Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:27 AM
Sun Dec 6
14 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/04/09
If certain soldiers abuse social networking take it away from them individually, not all soldiers. We should be giving more to the American men and women who fight and die for our country, not taking things away.
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
07/22/09
07/17/09
With the possible exception of image 9, we've seen all of this preposterous warmongering jingoistic shit in a million different ways: on television, in video games, in recruiting brochures.
Where are the pictures of head injury victims and double amputees from Walter Reed? Where are the pictures of the men and women whose lives have been ruined by PTSD?
There's no such thing as a sexy war.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/18/09
exposure. damn wine.
07/18/09
07/18/09
I think your comment sort of denigrates the efforts and sacrifices of US troops.
What is the difference between war porn and combat photography? Those images, with the exception of numbers 5 and 11, look like any image a photo-journalist would take in the field and that any news publication would run. And numbers 5 and 11 ... they just don't bother me that much. Do you actually believe John Cook posted them because he's trying to get Gawker readers to enlist? Those two photos document and humanize the soldiers who are risking their lives over there to fight very bad people.
Also, maybe ask yourself how the soldiers who are in those pictures might feel about them. If I were a solider in any of those photos, I'd probably be pretty psyched to have my service and the war in general rendered a little more visible to the American public.
And as far as publishing pictures of maimed soldiers ... to what end? Do you think readers don't know that war is terrible?
While the consequences of the war, physical and emotional, is a valid story, that kind of shock-photography is also war porn of a different stripe.
07/18/09
07/18/09
Actually, I don't think most of them do. I think most people only know what they're told, and what we're being told is that modern wars are 'smart' and 'clean'. We are not being shown the terrible side of war, and I think that this results in the average American being unaware of it.
I think you overestimate your fellow citizens.
07/19/09
If you want to see some real war photography, check out the Kathy Griffin "Life on the D List" episode from Walter Reed. I'm serious. And then maybe talk to some people who have actually served in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, please shut your piehole.
07/19/09
You seem to be fairly passionate about our troops fighting in our name overseas. Why don't you enlist?
I'd be happy to point you in the direction of your nearest recruiting office. Just let me know if you need help.
You can also probably find something here: http://www.goarmy.com/index.jsp?bl=Careers+%26+Jobs#/?marquee=vw&channel=careers
07/19/09
I think you missed the point of the comment. The comment wasn't 'pro-war'. Check the sentence construction. It merely points out that graphic imagery in war photos can be used as propaganda, both for and against.
The other point that s/he makes, is that thoughtful photojournalists always think about how the shots they get would be interpreted by those whom they photograph, and the effect that their work will have on those that they document. It's one of those 'professionalism' things.
These images aren't documenting Mei Lai. This isn't really a scoop, or anything. I understand your frustration at President Obama's increasing US involvement in Afghanistan. But I haven't seen voluminous official cover-ups there, like were common in Viet Nam. The military is actually quite open about reporters, if anyone wants to go.
Have you gone to see it yourself? Are you active or reserve? Or is this only a simulcrum of actual, personal revulsion? The first time you see someone who died violently, the whole 'honor, duty, valor' thing gets ripped away quite rudely. You should interview some of the guys there. They will point that out.
(Retired US. Navy, myself.)
07/19/09
First, RonnSicTorossian was referring to GMN readers, who are substantially more discriminating than the 'average citizen'. I think most of us, after all these years of war, have gotten a clue, so to speak, one way or another.
Second, I worry that it is commentary like yours, which sounds as though it is only the author who 'understands', is the sort of thing that leaves those of us who are trying to advance a progressive agenda, open to the charge of 'elitism' and the like.
If it is true, that the average American is unaware, as you say, then perhaps all that is required, is making them aware. Histrionics may actually be counterproductive...
Just a thought.
07/17/09
Semper fidelis.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
The Times runs stories--maybe not pictures (even though they're easy to read!)--but stories on Afghanistan on its front page and high up on its website home page quite often. I'm talking a lot. They're there if you bother to read them. I'm getting sort of bored/frustrated when lazy uninformed Americans blame journalists for not covering the war in Afghanistan when the truth is much closer to the fact that they would rather read about Jon and Kate than a fucking war. But please, there are plenty of journalists in Afghanistan right now filing stories into the black hole of what you care about.
07/17/09
All it takes is one unpaid broadcasting intern manning the computer that press releases come across, whose services are then applied towards college credit. Actual coverage requires paying reporters because they need to live.
Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense!
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
Well excyouuuuuuuuuusseeee me!
07/17/09
07/17/09
Then the current coverage would have to be the failure of all journalists.
07/17/09
#4 really gets to me. He looks like a kid I grew up with.
07/17/09