War and Conflict Reportage - A Sanitized View ?

david700

david700

Suspended / Banned
Messages
204
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Some weeks ago I went to hear Don McCullin, the legendary war photographer, talk about his experiences in the world's conflict zones.

During the talk, Don said that he thought that war photography / reportage was heavily sanitized and censored in this modern age.

As an example,he quoted photographic documentary of the Afghan conflict, being restricted to shots of funeral processions from RAF Lyneham,through Wooton Basset.
He believes that we are fed a sanitized and censored view of war and says that it does not portray a true picture of conflict.

If you were to take a look at his work, like the picture of the shell shocked US Marine at Hue,Vietnam or the grenade thrower in the Tet offensive,Vietnam or pictures of injured/dead soldiers being transported away from an offensive, you just dont see work like that anymore.

When I searched for modern reportage of conflict I found lots of pictures showing soldiers interacting with locals,soldiers poised with weapons,pictures of military hardware (lots showing helicopters taking off in dust ).

Very few actually show the real consequences of conflict.

Now Im not naive enough to believe that this is what modern conflict is all about and that government censors only let us see,what they want us to see.
A lot has been said recently,about photographers rights.If we are to enjoy the freedoms of a democracy,which we supposedly live in,are we not entitled to an unbiased,true reflection of conflict,that as individuals we can choose whether we want to view or not ?

You may agree with me,or you may not, but have a look for yourself,first.
Have a look at the work of McCullin and his contempories,then have a look at modern day reportage.

See a difference ?
 
Yep.
I have taken photos I wasn't allowed to transmit and that you here will never see for another 25 years, I guess
Our job as Service Photographers is to 'Big-Up' the Armed Forces, not show little Jimmy with his legs taken off at the knee by an IED.

Civilian photographers also were not allowed to send images back - for example, the five soldiers murdered by an Afghan policeman were photographed being unloaded at Bastion Med Centre - those images were not released as the Military heirachy refused to grant release authority. The senior doctor also refused the press permission to get ccloser and interview those involved who were injured in the same incident under the 'patient confidentiality' excuse (and it is an excuse - I was prevented from doing a story on the medics there as the only images I could take would have been ones of medics sitting around or checking stores. No patients...at all, not even routine sick-call...).

So what?
Well under the Green-Book rules that govern civilian Press embeds, they come under Military Discipline whilst embedded, meaning they can be ordered what to do or face the threat of being dis-embedded (you're not merely dis-embedded, you get kicked out of camp to find your own way home - in the middle of the desert that might be tricky and they know this...).
Most Journos spend half their time wording stories so as to pass scrutiny and the photographers working the angles so that faces and unit designations are obscured.

It's always been like this to some extent - Vietnam was a blip - in WW1 there practically were no images taken - having a camera in the trenches was a court-martial offense - in WW2 and Korea, unit patches were excised from images for security purposes and many of the shocking images we see now in the history books were not released to the public at the time they were taken.

But now we're seeing a systematic massaging of stories and images that make the military look good... One reason I got binned from Theatre this year was an unwillingness to do those cheesy stories when there was a 'real' war to be documented... it resulted in one too many shouting-matches with the bosses...
 
Very interesting post, I have to admit After reading I was amazed how much I had been lead into change. I recall (as I am of an age) the Vietnam war & the gritty images taken at that time & how I have come to accept these sanitized images we see today.
 
I think sanitisation of war coverage sprang out of the Vietnam war. The American public did not like what they were seeing and their reaction brought pressure on their government to get out of the mess they were in.
Much of the coverage of both Gulf wars has been like a video game.
An exception was the still pics of the Iraqi convoy that got bombed when retreating from Kuwait.
 
arclight said:
I think sanitisation of war coverage sprang out of the Vietnam war. The American public did not like what they were seeing and their reaction brought pressure on their government to get out of the mess they were in.
Much of the coverage of both Gulf wars has been like a video game.
An exception was the still pics of the Iraqi convoy that got bombed when retreating from Kuwait.
Click to expand...

