ManicDDaily

Talk about sanctimony.   See e.g. the N.Y. Times “Lens” blog segment called “Behind the Scenes:  To Publish or Not” by David Dunlop about the decision of the Associated Press to publish the photograph of a mortally wounded marine over the objections of his immediate family members.

The photograph was part of a series by Julie Jacobson, a photographer embedded with a Marine unit in Afghanistan.  The series shows the soldier on patrol in the streets of an Afghani village, and then the solider on the ground minutes later, tended by a fellow marine, after his leg has been taken by a rocket-propelled grenade.  The series includes photos of fellow marines mourning the soldier, before his gear, at a memorial service.

The soldier’s father, when shown the photograph of his mortally wounded son, asked that it not be published, telling A.P. that by distributing the photo, it would be dishonoring the memory of his son.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to A.P. on the family’s behalf, saying, “why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling.”

But, after what Santiago Lyon, head of the phography division at A.P. called “a healthy discussion…the decision we came to was that — as a journalistic imperative — the need to tell this story overrode some of the other considerations.”

Why am I not surprised?

A.P. and the photographer Jacobson acknowledge that the shock value of the photo was a strong factor in their decision to publish.  (Duh.)  As Jacobson said,  “it is necessary to be bothered from time to time.”  [Italics added.]

Okay, I understand A.P.’s position (which I’m going to accept is a good faith position and not simply as a cover for the photographer’s wish for fame and kudos, and A.P.’s wish to sell newspapers.)    I was very against the Bush administration’s refusal to allow flag-draped caskets to be filmed;  I felt it was a way to lessen the impact of the war at home, and that it, in fact, dishonored the sacrifice of the lost soldiers.

I’m also sure that Jacobson, embedded with the troops, grew to truly care about them and their sacrifice, and that she feels very strongly about the value of her work in bringing much needed attention to them.

So I understand (and I’m willing to believe) that A.P. and Jacobson really do want to show how awful war is, and to emphasize the burdens and terror suffered by the troops.

What I don’t get is how A.P. decided that the collective “bothering” of casual readers  (who can, if they want to get a better view, click a button to expand the image to full screen proportions) outweighed the additional specific anguish that they were causing the soldier’s family, the people who were closest to that soldier’s face and figure, who have a claim in his remains.  (The arrogance and sanctimony of that decision is so mind-blowing that it frankly tends to shake one’s willingness to believe that A.P. and Jacobson really are acting solely in good-faith, and are not swayed by unexamined narcissism.)

Yes, the photo makes the point about the omnipresence of terrible death in war.  But, in the face of the family’s objections, wouldn’t the image of the living soldier, with the phrase, “he was mortally wounded ten minutes later” do the trick?

Lyon of A.P. babbled that the death “becomes very personal and very direct in some way, because we have a name, we have a home town, we have a shared nationality and we have, to a certain extent, a shared culture and some common values.”  But couldn’t A.P. have illustrated the “shared culture” business by showing the soldier at, for example, his high school prom?

Jacobson, whom you sense is just desperate to defend her position (and is clearly devoted to a photo which she must view as one of the greatest of her career),  notes that the other marines in the squad had no objection to the idea of publication.  (I’m guessing the photo “bothered” them less since they were actually on the scene.)   Yet I wonder in this specific case if the marines were informed of the objections of their compatriot’s family.  Somehow I can’t quite hear them saying to Jacobson, “the family’s against it?  So what?”

The final appalling piece to me of this story is the sanctimony of the New York Times.   The Times, during the slow news days of Labor Day weekend, manages to re-publish the picture (again in clickable full screen proportions). In this case,the Times is not even reporting the poor soldier’s death or the terrible burdens faced by troops in foreign wars.  No, with pompous self-regard, it is republishing the photo simply to discuss the burdens of those in the Press.   (The burdens of dealing with family wishes, societal strictures as to appropriate conduct, good taste, compassion, common sense, honor.)

Shame on you, Times.