New Iraq work & embed restrictions

one more thing i forgot to mention. the memorials for soldiers killed in action—the ones they used to invite us to—are now off limits also. no photos allowed. mike

Hey Mike,
Good to hear you got out. That policy is… I don’t even know where to start.
Cheers,
Bill.

Great photo essay Michael. I didn’t get a chance to listen to it with sound, but once I’m on a computer where I can, I will!

Great Work.

guys, I think you’re over-reacting. you can still photograph soldiers giving away footballs and sweets, right? and don’t forget about press briefings, they’re still up for grabs.

Luke, I don’t know whether to cry or laugh…these restrictions just keep getting worse and worse. Ironic how we tote freedom here yet restrict it there.

Michael, The images are very concise and poignant. Well done.

A right to privacy argument vs. a freedom of press argument – s’one is getting extremely creative! Michael – great essay

Mustafah,
Sooo totally right, toting freedom while restricting it there, the one place it shouldn’t be.

Michael,
What happened to your embed after that photo story?

Cheers,
Bill.

hey thanks to all for the feedback. i haven’t really figured out how to use lightstalkers—so i’ll just post a general reply here. first off, i’m still in baghdad.

when i was here in ‘03 and’04, the military was much more welcoming. i was invited to shoot memorials (now off limits) and when i embedded with the 1st Cav, they just invited me out. no papers to sign, no written conditions. they just asked that i show respect for the soldiers if they were killed, which i would do anyway.

now they have all these new restrictions that make it nearly impossible to shoot the dead and wounded. they say it is for the soldiers protection. but the soldiers in the unit i was with—the one that took the casualties—loved our story and photos, thanked me and asked me for copies. the most seriously wounded soldier—who i fought hard to get pix in the paper of—his grandfather recently tracked me down demanding copies and saying the photos were crucial to his grandon’s recovery. i seriously question who these restrictions are for.

one journalist asked whether being wounded takes away your right to privacy. actually, it does in my opinion. you’re involved in a very public event, the largest war for the US since vietnam! when you enlist and go into a warzone with journalists around, with historical consequences, you can not then claim that what happens is a private affair! that is simply absurd.

i wrote a piece for dirck at digital journalist which should be in next month. i posed the question there that i ask here: what would our visual history of WWII be if robert capa and gene smith were running around the battlefield trying to get releases signed as they worked? or vietnam, or any war?

regards, mike

Yes Michael, great piece. As photographers sometimes we’re a little short on words but it’s great to see when one of ‘us’ can put them together so well.

The restriction from shooting the memorials even when your invited is PROOF POSITIVE there trying to censor and sanitize the war. What family member or friend would’nt want photos published of there loved one being honored by his/her comrades?!..

In regards to the whole new restrictions on photos, we had a lengthy discussion on it here last week. I cant begin to talk about it so here’s the link:http://www.lightstalkers.org/nyt__release_forms_for_wouded_or_soldiers_kia

I guess it is much better for them not to entertain any photographer for embed. After all war is not all about shooting from the Army’s point of view. It is much more than showing how they distribute candies to children.

Hey Mike, I left Baghdad too soon to see that. Good to hear that you’re OK. Loved your piece. Great, great pictures!
And there’s no surprise for me about these new regulations. A good photograph like yours can harm very much the case of this war!
This is a very ggod evidence of the limits of the military openness.
Best regards, Nicolas.

Life is only sacred to the living. The dead don’t have much to say about it.

Can’t see why Newspapers if they are really keen on addressing this kind of censorship – don’t print the photos with a big black censorship square or blur over the identifiable, certainly would bring home this new method of censorship and for funerals a big black square alone. True we already know what is happening as Malcolm says, but “out of sight out of mind”, people tend to have short, selective memories and only constant vigilance & reporting keeps people aware of “what we already know”. Or is that entering a different realm not condusive to being a journalist or “witnesss”? But that’s what they did with the Abu Ghraib photos – is there a line and if so – where does one draw a line?

I like how Angela thinks.. shoving it in there face. How can the public have a say in this if we’re the only people that know about the new restriction. Can you imagine the cover of a huge publication with black censor bars everywhere?. I remember a small turmoil when they didnt want to allow photos of casket’s coming home.