Not quite - the American Military didn't like the way the Public viewed the war - there was a belief that had they controlled the Press more, they would have 'won' there - whatever that means.
It led directly to the way we dealt with the press in the Falklands - hailed by the Pentagon as a blueprint for the later practice of Embedding journalist.

Occasional 'nasty' images will be released to remind Joe public that 'Our Boys' are fighting a 'Real War' - but they won't be of friendly casualties - not often...
 
Admire your honesty Rob.

War photography isnt to everyone's taste,admittedly but what McCullin said is that this form of Social Documentary is being consigned to history,by governments who just want a sanitized view,at any cost.

Im sure a war zone is a horrendous place to be and Im the first to admit I wouldn't want to go anywhere near, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in seeing the truer picture,however unpalatable that may be.
 
I think Rob has covered it quite nicely and I agree. On a related note I attended a talk with David Gillanders, a photojournalist, who said that the British Press are not interested in anything challenging, anything controversial anymore. In fact he said that France showed more interest in his feature on Glasgow knife crime than any paper in Britain. I think the days of the real Sunday Times are gone :(
 
You don't just fight on the battlefield, it's a propaganda war as well.

You can see the problem people have with footage of real war by looking at a recent thread on here about an Apache team taking out journalists by mistake:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=218212&highlight=apache

It brings up people's real emotions, joe public isn't used to it and they would be a lot more likely start protesting about it if more and more footage of dead kids and our troops were plastered all over the news. You've also got to take in to account that Labour want to be re-elected this year, graphic images of a war that many believe that we shouldn't of even started would not do a lot for them.

Even over there at the moment, as mentioned, it's a war against hearts and minds.

It's all very political now!
 
In respect of the Vietnam war the US gov/military in 1967 launched a publicity campaign aimed at convincing the press, congess and the public that progress was being made in the war. That spectacularly backfired when the TET offensive took place and the public could clearly see US involvement was doomed.
The mil did think (or said they thought) that if the public could be made believe the war was winable the outcome would have been different.
 
this book "Vietnam" of the photography of Eddie Adams is mesmerizing. 200pages of B&W

"Adams' 1968 Pultizer Prize-winning photograph cemented his reputation as a photo-journalist"
 
Harvey_nikon said:
You don't just fight on the battlefield, it's a propaganda war as well.

You can see the problem people have with footage of real war by looking at a recent thread on here about an Apache team taking out journalists by mistake:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=218212&highlight=apache

It brings up people's real emotions, joe public isn't used to it and they would be a lot more likely start protesting about it if more and more footage of dead kids and our troops were plastered all over the news. You've also got to take in to account that Labour want to be re-elected this year, graphic images of a war that many believe that we shouldn't of even started would not do a lot for them.

Even over there at the moment, as mentioned, it's a war against hearts and minds.

It's all very political now!
Click to expand...

So when you control the media,you control the masses........ can someone tell me when democracy and freedom of speech was cancelled in the UK :thinking: !!

I,ve seen the footage of the Apache helicopter as well - I wont go into the rights or wrongs of what the pilots did - people can make their own mind up.
What I would say is that the footage is believed to be 2-3 years old,obviously heavily censored and only in the public domain because of a leak.
What it does show is the true picture,of an ongoing conflict,that regardless of how distasteful it may be, is a piece of social documentary.
What will we teach in history,to our future generations about conflict ?

Combat Barbie in her fatigues ?
Footage of coffins leaving a Hercules draped in Union Jacks ?

Or real,unpalatable,sometimes disturbing, but true pictures and footage of conflict ?
 
The footage is out there, VII PhotoAgency is a very good source of conflict photography. Right now we just have to educate ourselves, in all honesty I dont know if I would ever trust a newspaper to do it for me.
 
david700 said:
So when you control the media,you control the masses........ can someone tell me when democracy and freedom of speech was cancelled in the UK :thinking: !!
Click to expand...

