Military Censorship of Photographs

Article # 3 Review
Patterson and Wilkins discuss the military’s heavy handedness of press censorship during the Gulf War. The tight control of the press required that photos and stories be approved by the US and allied military prior to print. Reporters were kept away from the front line and allowed only limited press coverage elsewhere. The conflict between the press and military became so contentious that nine US publications filed suit against the Defense Department’s pool procedures.

The argument for freedom of press during military conflicts is a tough one. The public has a right to know, and should be informed about the conditions of war--as unpleasant as it is. If we live in a protected bubble and believe that war is not about killing and death, then we are delusional--or we have been misled.

I have reservations concerning the press’s right to complete access to war coverage. A photographer may be an unnecessary risk or added distraction during dangerous conflicts. There are also times when the military should have authority concerning press placement and level of press coverage; most certainly if there is a security threat to troops involved, or if there is a risk of providing unnecessary information to the enemy.

Photos of death are an emotional concern. It is important that we remain sensitive to the feelings of families and loved ones; they have a right to know first when there has been an injury or death. Timing or placement of a similar news story or photo should meet the same standards. I believe that photographers should also receive advance permission before releasing photos of grieving soldiers and/or private individuals. What purpose does it serve? This falls into the realm of sensationalism, and I don’t support it.