Great pics, commentry and slideshow Mike.
I agree with Angela’s and Bill’s comments. Newspapers, and I would argue, more editorial writers should step up to the plate to address this blatent censorship. If the public could see what it actually happening on the front, I think pressure would build to stop this futile adventure.

it’s hard to show people what they’re not seeing, what we can not photograph. and to make them want what they don’t see.

there is not, and will never be, a great clamor amongst the american people demanding that we show them more pix of dead and wounded so they can enjoy those images with their breakfast each morning.

(personally, when i return to the states, i find most americans largely tuned out to this war. but i’m digressing.)

the bottom line is, the media needs to step up and put pressure on the military to change these rules. at a green zone meeting a week or so ago with the media and army brass, a general asked if anyone had a problem with the new regulations. only one journalist raised his hand. all the networks and other press stayed quiet. disgraceful.

david carr, an nyt media critic wrote a good piece last week about these issues. i’m not sure you can access it without an NYT subscription. but maybe someone can cut and paste it here? i can’t, for obvious reasons. i’m not trying to plug the nyt, it is just what i’m tuned into.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F7081FF93C540C7B8EDDAC0894DF404482

lastly, i would say that people do not, in fact, know about these restrictions. i got an email today from an internationally known photo editor in nyc saying that he had just heard about these restrictions and asking for confirmation. a year ago, there were no restrictions of KIA’s except that you waited for family notification, according to an interview i read with chris hondros. now you cannot publish these photos, period.

and to get your credentials, without which you cannot work, you have to sign a form saying you agree not to publish identifiable wounded or dead. if you don’t sign, you dont’ work. this is absolutely a NEW regulation. it is not what everybody already knows.

regards, mike

yes, this was a very good article and i posted it a while ago, but if people aren’t able to get it, here it is again.

this Memorial Day, thousands of United States men and women are engaged in untold acts of bravery and drudgery on behalf of what our leaders have defined as vital American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But even as the flags wave to honor soldiers past, much of the current campaigns go on without notice, because while troop numbers are surging, the media that cover them are leaking away, worn out by the danger and expense of covering a war that refuses to end.

Many of the journalists who are in Iraq have been backed into fortified corners, rarely venturing out to see what soldiers confront. And the remaining journalists who are embedded with the troops in Iraq — the number dropped to 92 in May from 126 in April — are risking more and more for less and less.

Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.

If Joseph Heller were still around, he might appreciate the bureaucratic elegance of paragraph 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DoD Directive 5122.5:

‘’Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent.’’

Photographs and other images of casualties have always been a delicate matter and most media outlets have shown restraint, particularly with pictures of the dead. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the ground commander in Iraq whose own son was seriously wounded in action, is said by reporters to be particularly alert to the depictions of casualties.

Working reporters say the soldiers in the field are not overly concerned with media coverage — they have more serious matters in their gunsights. The journalists also suggest that the current regulations have allowed the military to take concerns for the privacy of soldiers and their families and leverage them into broader constraints on information.

Ashley Gilbertson, a veteran freelance photographer who has been to Iraq seven times and has worked for The New York Times, (along with Time and Newsweek among others), said the policy, as enforced, is coercive and unworkable.

‘’They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,’’ he said. ‘’We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.’’

‘’They are not letting us cover the reality of war,’’ he added. ‘’I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.’’

Lt. Col. Josslyn L. Aberle, chief of media operations for the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said that the regulations are a matter of common sense and decency, not message management.

‘’The last thing that we want to do is to contribute to the grief and anguish of the family members,’’ she said by phone from Iraq. ‘’We don’t want the last image that the family has of their soldier to be a photo of him dying on a battlefield. You have to ask how much value is added.’’

There are some people stateside who would agree. In February, a story and accompanying video by The New York Times reporter Damien Cave — and a photo taken by Robert Nickelsberg — that depicted the grievous wounding and eventual death of a soldier on Haifa Street, drew both praise and condemnation on Web logs and in the military about what constitutes appropriate imagery for the breakfast table. What some readers see as a gratuitous display of carnage, others view as important homage to the boots on the ground.

