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 10:41 pm
Eva wrote:
Photojournalism is a valuable and highly respected profession, Miller. Confused The problem is that she went against the rules of her employer.


Photojournalist? I thought she was a Kuwait-based cargo worker. Didn't she load freight all day?
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2004 11:19 pm
Miller wrote:
The intent of this woman was to take photos, sell them and make money from the sales. Sad


You just described photojournalism, Miller. There is nothing inherently wrong with people taking photos of newsworthy subjects, selling them, and making money from the sales. This cargo worker was dabbling in photojournalism, a highly respected field. Where she went wrong was in breaking her employer's rules about photo subjects. I just want us to be clear about the wrongful action here.
0 Replies
 
Lusatian
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2004 11:30 am
Re: McGentrix
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
McGentrix, actually it was Bush 1 who initiated the no photos policy at the start of the first Gulf War. Bush 2 reinstituted Poppy's policy with strict enforcement. Clinton ignored it and didn't enforce the policy.


That's because Clinton never had the balls to fight a war when the situation clearly required one. (e.g. Somalia, Bosnia, Al-Qaeda - after the Khobar Towers bombings, Africa Embassy bombings, USS Cole). Of course Clinton ignored the policy, all of the bodies of US military personnel that returned during his administration died being stuck by out enemies, none died striking back.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
D'Artagnan, I got so pissed when I read what happened to that wonderful photographer. Tami Silicio may turn out to be the "Rosa Parks" of the anti-censorship -movement.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Laughing

You all rant about the most insignificant things.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 01:06 am
Lusatian
Lusatian, some people have different priorities.

BBB Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 10:26 am
Re: Lusatian
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Lusatian, some people have different priorities.

BBB Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


And thank God for that!
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 11:03 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
I don't think it's against the law, it's against military rules.

The reason is to avoid war weariness.


And it's a good rule too. Why before this I couldn't get enough war news and war images. Here I am enjoying pictures of bandaged blown up soldiers and children, destroyed and blown up cities and homes, and my especial favorite, bleached and perfectly capped tooth, custom suit attired, televangelist looking scumbag politicians talking about how war is a messy business and "Bring it on", and then they have to go and spoil it for me by posting picture of some boxes with flags around them.

I mean, really, what kind of sad state of affairs would it be if suddenly tomorrow the whole world woke up and they were war weary? That would suck, and McGentrix would have to go back to aol online friends for his entertainment..... :wink: Laughing

In troubled times like these, you'd think I could at least enjoy the war. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 01:28 pm
How did my name get brought up?

And really, AOL? That's so 80's...
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 01:36 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I don't think it's against the law, it's against military rules.

The reason is to avoid war weariness.


And it's a good rule too. Why before this I couldn't get enough war news and war images. Here I am enjoying pictures of bandaged blown up soldiers and children, destroyed and blown up cities and homes, and my especial favorite, bleached and perfectly capped tooth, custom suit attired, televangelist looking scumbag politicians talking about how war is a messy business and "Bring it on", and then they have to go and spoil it for me by posting picture of some boxes with flags around them.

I mean, really, what kind of sad state of affairs would it be if suddenly tomorrow the whole world woke up and they were war weary? That would suck, and McGentrix would have to go back to aol online friends for his entertainment..... :wink: Laughing

In troubled times like these, you'd think I could at least enjoy the war. Rolling Eyes


You do understand the political term "war weariness" right? I ask because I think (hard to tell) that I agree with what you are trying to say but I think you are addressing me because you think the term is oxymoronic (which is not my fault, I did not coin it).
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 02:38 pm
Well Craven, I do find it oxymoronic, as well as just plain moronic, so much so that I would never even consider you might have coined such a phrase. :wink:

Please give me the exact military/political definition of war weariness though, because I can't imagine it having a meaning much deeper or complex than what's on the face of it.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 02:49 pm
I didn't see where any of you read the follow-ups to this. They've been in our papers all week along with scads of opinion pieces & letters. This one is the most complete from the Sunday Seattle Times (You'd have to register if you wanted to read this, so I have posted the whole thing.):

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 02:56 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Please give me the exact military/political definition of war weariness .....


Well it's gonna be my opinion but here it is, for what it's worth:

War weariness is a political term for the way in which a war makes a nation's population uncomfortable. That's the easy and obvious answer.

But the real political meaning comes when you analyze the changes in war weariness throught history and the effect war weariness has on different forms of government.

Democracy is the form of government most affected by war weariness, and that's why means to combat war weariness often tackle tricricky areas of Democracy like "free press".

A more authoritarian governmental system can better handle war weariness largly through manipulation of the press.

A Democracy is deeply affected, regardless of what kind of war but especially so in controversial wars.

War weariness is becoming more and more a factor as technology progresses because there is more intra-cultural exchange (a simple example is that if we went to war with Mexico there's be a lot of Mexicans here who wouldn't deminize the Mexicans as easily) and more economic contagion (instability is worse for far reaching markets than it was in the past).

The "containment" of war weariness in the US military is largely a result of the Vietnam war.

Prior to that war the government was easily able to manipulate media (e.g. in WW2 civilians served up a lot of the military's propaganda, and things like the scrap metal drive kept war weariness down). That combined with the fact that reporting was more "distant" made war weariness an insignificant concern back then.

With the Vietnam war the military learned that war weariness is a major factor.

"Containing" war weariness has had benefits. The military has had to learn how to make more accurate weapons and reduce civilian deaths. The military has had to learn to win their wars more swiftly because time is war weariness' partner.

The military is also learning to use PR as a weapon and is learning to manage media. The embedded reporters is the greatest wartime example of delicate modern-day media management in a democracy with free press.

Rules like the one about the photography are also ways to combat war weariness.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 03:04 pm
[size=7]http://vccslitonline.cc.va.us/AFTA/weariness.htm[/size]

edited for foot in mouth disease Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:42:05