 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Combat photography
Combat is an adjective in this case... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/world/middleeast/04sniper.html > Combat is an adjective in this case... > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/world/middleeast/04sniper.html Amazing series. Be sure to click on the Multimedia link on the left for a flash slideshow of the day's events with narration by a journalist who was there. > Combat is an adjective in this case... > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/world/middleeast/04sniper.html Great series of photos. They tell the story well. Hard to imagine what Chivers was feeling at the time, but he kept his head and got the story. >>Combat is an adjective in this case... >> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/world/middleeast/04sniper.html > > Great series of photos. They tell the story well. Hard to imagine what > Chivers was feeling at the time, but he kept his head and got the story. Many of the great newsies have crapped their pants in a warzone somewhere. A lot of journalists get killed every year in wars.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >>Combat is an adjective in this case... > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Many of the great newsies have crapped their pants in a warzone > somewhere. A lot of journalists get killed every year in wars. Heck, about twenty of them get killed every year here in the peaceful Philippines. In fact, the Philippines is considered to be one of the most dangerous countries in the world for a journalist. >Combat is an adjective in this case... > >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/world/middleeast/04sniper.html The problem with modern reporting (since Vietnam) has been, as described in General Sir John Hacket's book History of WW3 is that Electronic News Gathering (ENG) and photo reporting is almost instant. In wars before Vietnam, due to the use of wet film and no satellites for news broadcast from the field meant that there was usually a period of several days between captured event and the public viewing it. These days a journalist can have the film on the news often before the military "back home" know what has happened. Much less the relatives of the troops involved. It also means the public get to comment in real time. So you get knee-jerk politics. The other problem is that journalists can become targets more than in the past. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >> Combat is an adjective in this case... >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The other problem is that journalists can become targets more than in > the past. IIRC over 100 journalists were killed in world hot spots in 2004. Many take special combat survival training. Many, esp. Americans, are protected to a reasonable degree by the troops that they accompany. The military, in particular the US, has a benefit to having journalists with them: -shows the soldiers (for the most part) behaving correctly -where they behave badly, there is a record for courts martial -dissuades soldiers from poor behaviour (most of the time) -historical documentation and training material -documents the "bad behaviour" of the enemy I remember a Frontline report a couple years ago where I was surprised at how badly some US soldiers were treating civilians in front of the cameras. However, in the same report, most of the soldiers were going out of their way to be as possibly nice to the civilians (whose homes they were searching) while not setting themselves up to be shot. The fact remains that infantry troops are trained to take and hold ground not to be military goverment troops with a "hearts and minds" mission, something for which the US military has never had a good record. The whole Abu-Gharaib (sp?) scandal took months to break. It was not a knee jerk event but certainly emblematic of poor policy and command. Just read that Saddam is to hang. This will add fresh unstability as Sunnis go ballistic during the many months long judicial review... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >> Combat is an adjective in this case... > >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > not to be military goverment troops with a "hearts and minds" mission, > something for which the US military has never had a good record. It only works in civilized countries, like Germany or Japan. "Winner of Hearts and Minds" = risking lives and being taken for a fool. > The whole Abu-Gharaib (sp?) scandal took months to break. It was not a > knee jerk event but certainly emblematic of poor policy and command. > > Just read that Saddam is to hang. This will add fresh unstability as > Sunnis go ballistic during the many months long judicial review... Despite the myth that martyrs are somehow powerful and influential, you are far better off dealing with the consequences of a dead martyr than a live person. Reporters are possibly (I don't know casualty figures from WW2, Korea, etc) are at greater risk now simply because they belong to the same group as the enemy (that enemy being anyone not Jihadist) and are perceived as doing enemy propaganda. >> >> Combat is an adjective in this case... >> >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >Hearts and Minds" >= risking lives and being taken for a fool. The UK has managed it all over the world as have the French. >> The whole Abu-Gharaib (sp?) scandal took months to break. It was not a >> knee jerk event but certainly emblematic of poor policy and command. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >are far better off dealing with the consequences of a dead martyr than >a live person. Completely wrong. A dead person is a myth and a legend. You can't kill that. It just grows. There was enough messing about with the trial for people to say it was not a fair trial and the US had him executed anyway.... no matter what the reality is. Saddam will be come a legend and a hero the minute he is dead. You can't kill the myth of a super hero. It would be better to have sentenced him to 30 years in jail and hope the situation is less volatile when he dies of old age. Actually better still you let him out when he has only w few months left to live. . >Reporters are possibly (I don't know casualty figures from WW2, Korea, >etc) are at greater risk now simply because they belong to the same >group as the enemy (that enemy being anyone not Jihadist) and are >perceived as doing enemy propaganda. This is pure fantasy. Reporters are not on any side. There are many Islamic reporters working for western media and there are many not Islamic people working for Arab media. Fox news is seen by both sides as propaganda. However most other news media are not seen as propaganda. Not even Al-Jazerha which is actually middle of the road (this was according to the US officer in charge of the US ComCen and Media Centre. Yes it surprised him too) Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > >> Just read that Saddam is to hang. This will add fresh unstability as > >> Sunnis go ballistic during the many months long judicial review... