Thought I would share an essay I wrote recently for my history of photography class. The image is pretty gruesome, but I’m sure you can handle it. :)
In this essay I will be discussing why Ken Jarecke’s photograph of the Iraqi soldier was pulled from the associated press in March 1991 and what possible issues and concerns it might have raised, had it been widely published at the time.
I will look at why there was a conflict which required American led action. What media restrictions were in place and why some forms of coverage were favoured more than others. I will discuss why the image wasn't published at the time, and what arguments there are as to why it should have been published, and possible issues involved. Then I will look at the current war and see if similar restrictions are still in place, give my own opinions on the brief and assess what can be concluded from my research.
The photograph of the Iraqi Soldier was taken by Jarecke only hours before the ceasefire that would mark the end of the conflict. Jarecke was travelling with a US Army public affairs Officer on a highway towards Kuwait. This is when they came across the burnt out truck with the Iraqi Soldier burned alive inside. When asked by the US Army Officer, why he would take such a gruesome picture, Jarecke replied, "If I don't make pictures like this, people like my mother will think what they see in war is what they see in the movies."
Upon examining the image, the viewer is immediately shocked by its graphic content; irrefutably difficult to look at, but ultimately deeply thought provoking. It’s quite a stark image, and could almost be mistaken for black and white if not for the orange tones in the foreground. The bright light from behind the man really focuses our attention on him, and his expression and the fact that it looks like he's trying to climb out of the van is what evokes so much emotion in the viewer. The image contradicted the idea that the gulf war was a "clean war".
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990 which is what sparked the American led action. After an 8 year war with Iran, Iraq was left with over $80 billion in debts, mostly to Kuwait. As well as other grievances over oil, and his demands not being met, he invaded.
The UN ordered Iraq out of Kuwait by January 15th 1991, and when they hadn't moved, the coalition began operation Dessert Storm. They attacked from above striking Iraqi air fields, bases, and other targets. The ground war didn't begin until late February, and by then there was not much left of the Iraqi Army.
The overall civilian death toll of the war was 100,000 to 200,000 people (depending on the source) and The Iraqi Army’s was between 60,000 and 200,000. (With around 30,000 during the ground war) The coalition's casualties were very low, a quarter of which were in friendly fire.
With the Pentagon wary of the unrestricted access the media had during the Vietnam war (some believe its what lost them the war), the military were now very much in control of the images photographers took, in most cases, they had to OK anything being sent back home. They also had Government approved reporters and military escorts
With video becoming increasingly popular, photographers were having a hard time. Especially during the gulf war as the military had they're own video camera's and could control the footage taken. Keeping media to a minimum they would control the coverage by where they would let the photographers go. This was supposedly to stop delicate information from reaching the Iraqi Generals, but in actuality it confined the information given to the journalists and the public.
When looking at the reasons behind not publishing Jarecke’s photograph in America, as well as being "too graphic" for the general public, we look at how the American Government and Military want to portray the war. They had they're own video cameras, which showed footage on the American news daily. But the way they covered the war was from a distance, which made it look like a video game for grown ups. By taking the footage from afar, you cannot see the men’s faces, cannot feel an emotional attachment. You don’t think of it as someone you know going away to fight, and possibly die for their country, so you don’t feel that the events that took place were wrong. It makes you wonder, is detail necessary for the proper understanding of the events? Most of the general public felt well informed by this footage, although this was clearly not the case.
Over the course of the war it was only when Kuwait City was liberated that the Photographers began to see the real war.
Jarecke’s Photograph was eventually allowed to go across the wire (with a prior warning to those receiving it) it was pulled quite quickly by the associated press as they saw it as “it too sensitive for anyone else” There was no allowance for any other newspapers to make their own decisions. They felt the American public couldn’t handle this image, and thought it was too controversial.
Across the water in England, The London Observer and The Guardian decided to run the photograph. This openly began a debate on just how graphic images should be. But it ultimately gave people a picture of the real war.
The photographer Peter Turnley took photos in Iraq around the same time as Jarecke. While his photographs don’t act as any sort of political agenda, he wrote "What they do represent is a part of a more accurate picture of what really does happen in war. I feel it is important and that citizens have the right to see these images." I think this opinion is felt by a lot of people with regards to Jarecke’s image.
The world was very supportive of the war. When the Government are comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler, who would be surprised? This comparison was crucial in the argument against using military force. One front page header from a UK newspaper was ‘GO GET HIM BOYS’. This is a good example of how the general public felt about the war. If the image had been widely published at the time I think there would be a lot less support for the war effort. Ken Jarecke’s image gives the opposition a face. Makes us realise that it’s not just Saddam that we’re fighting, and that thousands of innocent civilians are dying. There would no longer be that enthusiasm behind public backing.
I believe that the image was pulled because it didn’t show the side of the war the Government wanted the general public to see. Of course it’s a shocking and disturbing image. But that is what war is. It’s not a game, its people’s lives at stake. As Jarecke said, “if we're big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it."
The current war in Iraq began on the 20th March 2003. American President George Bush said the attack was to “disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and free its people”. Having over thrown and executed Saddam Hussein, we are still occupying Iraq 6 years later. The media have reported a lot on the deaths of the US soldiers which leaves the public uneasy, and unsure about supporting the war. The administration have blamed the media for focusing on the negative aspects of the war, and have increased media restrictions, which shows their sensitive awareness of general publics attitudes towards the war.
The Government have tried hard to keep the general public backing the war, but with around 600,000 (depending on the source) innocent Iraqi civilians, 4000 US troops and around 200 UK troops dead, its bound to become quite difficult.
When reporters and photographers on the ground show us something quite different from whatever spin the administration are putting on the war to make it look as good as they can, we begin to question their intentions.
Overall I feel that the reasons behind the associated press had for pulling Ken Jarecke’s photography were unsatisfactorily justified. Vincent J. Alabiso, former Associated Press executive photo editor feels some remorse for pulling the image and has said that if that image was transmitted today, he wouldn’t have censored it. The people had the right to know what was happening, they had a right to know the dangers they’re loved ones were facing. They should have been allowed to understand the consequences of real war so they would not look upon it so mildly.
