Murders Orchestrated For The Camera.

[Fairweather]

Staging a photo op is staging a photo op. They are both propaganda.

 

Since you made the accusation that the photographer was 'most likely' working for the insurgency I invite YOU to post some evidence. Seriously. Its not up to me or anyone else here to back up your assertions.

 

Now THIS was a photo-op....

 

[slothrop]

Where's the photo of cracked top-roping some sick ice in gorts?

[AlpineK]

Actually, AK, the sight of a communist guerilla's execution is a happy image IMO.

 

...And there you go again, crybabyin' about your first ammendment rights when, in fact, no one on the right has ever suggested press freedoms be curtailed insomuch as their reporting doesn't compromise troop safety ala Jeraldo Rivera. Quite the opposite, in fact. The only ones that [/i] I[/i] ever hear calling for media restrictions are lefties like you who hate talk radio and FOX News.

 

Just remember: If a media outlet expresses its free speech rights via biased reporting and images, it can't claim those same rights are being violated just because viewers decide to change the channel or because watchdog groups cry foul. It's freedom...and it works both ways.

 

And if you really want to talk about press freedom, or lack thereof, we need only look to your socialist paradise up north ...

 

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/448934/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD

 

Please show me where I ever said that Fox news or, conservative talk radio need to be restricted. Way to jump to conclusions; but I suppose I shouldn't be supprised that kind of crappy thinking is what makes you a conservative.

 

There is no proof that the photos in Iraq were staged; in fact the potographers had to run for their lives after the croud saw them taking photos. If the photo was staged don't you think the photo journalist would be invited to the event and encouraged to take pictures.

 

Right or wrong there is always a lot of fucked up shit that goes on in war. That's what the picture of the contractors hanging from the bridge captures. I guess you and Pete don't have the stomach for viewing some of the concequences of going to war. Thats supprising concidering we were totally justified...I mean Sadam had all those biological and nuclear weapons that we found...(oh sorry he didn't )

[markinore]

Maybe the Pulitzer Prize committee should even things up by giving Bush the prize for fiction.

[rbw1966]

Thanks for the mad props, Mssr. Fairweather! Are you trying to bolster your argument by making those personal attacks you are always so critical of others making?

 

Oh, and by the way, you never answered my question: which branch of the service did you serve in?

[Peter_Puget]

link

 

A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.

 

Comment: Does it make any sense that the invited photag who has familial and tribal relations with the insurgents is hiding/running from the insurgents. AK?

 

link

 

Jack Stokes, the AP's director of media relations:

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.

Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

 

Summary:The stringer was informed of the event and probably had family and tribal relations with “insurgents.” The AP is acting as a conduit to help tell the insurgents stories.

 

To be clear: the AP is acting as the media arm of the insurgents on of whose goals at that time was, by the AP’s admission, to disrupt the election process.

[Peter_Puget]

Since you made the accusation that the photographer was 'most likely' working for the insurgency I invite YOU to post some evidence. Seriously. Its not up to me or anyone else here to back up your assertions.

 

I have been misquoted so many times in this thread that I am becoming convinced you must all work for the media in some form or another. I simply never said that the photoag was working for the insurgency but rather - "Your choice of the word "courageous" odd given that photographer for the excution shot was in fact an Iraqi most likely working in line with the desires of the resistance

 

I believe that that AP itself agrees with this. See post above.

 

I will admit that there is a chance that the photag was in fact working for the insurgency but I never said that.

 

[rbw1966]

PP--

 

Sorry about misquoting you.

[olyclimber]

I'm happy to see that all the regulars have shown and are in their customary roles.

 

This site reminds me of Huis Clos.

 

Hell is other people.

[Winter]

Exactly why is the insurgents' side of the story less newsworthy than our side? Let's say hypothetically (and I don't believe this to be the case) that the Iraqis were willing to slaughter some westerners and then hold a big freaking street party just because one of their buddies had a camera and access to AP. Ain't that newsworthy? How would that reflect on the pictures that were shot or the way they were published? PP, I think you make a lot of assumptions about the validity of photo journalism, and your assumptions are informed more by your obvious political predispositions than any objective perspective on the value of the press.

 

Fairwether, you are once sick fucker if you think images of executions are a good thing simply because the people getting their brains blown out are communists. Pathetic. I hope you don't teach your kids these same values, because they'll probably walk into class one day with a sidearm pointed at the class "communist."

 

I suppose you're in favor of the death penalty and war but opposed to abortion, assisted suicide and probably even birth control (since your parent should have used it). Typical conservative hypocracy.

 

And you were being a fucking pussy on top of that by complaining on ascensionist.com about RBW's accident report without confronting any of the invovled parties directly. And why don't you answer RBW's question about your service history? Why didn't you ask Rob or myself about what happened or how it was reported? Probably safer to just hang out in the dark recesses of the internet where nobody can see your face (or what your hands are doing).

 

How's that for personal attacks?

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[chucK]

CBS is getting a Peabody award for its reporting of the Abu Gahraib abuse. Is that problematic also? Reports of that scandal have surely led to the loss of life for many American soldiers, contractors, etc. by bolstering the motivations of the oppostion.