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people to say it was not a fair trial and the US had him executed > anyway.... no matter what the reality is. Others would argue that by keeping him in jail, there is an incentive for his followers to continue trying to destabilize the government so that they can free him and return him to power. Dead men don't return to power. > Saddam will be come a legend and a hero the minute he is dead. You can't > kill the myth of a super hero. It would be better to have sentenced him > to 30 years in jail and hope the situation is less volatile when he dies > of old age. Actually better still you let him out when he has only w few > months left to live. . > > >> Just read that Saddam is to hang. This will add fresh unstability as > > >> Sunnis go ballistic during the many months long judicial review... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that they can free him and return him to power. Dead men don't return to > power. Saddam in particular has a reputation for returning to power just when the entire world thought he was finished. Besides, not executing him would simply send the wrong message to thugs all over the world who might want to emulate him. > Saddam in particular has a reputation for returning to power just when > the entire world thought he was finished. Besides, not executing him > would simply send the wrong message to thugs all over the world who > might want to emulate him. Don't be naive. No one in Hussein's position even ponders the aftermath of being caught, since they know it is death, regardless of their actions. Had Iraq invaded the USA and captured GWB himself, the outcome of that "trial" would be just as predictable as this one. If there is a message being sent by this court to people like Hussein, it is "don't get caught" ... but they already know that. So the real message of this kangaroo court is not directed at fuckheads like Hussein or their ilk -- they have other problems to worry about -- but the ill informed sycophantic nincompoops who suckle at the anus of power. Rah rah rah! "We are from the government: we are here to protect you." Believe it! Or else. >> Saddam in particular has a reputation for returning to power just when >> the entire world thought he was finished. Besides, not executing him [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > power. Rah rah rah! "We are from the government: we are here to > protect you." Believe it! Or else. Were you a poli-sci major?? Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Were you a poli-sci major?? You know the real problem with poli-sci majors, don't you? >> Were you a poli-sci major?? > > You know the real problem with poli-sci majors, don't you? Any thing like how to keep a fool in suspense? O.K, I will bite. What? Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> Were you a poli-sci major?? >> >> You know the real problem with poli-sci majors, don't you? > > Any thing like how to keep a fool in suspense? Not at all, it's simply that poli-sci majors are taught by ... poli-sci majors. <g> Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Reporters are not on any side. There are many > Islamic reporters working for western media and there are many not > Islamic people working for Arab media. Are embedded reporters allowed to investigate and report freely? Apart from being embedded (and thus getting a very one-sided view, like any soldier in a shooting war), I seem to remember quite a lot of, ah, information shaping going around being reported, as well. So the question is: "Is an embedded reporter, especially when there is quite a bit of 'direction' from the military (on the pain of getting unembedded and less or no information any more), really able to remain, ah, independent, or is he, simply by being in his place, being (willingly?) shaped and/or used by one side?" And the next question: "What would be an alternative, and does one even exists?" -Wolfgang >> Reporters are not on any side. There are many >> Islamic reporters working for western media and there are many not >> Islamic people working for Arab media. > >Are embedded reporters allowed to investigate and report freely? No. They only get to see that they are permitted to see. >Apart from being embedded (and thus getting a very one-sided view, >like any soldier in a shooting war), I seem to remember quite a >lot of, ah, information shaping going around being reported, >as well. I agree.... "information shaping" I like that :-) >So the question is: > "Is an embedded reporter, especially when there is quite a > bit of 'direction' from the military (on the pain of getting > unembedded and less or no information any more), really able > to remain, ah, independent, or is he, simply by being in his > place, being (willingly?) shaped and/or used by one side?" The embedded reporters will live with a close nit team and tend to become part of that team to some extent and this will colour their reporting. . >And the next question: > "What would be an alternative, and does one even exists?" It does exist. It is the independent reporter. However that is not so safe as you are likely to get shot at by both sides. Though to be fair more western journalists have been shot at by the US forces than the other forces in Iraq. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>Reporters are not on any side. There are many >>Islamic reporters working for western media and there are many not >>Islamic people working for Arab media. > > Are embedded reporters allowed to investigate and report freely? Given some of the unflattering-to-the-military things I've seen on programs like Frontline, I would say: to a large degree, yes. > Apart from being embedded (and thus getting a very one-sided view, > like any soldier in a shooting war), I seem to remember quite a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to remain, ah, independent, or is he, simply by being in his > place, being (willingly?) shaped and/or used by one side?" It's normal for reporters to be on "their own side", but it's also normal for them to be critical of what "their own side" is doing at a human level. > And the next question: > "What would be an alternative, and does one even exists?" Reporters from neutral countries roaming around. Good way to commit suicide, however. