AP Photo: Should they have shown it?

[Jenny Z]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

Sorry. Just because your family member is involved doesn't give you any rights of censorship.

As someone said earlier, it's not about censorship, and the word shouldn't be thrown around so loosely.

It's about the editor being a decent human being and granting the wishes of a grieving family. There's no "forcing" anyone to do anything.

[Gabby498]

Censorship is censorship no matter what guise you hide it behind. The more you condone censorship and especially censorship of the press the more you are the looser.

Sadly, we are already seeing the results in this country of a self censored press with an agenda to sell. Stovall and I don’t have long to worry about it. I can’t speak for him but I do feel sad for the future of those that are younger.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jenny Z

As someone said earlier, it's not about censorship, and the word shouldn't be thrown around so loosely.

It's about the editor being a decent human being and granting the wishes of a grieving family. There's no "forcing" anyone to do anything.

While censorship is usually at the behest of a governmental entity, it is not necessarily.

[toverman]

War is hell. Showing that hell tells the story. In this case, the story is told succinctly and with power unmatched by anything else ... including the standard flag-draped coffin shots/grieving family shots that would have come later. Those are, very sadly, a cliche and to me more an invasion of privacy. One has to weigh the duty to tell the story with the wishes of the family or the government.

But as an editor, I probably would not have published the photos without a compelling reason. I took loads of photos from drownings and nasty car wrecks, and never felt the need to show the bloodied/bloated body in the papers. The crumpled cars told a pretty complete story. An editor's decision is discretion rather than censorship, just as a photographer's field of view and composition is discretion (and can affect the 360 degrees of reality, only a sliver of which we see in a photograph). Obviously the Pentagon doesn't want these kinds of images out there, from wanting to honor the family to not wanting to scare off new recruits. Serving our country is noble, but sugar-coating the risks doesn't do justice to those who serve or those who are considering it.

Lots of issues at play here, as comments have noted.

[Cajungaltx]

I've been thinking of this image - I always like to do the 'what if it were me/us' thing when I'm thinking over a situation because I think the adage of 'walking in another person's shoes'... and the whole 'Golden Rule' - if more people tried it - our world might be a bit nicer...

But - if it were me - I would not want that image of my husband put on display for the world to see. It serves no purpose other than to horrify, and overwhelm with the brutality/pain that individual is going through.

It does not bring sympathy to mind.... it doesn't not bring anger at the circumstances....it bring shock... I've seen other photographers convey a much more emotionally appropriate image that was not as graphic as this one - by showing less... rather than more.

[janikphoto]

Originally Posted by donlfaulkner

Bull puke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's their family member!!!

This happened in a public place. No, they don't have a right to decide, as long as the image is being used for editorial purposes. They DO have a right, if someone tried to use the image for commercial purposes, but who would want to put this kind of photo in their advertisement?!? Pepsi maybe?


These soldiers are over there dying for these very freedoms. Let's not forget that. Don't buy the paper, if you are upset about it, but they are allowed to run the pic.