 

I don't think you ever answered the question of whether you think that the AP should not have used those photos.

 

I too thought that you were upset that these bad things in the photos were staged for the photographers. But now you seem to be backing off of this. What exactly is your complaint? Are you upset that people find value in these horrors-or-war photos? That the AP is reporting "victories" of the opposition? Is this just another partisan whine about the media not being totally on board the occupation of Iraq?

 

???

[slothrop]

Peter, you quite often tread the thin line of language between asserting something as fact and implying that it could be true, but you never own up to it. For example:

 

Does it make any sense that the invited photag who has familial and tribal relations with the insurgents is hiding/running from the insurgents. AK?

 

There's no evidence in the passage you quoted before this comment to back up your factual assertion that the photographer is related to ("has familial and tribal relations with") the insurgents. And to answer your question: from the beginning of time, blood ties have never stopped anyone from killing or threatening someone. (Hint: this is you being disingenuous. I mean, come on!)

 

So you backpedal in your very next statement, "summarizing" another quote:

 

The stringer was informed of the event and probably had family and tribal relations with “insurgents.”

 

"Probably" does not equal fact. You're just speculating, but you act like you're not.

[Peter_Puget]

Peter, you quite often tread the thin line of language between asserting something as fact and implying that it could be true, but you never own up to it. As long as I am treading the thin line things are ok. Perhaps you don't understand what you wrote. For example:

 

Does it make any sense that the invited photag who has familial and tribal relations with the insurgents is hiding/running from the insurgents. AK?

 

There's no evidence in the passage you quoted before this comment to back up your factual assertion that the photographer is related to ("has familial and tribal relations with") the insurgents. And to answer your question: from the beginning of time, blood ties have never stopped anyone from killing or threatening someone. (Hint: this is you being disingenuous. I mean, come on!)

 

Come on? What a silly repsonse. I will admit that if I was writing in a slower fashion I would have indicated that the photag "probably" had relations..oh wait I did that in the same post. Disingenuous? No. But I will say flat out you are being disegenuous in your response and accusation. So patently disingenuous that you render yourself silly.

 

So you backpedal in your very next statement, "summarizing" another quote:

 

Backpedal? Nope just writing perhaps with a bit more accuracy.

 

The stringer was informed of the event and probably had family and tribal relations with “insurgents.”

 

"Probably" does not equal fact. You're just speculating, but you act like you're not.

 

LOL "Probably" means "probably" just as I wrote. You're just being silly and pretending to offer some sort of analysis.

 

Please Sloth, you are just not up to the task. Assuming for argument's sake all of your assertions are correct, you are far more guilty of be "disingenuous" and "speculating" than I am. And since you seem to attack me for these actions you should feel some sense of shame. Step up and write better or sit down!

 

I have added comments to the quote above.

[willstrickland]

I ain't wading into this one too far, but I did read some analysis by working photo journalists who ventured the opinion that the pics were taken with a 300mm lens (due to compression of perspective) from about a city block's distance.

[Peter_Puget]

I don't think you ever answered the question of whether you think that the AP should not have used those photos.

 

I too thought that you were upset that these bad things in the photos were staged for the photographers. But now you seem to be backing off of this. What exactly is your complaint? Are you upset that people find value in these horrors-or-war photos? That the AP is reporting "victories" of the opposition? Is this just another partisan whine about the media not being totally on board the occupation of Iraq?

 

???

 

I do not think that the AP should have used these photos . In using them the AP moves from being an observer/reporter with only a small impact on the event to a willing partner with the insurgents.(*) An instrument to achieve their goals. In the middle of an insurgent campaign whose imediate goal (per the AP) was to stop the elections, the AP bought photograghs taken with the invitation of the "insurgents" and distributed these photographs. Note that the assailents are bare faced. At the very least these pictures send a very clear message to any in Iraq who were trying to work towards democracy. The AP is/was not a mere observer it is a participant in these event. An execution of unarmed election workers could only be called an insurgent "victory" by someone with a very twisted mind.

 

(*) - The AP is actively funding the insrugents campaign. Indirectly by reproducing and distributing thier media (ie the pictures) And most likely directly when they pay for the pictures.

[Peter_Puget]

I ain't wading into this one too far, but I did read some analysis by working photo journalists who ventured the opinion that the pics were taken with a 300mm lens (due to compression of perspective) from about a city block's distance.

 

With a 300 mm lense no doubt!

[chucK]

Peter,

By your logic the AP is also working towards the Bush campaign by publishing photos of him kissing babies, ditto Kerry. They are also helping promote the ideals of the Catholic Church by publishing photos of large throngs of worshippers streaming though to mourn the Pope. They are helping the cause of White Supremists by publishing the story of the judge whose husband and Mother were killed.

 

I know, you are going to say there is no helping me if I can't distinguish between the mutilation of bodies and a politician kissing a baby. So do we draw the line at not publishing images of violence? What about those Abu Gahraib photos? What about the images of the twin towers collapsing or perhaps that famous dead baby in the firefighters arms after the Oklahoma City bombing?

