This is a short Follow Up to the last four posts:
"WHO DELIVERS THE ICONIC WAR IMAGES - PROS OR AMATEURS?"
"Iraqian Frontline: Images from Moblogging Soldiers II"
"Iraqian Frontline: Images from Moblogging Soldiers"
“Digital cameras change history in Iraq” (The Modern Trinity of Enlightenment)"
with some new inputs from various sources. It´s again about the Tami Silicio/Lynndie England story (1; 2), not about the story about the TiredAndDirtySoldier (1; 2; 3; 4), the moblogging US soldier from Iraq.
The hosting site of TiredAndDirtySoldier, YAFRO, has been down for some hours and/or certain photos were ("The requested URL /photo/110839 was not found on this server") obviously removed (?). At least five of the fifteen links provided in this post are not working anymore; we got copies so we add the photos to the links over the next days.
We don´t want to discuss this over and over again, what had to be said from our point of view is said here, but they do add other viewpoints to the discussion:
IrishEyes, "Power of photojournalism":
Those who read the background stories behind the iconic image and the follow-up details about the soldier holding the leash learned more about the American military mindset than any puff piece from an embedded journalist accompanying the triumphant arrival of security forces into Iraq. The newspaper editors know there are more graphic images both inside and outside the walls of detention centres--the rise of European interest will lead to plump payments to any soldier willing to hand over their digital camera images to the photo editors.
Economist magazine bleats for Rumsfeld's resignation. Rumsfeld bemoans the military's inability to control anyone with a digital camera who photographs atrocities and shares them with the world. To the control freaks in the neoconservative arm of the American government, the rise of the digital journalist is a threat to life. Expect to see heavy-handed military restrictions on anything with a camera lens in future deployments of military members into war zones. My Pentagon planning days remind me it's easier to impose clampdowns in the processing line than it is to control activities in the deployment area. General officers need to control information as much as they need to control troop movements. The only way they know to fight a media war is to take away the weapons--so goodbye cameras and adios cameraphones. That's started already--contractors lose their jobs when spotted with a camera pointed at a military aircraft in a deployment area."
Newmediamusings, "Digital cameras as participatory journalism":
Watching Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's testimony today, I was struck by his answer when he said that the military was helpless against anyone with a digital camera who can take photographs of atrocities in the Abu Ghraib prison and share them with the world.
It appears this is an underappreciated aspect of the scandal. I don't have any information about the circumstances under which these photos were taken, but it's quite possible that a GI might not have taken such photos with a film camera (where someone would see them in the processing lab).
In other words, this scandal could not have occurred four or five years ago, before citizens (including US troops) achieved the power to be visual reporters. There's no question that, but for the publication and airing of these photos, the reports of the prisoner abuse would have wound up buried on page A19.
Dan Gillmor´s eJournal:
Which raises some questions:
Suppose the Americans hadn't bothered to take pictures of each other in that infamous prison? Suppose they'd just gone on abusing the prisoners without cameras? Does a story exist without pictures?
First Draft by Tim Porter "Digital Proof, Human Source":
One thing is for certain: Digital cameras have changed the nature of news sources. What was once asserted to be true can now be proven (and, of course, manipulated).
Imagine how quickly the slaughter of innocents at My Lai would have become known had it been captured by a palm-sized digital camera (or phone) instead of reported by letter.
What does this mean for journalism?
First, it converts all camera-toting participants of an event into potential irrefutable witnesses and therefore sources.
Second, these witnesses also have the capability to become citizen reporters (who may or may not attempt to "report" journalistically and instead prefer to "show" a version of an event from their own viewpoint).
Third, it further dilutes the traditional role of mainstream journalists as the primary providers of news. As more citizens become not only subjects and sources but also reporters, professional journalists are increasingly disintermediated.
The deflation of high technology into everyday tools usable by anyone redefines journalism's core function (reporting what happened) from the practice of an elite few to a possibility for many.
The linear nature of news - flowing from source to journalist to public - is disrupted. Journalists must adapt. Explanation and context and depth become more important as the basic "what happened" becomes more commoditized.