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> Combat is an adjective in this case... >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >IIRC over 100 journalists were killed in world hot spots in 2004. Many >take special combat survival training. Very true. Also wear helmets and flack jackets. I think the Press wear Blue so they are not seen as military. >Many, esp. Americans, are protected to a reasonable degree by the >troops that they accompany. What are you saying? Americans pe rsay, Americans the country or American journalists >The military, in particular the US, has a benefit to having journalists >with them: > -shows the soldiers (for the most part) behaving correctly Depends what you call "correctly" Much of the footage of US troops I have seen has been used to show how NOT to handle situations. Also more western journalists have been killed in Iraq by the US forces than by any other single cause. > -where they behave badly, there is a record for courts martial This is true in general. At least US troops don't *usually* shoot journalists embedded with their own units. * There was one incident on film where US aircraft bombed embedded journalists. Though the fact that they journalists were there was incidental. They just bombed their own side. > -dissuades soldiers from poor behaviour (most of the time) Yes where they understand what bad behaviour is. > -historical documentation and training material Definitely. A lot of footage of US troops in Iraq is used to show how not to handle situations. > -documents the "bad behaviour" of the enemy Documents bad behaviour. Journalists are reporting the situation and don't have an enemy. If they take sides they become targets. >I remember a Frontline report a couple years ago where I was surprised >at how badly some US soldiers were treating civilians in front of the >cameras. Yes,.... It depends if they actually understand that their behaviour is bad. The way women and black people are treated in Europe and the US now {I hope] is very different to the "normal" way of treating them 100 years ago. It is the same thing with soldiers... they may be unable to understand why the civilians are behaving as they are and are therefore not reacting correctly. > However, in the same report, most of the soldiers were going out of >their way to be as possibly nice to the civilians (whose homes they >were searching) while not setting themselves up to be shot. This is the correct way to do it. > The fact remains that infantry troops are trained to take and hold >ground not to be military goverment troops with a "hearts and minds" >mission, This depends on the army. Some are far better at it than others. > something for which the US military has never had a good record. Absolutely. No one doubted the US would win the initial battlefield war in Iraq. We were just very worried that it would go the way it has because Us troops can't do peace keeping. >The whole Abu-Gharaib (sp?) scandal took months to break. It was not a >knee jerk event but certainly emblematic of poor policy and command. Ironically it was their own pictures from the people there not from reporters that was the undoing of it. The technical quality of the pictures was (from the few I saw) not that good. An Iconic picture is one that is taken at the right place and time. Often by chance as much as anything else. So those people who say plan each shot and use a tripod would probably miss every pulitzer prize and never end up on a t-shirt :-) >Just read that Saddam is to hang. This will add fresh unstability as >Sunnis go ballistic during the many months long judicial review... Yes. Had the situation in Iraq been handled properly there would not have been the backlash there is going to be over the hanging. The US has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (and still has Taliban and AQ in Afghanestan.) Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > In message <eil75q$p2k$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Alan Browne >> Many, esp. Americans, are protected to a reasonable degree by the >> troops that they accompany. > > What are you saying? Americans pe rsay, Americans the country or > American journalists I meant American journalists "embedded" with American troops. >> The military, in particular the US, has a benefit to having >> journalists with them: >> -shows the soldiers (for the most part) behaving correctly > > Depends what you call "correctly" Much of the footage of US troops I > have seen has been used to show how NOT to handle situations. Yes, that hearts and minds thing... <snipped / concurring> Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Saddam is gonna hang When is Dick Cheney going to jail for his thieving and stealing from the American public? Sincerely Fred >> In message <eil75q$p2k$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Alan Browne > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Cheers, > Alan > Saddam is gonna hang > When is Dick Cheney going to jail for his thieving and stealing from the > American public? If you have proof then bring the charges to the US Attorney or a reputable news organization. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/middleeast/07contracts.html?ei=5094&en=3 cd17a7bf7266daa&hp=&ex=1162875600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1162871068-Q +tUy6slVxxwh8vtDbCH4Q SignatureFred Lebow >> Saddam is gonna hang >> When is Dick Cheney going to jail for his thieving and stealing from the >> American public? > > If you have proof then bring the charges to the US Attorney or a reputable > news organization. > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/middleeast/07contracts.html?ei=5094&en=3 cd17a7bf7266daa&hp=&ex=1162875600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1162871068-Q +tUy6slVxxwh8vtDbCH4Q Oh, puhleeze. The papers are rife with accounts of operational failures and their costs in Iraq. The very first para in that article is about resources in place and unused. The government was certainly too expeditious in awarding a non-compete, hardly audited contract to KBR. That does not make it a criminal conspiracy involving the VP. don't top post. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.