Pretty much, as sad as that is.

How do the masses get any information about the war? We have a few people like arkady who can tell us what it's like, but I bet there is a hell of a lot of stuff that he isn't allowed to talk about and photos he wouldn't be allowed to post.

If the media aren't telling the full story, how would we ever know what it was really like over there? and if we don't know what it's like, how will people ever feel passionate enough to make their voices heard.
 
Vic said:
The footage is out there, VII PhotoAgency is a very good source of conflict photography. Right now we just have to educate ourselves, in all honesty I dont know if I would ever trust a newspaper to do it for me.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

The Sunday Times does make a half hearted attempt,but they are about the only ones.
 
david700 said:
So when you control the media,you control the masses........ can someone tell me when democracy and freedom of speech was cancelled in the UK :thinking: !!

Combat Barbie in her fatigues ?
Footage of coffins leaving a Hercules draped in Union Jacks ?

Or real,unpalatable,sometimes disturbing, but true pictures and footage of conflict ?
Click to expand...

We've never had full freedom of speech - you're confusing the UK with somewhere else...

Combat-Barbie? Yep...don't get me started on that one again...(see my other post re: Country-Life shots...)...

Even the Land Command CCT were reduced to providing 'cheesy' pix during the last big Op in Feb/March...instead of joining the 'first-wave' of assualting infantry, they were relegated to the supply element, as the 'Logistics Story' needed to be told...:shrug:

Where you get embedded plays as big a part in your images as anything else. When it was realised that the Unit I was due to be embedded with might get to see quite a bit of nastiness, I was pulled from the job and told to stay in Bastion covering Home-Town Stories and other events...(other reasons were cited, including my age and fitness, which had never been an issue to that point - on my final patrol, other lads of 20-25 were being casevac'd after suffering exhaustion and minor injuries while I limped-on regardless...).

Naturally I kicked-off about it...
Then I was home a month early...
 
david700 said:
:plusone:

The Sunday Times does make a half hearted attempt,but they are about the only ones.
Click to expand...

The Sunday Times staffer in Afghan is a 28-year old freelancer, living in Kabul and paid £800 a month salary and £250 per story.
He's really keen not to rock the boat, as his access to the military is the only thing keeping him in work.
I know as I worked with him for two weeks...
 
The only reason that I would think twice about graphic coverage of the consequences of war is that it could well be disturbing to the families of those that have been killed or injured.

Otherwise I am 99% in favour of a completely open press as it is vital that we, as the people ultimately responsible for sending troops to fight, understand exactly what it is that we are asking them to do. It's one thing to say "oh yes people get killed" - it's quite another to see it depicted in all of its hellishness. If we were better versed in the consequences perhaps we (and the politicians) won't be quite so relaxed about the deployment of our troops in the future. This, of course, is why the MoD and US DoD don't want straightforward reporting.
 
Arkady said:
We've never had full freedom of speech - you're confusing the UK with somewhere else...

Combat-Barbie? Yep...don't get me started on that one again...(see my other post re: Country-Life shots...)...

Even the Land Command CCT were reduced to providing 'cheesy' pix during the last big Op in Feb/March...instead of joining the 'first-wave' of assualting infantry, they were relegated to the supply element, as the 'Logistics Story' needed to be told...:shrug:

Where you get embedded plays as big a part in your images as anything else. When it was realised that the Unit I was due to be embedded with might get to see quite a bit of nastiness, I was pulled from the job and told to stay in Bastion covering Home-Town Stories and other events...(other reasons were cited, including my age and fitness, which had never been an issue to that point - on my final patrol, other lads of 20-25 were being casevac'd after suffering exhaustion and minor injuries while I limped-on regardless...).

Naturally I kicked-off about it...
Then I was home a month early...
Click to expand...

It's a F^**£*£ disgrace. What makes it worse is that they are so keen to get the press in when they have a new shiny piece of kit "ooh let's tool about the Plain in the latest up-armoured vehicle" or "isn't this new drone a cool gadget? Look - I can see my mate Dave waving at us! Is this cool or what?"