Until last year, no permission was required to publish photographs of the wounded, but families had to be notified of the soldier’s injury first. Now, not only is permission required, but any image of casualties that shows a recognizable name or unit is off-limits. And memorials for the fallen in Iraq can no longer be shown, even when the unit in question invites coverage.

Kimberly Dozier, a CBS correspondent who was seriously wounded by an I.E.D. — CBS will run a special about her experiences tomorrow night — has been on both sides of the camera. When she was transferred from Iraq to a hospital in Germany, images of her crumpled body were broadcast all over the world.

‘’I think some regulations are a good idea,’’ she said. ‘’Does a soldier lose his rights to privacy because he is in a combat zone and wounded? I don’t think so.’’

But then Ms. Dozier, whose amazing recovery means she will be back in the saddle soon, had a second thought. ‘’The tough pictures, some pictures, need to get out,’’ she added. ‘’But choosing which ones is a very touchy matter.’’

Journalists are frustrated with the new regulations in part because, as this current surge has progressed, there have been further pinches on information. On May 13, the Iraq Interior Ministry said bombing sites would be off limits for an hour after an event; just days later, Iraqi police forces fired shots over the heads of working press to enforce the decree.

In a war where the enemy could be around every corner and support on the home front is weakening, officials are starting to see menace everywhere. In April, military officials placed new restrictions on soldiers’ blogging that define attempts to solicit ‘’critical or sensitive information’’ as acts of espionage. In an operational security slide presentation (which was partially published in the Danger Room blog on Wired) for military supervisors, media is defined as a ’’nontraditional’’ threat in the same category as drug cartels.

There is already so much that American readers and viewers cannot see simply because Iraq has become too dangerous for reporters to do the routine footwork of combat journalism. The Committee to Protect Journalists puts the number of slain media workers at 143; many others have been severely wounded.

Colonel Aberle said that the realities of the battleground, and not government control, are to blame for any lack of coverage.

‘’The enemy has done a good job of taking the journalist out of the fight,’’ she said. ‘’They are now relying on Iraqi stringers who have a cellphone and a camera, but not much in the way of training. It is challenging and frustrating for the reporters I know who are still covering the story.’’

But James Glanz, a Baghdad correspondent who will become bureau chief for The New York Times next month, said that although he and others had many great experiences working with the rank-and-file soldiers, some military leaders seem determined to protect something besides the privacy of their troops.

‘’As the number of reporters there dwindles further and further because of the difficult conditions we work under, the kind of work they are able to publish becomes very important,’’ Mr. Glanz said. ‘’This tiny remaining corps of reporters becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told.’’

Capturing the brutal realities of war is a tradition in this country dating back at least to Matthew Brady, and it is undoubtedly part of why Americans, regardless of their politics, have come to know and revere the sacrifices that generations of soldiers have made on their behalf.

When this war began, the government attempted to manage images by banning photographs of coffins returning to United States soil. If the government chooses to overmanage the wages of war in Iraq, there is a real danger that this new generation of veterans, whose ranks grow every day, could come home to a place where their fellow Americans have little idea what they have gone through.

Seriously, what’s with all this ‘feel-good journalism’ going on?

I’ve looked into this a lot, read countless articles and still cannot believe that so many people are being compliant as we slowly bend history to make families and friends and the military happy. Thirty years from now, I hope the reporters, photographers and videographers will look back at this time and see the donkey of journalism slowly being led to it’s slaughter.

As Michael said, disgraceful.

Disgraceful yes. But it’s hardly a new topic, could be same old reasons," job security”, “don’t rock the boat”, or more nefarious, “taking sides”,’ journalism’ as a propaganda tool. From self-censorship to official censorship there’s an interesting article on that http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3095 -recently it’s been creeping up slowly – there are also a thousand and one books and articles on why the media is failing/has failed the public, maybe someone should also come out with a book titled " How the Public (& or Newspapers) Has Failed Journalists" the public are also culpable what about standing up for Journalists fired for not towing the line – & it would also seem all too malleable (along with some PJ’s) esp. given the success of the emotional manipulation used for this recent set of rules – many people are much more for “privacy” than “the press” see Kimberley Dozier’s initial remarks before she thought about what she had said. But what I’d like to know is how can one in all seriousness call oneself a journalist – quote " the idea of addressing, engaging and freely informing a “public” about events in its world” if one submits to censorship whether through social mores, economic concerns, self – interest or rules. But good to know that at least in some circles it is still a hot topic and won’t rest despite the tightening net. And as before there are ways of making people unidentifiable and other images that can be used that speak of war, death & brutality w/out depicting a body, so as not to transgress the “agreement” (just while this rule is being fought) & make a point, even a black out – or is all that banned, pardon me “agreed upon” too, just candy & smiles from now on? The rule makes a mockery of something that a great many journalists around the world risk their lives for – the freedom to freely pass along information and keep people informed in as unbiased a way as possible. How many Journalists have been killed this year? How much information has the public already been denied?

