LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksPerhaps if it were Thomas Curley's son he would feel differently.
Much like people who were anti gun until they or someone
they love is the victim of violent crime.
Perspective , as always, is everything.
This is a discussion on And They Wonder Why Many Reporters Are Universally Hated within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Perhaps if it were Thomas Curley's son he would feel differently. Much like people who were anti gun until they or someone they love is ...
Array
Perhaps if it were Thomas Curley's son he would feel differently.
Much like people who were anti gun until they or someone
they love is the victim of violent crime.
Perspective , as always, is everything.
Zoe: "Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing?
Book: "Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps."
Array
Actually, it's a business. Its fundamental purpose is to make money.Originally Posted by ccw9mm
I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen
Array
I only hope that this is what the photo does. And doesn't incite a political reaction.I viewed the photo at MSNBC.com, and found nothing offensive about it. It wasn't even a close-up shot. The image did NOTHING to denigrate the dying marine, and in fact will make some people realize just how great Lance Corporal Bernard's sacrifice really was.
My sincere prayers and condolences go out to the deceased marine's family, but if they find the picture troubling, DON'T LOOK AT IT.
God Bless America and the U.S. Constitution!
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
-Tony Soprano
Array
But you don't get in some one face when they are dying, that's a low life.
NRA PATRON LIFE
BROWN WATER NAVY
Array
Documenting our lives gets more important as the years go on, including our penchant for war, the ramifications of war, the impacts on our lives. Even since 1968. Perhaps, particularly since then.It's very wrong, I saw a reporter get throw in the river with his camera for doing the same thing.Have no use for them from 1968 on.
Defiling, shameful, despicable ... In what way?
What aspects are so wrong, exactly?
There are whole sections in the library devoted to the historical documenting of the first and second world wars. Many of those books and articles show people. Some are rougher edged. Some are false. Most are part of a truthful and honorable representation of the moment, as depicted in the story, news or documentation of the situation.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
Whether it was a close up or not is irrelevant to the situation at hand. The marine's father asked them not to publish the picture. Due to the circumstances, they should have respected that wish.
No one has argued differently. I support the first amendment as well.
Of course it doesn't require that, I hope they would not decline to publish something based solely on his opinion. As above, considering the nature of the incident, many feel it would have been just common decency to not publish that picture.
AMEN!God Bless America and the U.S. Constitution!
eschew obfuscation
The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD
Array
I don't know you, but a picture of man dying in his face is wrong.His love ones need that.But the way your going on about this, I don't think you have been in the SH%& before.
NRA PATRON LIFE
BROWN WATER NAVY
Array
Sorry, but the wishes of the family don't trump the First Amendment, nor the right of the American people to know the stark reality of wars their tax dollars are supporting.
Your opinion that "they should have respected that wish" is merely your opinion, with no standing in Constitutional Law or any other form of American law.
I never claimed anybody had argued differently.No one has argued differently. I support the first amendment as well. Of course it doesn't require that, I hope they would not decline to publish something based solely on his opinion. As above, considering the nature of the incident, many feel it would have been just common decency to not publish that picture.
The First Amendment isn't about "common decency", and the nature of war certainly isn't either.
If the family or anybody else finds the picture disturbing, DON'T LOOK AT IT.
I'm amused that some have decided publication of the photo was "anti-war propaganda", when few people I've talked to have even seen the photo.
I wouldn't have even known about it if it hadn't been brought up on this forum.
It's not like the photo has been featured on every newspaper, magazine and website in the country. It has actually only been published in a tiny percentage of media outlets.
Sorry, but there's no constitutional right to not be offended by others exercising their constitutional rights. So the people who disagree with publication of the photo are going to have to suck it up and deal with it.
"I've run across shooting after shooting where the defender shot a violent aggressor with a .380 and did little to immediately stop his depredations. A good hollow point load in 9mm or .38 Special will, historically, end lethal assaults more quickly."
~ Massad Ayoob
Array
Saw the pic. His face is not identifiable, the only things disturbing are that you can distinguish the blood on his leg and knowing he later died; AP screwed up by putting a name to the picture. The reporter wasn't in his face, she used a telephoto lens from a distance.
People do need to realize what actually happens during war - maybe our troops will be allowed to do what they need to and get the hell out. I've seen worse pics from the Vietnam war that actually showed the fear and anguish in wounded soldiers' faces and don't forget about the famous pic of the little girl who was hit by napalm, running down the street with her skin coming off her arms and back.
Array
Array
Hear, hear! Well said!
I don't even disagree with the AP releasing his name.
Why shouldn't the American people sitting comfortably in their homes while U.S. military personnel are being blown apart half a world away, know that it was Lance Corporal JOSHUA BERNARD who died in a hideous manner while serving his country?!
Shout the name of JOSHUA BERNARD from the housetops, and don't let his ultimate sacrifice be forgotten!
"I've run across shooting after shooting where the defender shot a violent aggressor with a .380 and did little to immediately stop his depredations. A good hollow point load in 9mm or .38 Special will, historically, end lethal assaults more quickly."
~ Massad Ayoob
Array
As they say: A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
Array
War involves killing people and blowing them up, civilians also die, as well as supplies and infra-structure, and it's very ugly. But that is what war is. We don't shoot missles and drop the MOAB, for no reason. Obviously, to plaster the wounded or dying in newspapers or on TV is a political statement of the lowest level ..... and is disrespectful to those that are fighting that war.
I'm glad to see Gates to standing up for the soldier, his family and friends, and to the AP on this one. Thank you Mr. Gates.
Array
The AP and the others who published the photo are nothing more than vultures, hovering around the dead for their own benefit.
If they were going to publish the photo anyway, why ask the family if it was OK? Because they knew the adverse reaction that would come and they wanted the cover of having the family OK it. Since they didn't get it, they retreated behind "the public needs to know". What BS, anyone who hasn't been living in a cave the past 8 years knows about the number of young men and women killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way they get away with this legally (using his image without consent) is the fact it happened overseas.
Array
^Incorrect.
The photographer who took the photograph was assigned to travel with the Marine contingent, with the full approval of the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Marine Corps.
Since she had their consent, and there were no written stipulations forbidding her from taking such a photograph, she was therefore completely legal in taking the photograph.
Lance Corporal Bernard was technically the property of the U.S. Marine Corps, and was not acting as a private citizen in his role as combat marine, therefore he and his family had no legal rights whatsoever to the content of the photograph.
The AP didn't meet with the father to obtain his approval, they merely wanted to extend to him the courtesy of knowing what they intended to publish.
If the family doesn't approve of the photograph, then they don't have to look at it.
But it is the sole private property of the Associated Press, to do whatever they want with it, with the full approval of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And as another poster noted, there were many photos from the Viet Nam war that were considerably more gruesome.
Last edited by Defensive Arms; September 5th, 2009 at 03:34 AM.
"I've run across shooting after shooting where the defender shot a violent aggressor with a .380 and did little to immediately stop his depredations. A good hollow point load in 9mm or .38 Special will, historically, end lethal assaults more quickly."
~ Massad Ayoob
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