They don't seem to be keen on follow up stories about how the things actually work or just what happens when you drop a JDAM in a compound or the rifle jams or the Chinoook has an engine failure...
 
Good grief gentlemen, are you suggesting that the Armed Forces and the Government are preventing people from understanding that when it all goes tits up in real war, and the baddy actually gets you, there is no reset button? :eek:













Totally agree, whilst I have some sympathy with relatives that wouldn't want to see little jimmy and his lack of legs plastered all over the news stands, generally speaking, the lack of real images, the lack of really making see what war actually does, cannot help society or the world get to grips with its own mortality. It isn't a game, its real and if there is concerted effort to 'big-up' the Armed Forces, with no thought to the actual future consequences of that..... I'll have a seat on the next bus to Mars please.
 
No, I dont work for Don McCullin, The Sunday Times, Imperial War Museum North etc but here is an unashamed plug for the exhibition........

http://north.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.00c00n

Go and see it for oneself,if you can - you wont be disappointed.

And if you do, remember my post and the words," You just dont see this anymore"

And then ask yourself, Why ??
 
And then there are programs like that godawful Future Weapons on Discovery where they blat away at targets with all sorts of kit and it's always 'bad news for the bad guys'.

It's like you drop a bomb on a building and the human contents just vanish (though that can almost be the case in certain circumstances) instead of ending up in horribly burned/twisted/disfigured conditions. Also, the concept of the guy you are shooting at,taking a pop at you is not really covered.

To be even handed I also think we should cover deaths on the 'other' side and of civilians because quite frankly we need to know what we are doing to each other as a species. People need to be aware (and I don't know where the notion that civilians don't die in war came from in the first place) that no matter how well intentioned your troops may be, if thousands of pounds of HE and metal is being lobbed around for long enough it's pretty much certain that some civilians are going to die. Don't think that is acceptable? Then don't send in the military because even if they are sufficiently accurate they can still end up dropping a JDAM down the vent of the wrong building.
 
In WWII, images of dead GI started coming out when it was realized that it would boost people's commitment to the war.
After that war bonds shot up. Marines enrolments not so much...

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The media, if free, is the military's (or any other power's) enemy since it restricts action. Embedding is a way to keep them close, watched and to bind their movements.

Camcorders and youtube have shown more about the war in Iraq then we'd ever know from the media. It still is limited in showing the true results of war, but it show a bit of the reality and confusion they live.
 
Arkady said:
Well...it touched a nerve - I'm still quite angry about the way that tour finished, as you can tell...
Click to expand...

I can tell - and I don't blame you!

It's interesting to me on a personal level because I have quite close family who've done tours in Afghanistan very recently and one of them came back with a scrapbook of images which he used to show his young step-son where he'd been and what he'd done. Whilst it obviously didn't show anything too terrible there was some frontline stuff in there including some in-the-distance British casualties.
 
Not for me - I'm 'out' in December - going to have to work for a living for a change...
 
An interesting read indeed.

I went to see the Don McCullin exhibition a couple of weeks ago and found it incredibly fascinating. The first time I have gone round a 'museum' (Not sure that is the right word here).....and read everything. Gripping stuff.

The media is the simplest tool to control the population en-mass. That's why we have a home-grown 'war on terror'. That's (partly) why photographers are being harrassed just for having cameras.
The media is a big fat gaping joystick, stuck on top of the population. Get hold of that, and you've got control.

Look back to previous wars and the leaflet drops. Ministry of Information. Control what the people know and see, and you control how they think.

Rob, thanks for your insight in the thread.
Even though you are (or have been) restricted in what gets out. How much does this actually effect what you shoot? I understand you have your brief to adhere to, but while out there I'm sure you've come across the opportunity to shoot some really hard, gritty stuff. Do you still go ahead and shoot it, knowing it will never be released, but will still be stored away, to one day see the light of day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top