 

Should images of violence be restricted...unless they help the current administration's cause? Unless PP says it's OK? Cite a clear rule or a clear authority!

[Peter_Puget]

Peter,

By your logic the AP is also working towards the Bush campaign by publishing photos of him kissing babies, ditto Kerry. They are also helping promote the ideals of the Catholic Church by publishing photos of large throngs of worshippers streaming though to mourn the Pope. They are helping the cause of White Supremists by publishing the story of the judge whose husband and Mother were killed. In a very basic sense I agree but you misrepresent what I have written with regard to the Haifa pictures, go back and try again

 

I know, you are going to say there is no helping me if I can't distinguish between the mutilation of bodies and a politician kissing a baby. What you know is wrong! I am not arguing here against the publication of violent imagery. I will say that ther eis no helping you if you can't distinguish between the Haifa picutes/the media's relationship with the insurgents (it should be noted that even the media has been conflicted about this relationship) and a politician kissing a baby. So do we draw the line at not publishing images of violence? What about those Abu Gahraib photos? What about the images of the twin towers collapsing or perhaps that famous dead baby in the firefighters arms after the Oklahoma City bombing? To use your terminology: There is no helping you if you think these examples are germain.

 

Should images of violence be restricted...unless they help the current administration's cause? Unless PP says it's OK? Cite a clear rule or a clear authority!

 

[AlpineK]

What about all the embedded reporters. Are they not just tools of US policy? Don't they take photos of violence perpitrated by the US government? Is that somehow different than violence perpetrated by forces opposed to the US.

[chucK]

bob and weave

 

i give up

[Peter_Puget]

bob and weave

 

i give up

 

You're just being silly Chuck. You're strategy is to say "tell me where cold turns to hot". You imply that there is no difference (comparing a politician kissing a baby to the Haifa pictures. ) I say the difference is there and obvious to all who can see. I accepted your position as honest and agreed that there was no help for you. You are to keep up the metaphor blind. Note: I did not use Sloth's terminology and call you disingenuous or an idiot. I am not b &W I am just not playing your silly 7th grade debate game.

 

Here is my earlier reply to you:

In using them the AP moves from being an observer/reporter with only a small impact on the event to a willing partner with the insurgents.(*) An instrument to achieve their goals. In the middle of an insurgent campaign whose imediate goal (per the AP) was to stop the elections, the AP bought photograghs taken with the invitation of the "insurgents" and distributed these photographs. Note that the assailents are bare faced. At the very least these pictures send a very clear message to any in Iraq who were trying to work towards democracy. The AP is/was not a mere observer it is a participant in these event. An execution of unarmed election workers could only be called an insurgent "victory" by someone with a very twisted mind.

 

Vision please!

[Peter_Puget]

Oh yea ChucK that the media has itself carried on a debate regarding the press and its relationship to the insurgents and to my knowledge hasn't, at least lately, been debating whether it should publish photos of the throngs waiting for the Pope should give you a clue that your equivalencies are just plain silly.

[slothrop]

I know I just can't hang with you Peter, but I yearn to be a better person, so I'll just keep trying (You have to admit, "disingenuous" is a really good word.)

 

If the AP is actively supporting the insurgents, as you claim, then publishing the photo in question was not a good PR move on the insurgents' behalf. I can only judge for myself, but that photo disgusts me. It makes me think that the insurgents deserve no respect. I will even speculate that the photo made many Americans, even American soldiers in Iraq, more disposed to rain hot death upon insurgents if given the chance. Is that of benefit to the insurgents?

 

Or are you saying that the AP is ideologically aligned with the insurgents and just thought they were doing them a favor? This doesn't make much sense, since they publish pro-Bush photos, as chucK mentioned. Or maybe they're just publishing images that appeal to "both sides"... like a journalism organization often does.

[Fairweather]

Fairwether, you are once sick fucker if you think images of executions are a good thing simply because the people getting their brains blown out are communists. Pathetic. I hope you don't teach your kids these same values, because they'll probably walk into class one day with a sidearm pointed at the class "communist."

 

One is in college and has a commie roommate! So far, she hasn't gone postal. But thanks for the parenting tip! How old are your kids?

 

I suppose you're in favor of the death penalty and war but opposed to abortion, assisted suicide and probably even birth control (since your parent should have used it). Typical conservative hypocracy.

I'm not opposed to choice or birth control, but I think that the foster care system could use some improvement as evidenced by your foul existence. BTW, that's spelled h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y. Make a note of it before you file your next obnoxious brief.

And why don't you answer RBW's question about your service history?

How is it relevant? Does one's service record, or lack of, exclude them from the arena of ideas? And why are you so anxious to defend RBW? Are you and he intimate?

How's that for personal attacks?

Actually, I'm dissapointed. I thought you could have been much more vicious. Step up! You're an attorney, for God's sake!

[j_b]

The daily butchery in iraq has already been relegated to page 19 (way after round-the-clock-schiavo-pope-mjackson "coverage") but nooooo, the wingnuts, still, are not satisfied: they need to smear the very few reporters left who are dedicated enough to do their jobs (instead of having the press run government produced 'news'). How far will the witch-hunting go?