Not having been to Iraq and not having been embedded, and at the risk of sounding stupid … How do the soldiers on the ground generally feel about photographs of their wounded/fallen comrades being published? Do they feel it is important to show the realities of this war? In that case, wouldn’t it be viable to get sort of pre-emptive statements from soldiers you are embedded with, have gotten to know and who trust you? Something along the lines of “I hereby give permission to Joe Blank to take and publish my photograph in the event of my being wounded/killed …” something along those lines and abviously worded as sensitively as possible? Any way that that would fly?

Yes, the media needs to step up and put pressure on the miltary to change the rules. But unless there is also pressure on the military from politicians, they are unlikely to do so. In my view, the story is censorship and newspapers and editorial writers need to hit this hard. Newspapers also need to give writers and phtographers on the front line the sort of space the NYT has given Mike in the link he posted.

For you photographers out there in Iraq: I am doing a little research on the topic of journalists embedding with the US and British forces.. do you know if any local Iraqi or other Arabic-background photographers / camera-teams (Palestineans for instance) even have the choice to embedd? Who would be an example of Arabic journalist embedding with US-forces?

Is it true that there is a general feeling by local&international journalists “unilaterals” that they are seen as legitimite military targets not only by the insurgents but also the US-military? Like senior researcher on war correspondance Phillip Knightley says already in 2003: http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2003/no2_knightley.htm — I know this is a hot potato, but I think its in the center of the problem here..

With all due respect for your courage Michael, what you can’t photograph, Michael, seems to be just about everything. Can you even leave the green zone without being inside a tank? What is really going on over there?

anat: most of the wires are sending out iraqis to cover daily life and car bombs etc. i don’t know if they can embed with the US troops, but i would guess not. the US army is somewhat suspicious of non-westerners. they’ve been infiltrated on many occassion on their bases by iraqi laborers, so i’m skeptical that they would take iraqis on operations. though there are many joint operations these days, iraqi army with us army. they might embed on the IA side.

re: andy’s comment. my bureau is not in the green zone, in three tours here i’ve only spent a few hours in the GZ. that being said, i admit i rarely work the streets anymore. i tried to shoot a couple of carbombs when i arrived. the iraqi govt has declared them off-limits to journos. me and the iraqi photogs got run off. when i snuck back with a little point and shoot, the crowd saw it and turned me over to the police who ran me off again—they were not pleased. they warned me that the third time would not go well for me.

so it’s true, we’re very limited. five brits (english) were kidnapped a few days ago from a govt ministry by a 19 car caravan of Iraqi police. chances are they will show up dead with holes drilled in them—the preferred method of torture at the moment.

so that leaves embeds. and the embeds are restricted with all these rules. no argument there. that being said, look at larry burrows vietnam work. it is 75% done with the soldiers. embeds can still yield important images—one sided though they are.

to paraphrase donald rumsfeld, you photograph the war you’re given, not the one you’d like to have. this is still the defining conflict of our generation. just because they’ve put every conceivable obstacle in our way, doesn’t mean we should give up.

mike

Maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now, if anyone had actually seen more of Gulf War 1, than grainy gun camera footage of
white dots zooming through windows and disappearing in a white flash. Anyone care to remember who was the Secretary of Defense
during that war?

I was pretty young at that time, but I do remember David Turnley’s shot of the GI crying in the medvac.

http://www.pigbird.com/images/press_1.jpg

and the close-up shot of the burnt Iraqi in this tank hatch (although I think I saw that in a European mag).
Both of those images stuck.

Feli