Anti war photographers want images to hurt war effort

The NY Times has a story on the complaints of some photographers about access to images of dead Marines and soldiers in Iraq.

...

While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins, the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.

But opponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists argue that the public portrayal of the war is being sanitized and that Americans who choose to do so have the right to see — in whatever medium — the human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans. Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. And while publishing photos of American dead is not barred under the “embed” rules in which journalists travel with military units, the Miller case underscores what is apparently one reality of the Iraq war: that doing so, even under the rules, can result in expulsion from covering the war with the military.

...

The Marine Corps denied it was trying to place limits on the news media and said Mr. Miller broke embed regulations. Security is the issue, officials said.

“Specifically, Mr. Miller provided our enemy with an after-action report on the effectiveness of their attack and on the response procedures of U.S. and Iraqi forces,” said Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a Marine spokesman.

News organizations say that such restrictions are one factor in declining coverage of the war, along with the danger, the high cost to financially ailing media outlets and diminished interest among Americans in following the war. By a recent count, only half a dozen Western photographers were covering a war in which 150,000 American troops are engaged.

...

People who want to undermine the efforts of the troops do not deserve access. In previous wars they would be correctly labeled as traitors. There have been some terrific images from this war taken by military photographers and embeds like Michael Yon and Michael Totten. Some of Yon's images have been ripped off by the mainstream media. I have included many of the images taken by military photographers on this blog and they have always been well received.

I think one reason that many in the mainstream media avoid these images is they present a very positive picture of what our troops are doing in Iraq. They show Iraqis working with the troops and kids interacting with the troops in a very positive way. If you are one of those people who want to lose the war and hope the public will give up on the war, I guess you avoid such images.

I think Lt.Col. Hughes made a very responsible command decision in removing the photographer. Another reason to exclude this type of photo is it is disrespectful to the dead and to the family of the dead. It is not unusual for courts to exclude gruesome pictures in accident cases and murder cases because the prejudice they cause overwhelms any evidentiary effect. I have never seen the media object to those exclusions.

Dave Dilegge at Small Wars Journal is more charitable toward the photographer in this case, but he comes to the same conclusion. Gen. Kelly made the right call.

Update: David Paulin at the American Thinker has a lengthy piece on what the photographer was up to.