* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

iraq war non coverage


it’s an article about how so much of the conflict is not being covered and being censored by so many publications. many people who responded in this article use the rationale that they don’t want to shock their readers, “or cause a stir.” well, guess what: war is a shocking digusting thing and perhaps if they did their jobs and informed public opinion we wouldn’t be in this mess that we’re in now, with so many dead and injured and so many children’s lives irreparably scarred. and as far as being afraid of causing a stir, what’s wrong with that? too bad if it upsets people, people should be upset, they should be provoked, that way perhaps they’d use their minds and think about the consquences of thigns like war.

having seen so much strong, important and tocuhing work come out of iraq by so many good photographers and journalists who put their lives on the line and then not get published (sometimes by the very people who sent them there) is infuriating, criminal. by not doing its job, by essentially covering up the reality of war, these self censoring publications are complcit in the horrors taking place there. under hussein there where publications who risked everything to get the truth out and past the censors and here in the US, where aparantly freedom abounds, publicatons willingly censor themselves, squandering the wonderful opportunity of free speech. such pathetic cowards.

by [a former member] at 2005-03-19 10:43:10 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) nyc , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Here, here.

But it’s more than not wanting show the horrors of war… with the way the current govt works, people are fearful of losing their jobs & becoming blacklisted so that they cannot work within the industry anywhere. The power that the Bush administration wields is so far-reaching & terrifying.

Democracy, shyeah right. Orwell’s prophetic “1984” just took twenty years to come to fruition.

by Didi S. Gilson | 19 Mar 2005 16:03 (ed. Mar 19 2005) | New South Wales, Australia | | Report spam→
There is a flip side to this equation which consists of almost zero coverage of the maybe small but serious anti-war movement in the United States. I was out shooting the anti-war rally in Central Park yesterday which took place (I believe without incident). What do I see when I open todays NYTimes? A photo of a few people getting arrested in Times Square. I shot all five days of pre-election anti-war protests during the Republican convention. All the big names were out then from VII, Magnum etc. Virtually everything I saw published (last sept)was of people getting arrested with almost no “postive” coverage of the protesters. Yesterday, I didn’t see any “name” photogs out. Hmm. Perhaps there’s a concensus that it’s pointless to cover it after the election?

Is the anti-war movement not considered news? Or are there simply not enough protesters numerically for editors to give these events placement?

by Derek Henry Flood | 20 Mar 2005 20:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Jake, I completely sympathize with you and have often felt frustration at the way things are being handled by the powers that be, because let us not be mistaken about this: we are not in fact talking about the power of the Bush administration. That is not the only factor at work here, the media too is a power that at times acts complicitly. And more, this war, unlike Vietnam, is not a “police action” undertaken at the behest of an overreaching administration; this action was voted and ratified by our congressmen. Many interests are working together to bring it about. Making Bush a bogeyman doesnt even begin to describe the situation or help us find a way to deal with it. And I am not particularly surprised at the media´s lapses in judgment, their sin of omission as it were: if we take the long view, the media often comes up short. It is another huge bureaucratic conglomerate, with its rheumy eye glued to the bottom line, and I dont place much faith in it. But the struggle is always the same, when it comes to confronting power. we have to find alternative methods of getting our ideas across. My favorite book about war is Philip Griffiths Jones Vietnam Inc, because he made an effort to describe the entire war effort as an effect of what my generation used to call The Military Industrial Complex. And this complex, this alliance of interests can certainly be seen at work in the Iraq war, though perhaps in a more complicated fashion. For me, the book is great because its perspective is unique (for a book of war photography), it doesnt stop at just presenting photographs of battle, of bloodied victims, of sound and fury. It presents a complete picture, a very well thought out indictment of the war, and a recognition of how war comes about and serves the interests of the powers that be. I have yet to see another book of equal stature on this subject. We can complain about the media, and we should (Griffiths Jones certainly did), but we are still obligated to find other means of communicating and to present compelling and complete arguments, just as he did.

by Jon Anderson | 20 Mar 2005 21:03 (ed. Mar 20 2005) | Ditmars and 41st, Astoria, United States | | Report spam→
This recent article from the LA Times addresses some of the issues discussed in this and other threads, including the restrictions placed on images of the US deaths in Iraq.

by [former member] | 06 Jun 2005 11:06 (ed. Jun 6 2005) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Didi S. Gilson , Writer, Photographer Didi S. Gilson
Writer, Photographer
Anna Bay, Nsw , Australia
Derek Henry Flood, Photojournalist/Writer Derek Henry Flood
Erbil , Iraq
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven