We all know that the true cost of the Iraq war is downplayed by the American media, both in print and in photos. Today, the
LA Times reports their findings regarding photojournalism during the Iraq war.
The young soldier died like so many others, ambushed while on patrol in Baghdad. Medics rushed him to a field hospital, but couldn't get his heart beating again.
What set Army Spc. Travis Babbitt's last moments in Iraq apart was that he confronted them in front of a journalist's camera.
An Associated Press photograph of the mortally wounded Babbitt remains a rarity -- one of a handful of pictures of dead or dying American service members to be published in this country since the start of the Iraq war more than two years ago.
A review of six prominent U.S. newspapers and the nation's two most popular newsmagazines during a recent six-month period found almost no pictures from the war zone of Americans killed in action. During that time, 559 Americans and Western allies died. The same publications ran 44 photos from Iraq to represent the thousands of Westerners wounded during that same time.
Many photographers and editors believe they are delivering Americans an incomplete portrait of the violence that has killed 1,797 U.S. service members and their Western allies and wounded 12,516 Americans.
(Emphasis mine.)
Only 44 photos. Try to wrap your mind around that. It's difficult, at least for me.
Here are some reasons for the low numbers, plus one editor's point of view:
Journalists attribute the relatively bloodless portrayal of the war to a variety of causes -- some in their control, others in the hands of the U.S. military, and the most important related to the far-flung nature of the conflict and the way American news outlets perceive their role.
"We in the news business are not doing a very good job of showing our readers what has really happened over there," said Pim Van Hemmen, assistant managing editor for photography at the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.
"Writing in a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesn't give you nearly the impact of showing one serviceman who is dead," Van Hemmen said. "It's the power of visuals."
Obviously, the reasons are complex. The article mentions that some imbedded photojournalists have been censored by the military units with whom they are associated; they are often told to turn off their cameras. Also, many of the pictures can't be published due to privacy reasons, namely if the soldier's identity can be recognized. Also, some photos are deemed too graphic to publish.
Of course, the internet wingnut contingency had an opinion:
... a handful of conservative Internet commentators hammered the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the Associated Press in April. They said the wire service's 20 winning photos for breaking news (including the one of the 24-year-old Babbitt) bucked up the insurgents and failed to show U.S. troops looking heroic or helpful. The pictures, said a blog called Riding Sun, "portray the American invasion and occupation of Iraq as an unmitigated disaster."
I have some news for you, genius: the war is an unmitigated disaster. Click here to read Riding Sun's comments on the AP photos. Apparently, he's a Michelle Malkin and LGF fan. Big surprise.
Finally, please check out the flash presentation on the sidebar of the article. It includes the AP photo of Travis Babbitt, as well as photos from previous wars.
Look below the fold for two tables that accompany the article. Note that the Seattle Times is the only paper that has published a photo of one of the fallen soldiers. Also note that the papers have posted photos of dead Iraqis.
I've also posted the AP photo of Babbit; you can click it for a larger image, which is a screenshot I took of the flash presentation.