Unfortunately, this article is far shorter in its web iteration than it is in the dead tree Times. Just the same, the essential points are still in there, if with a bit less detail.
If in a somewhat different context, the mainstream media finally admit something that military folk have been trying to explain for awhile: there is a military speciality called "combat photographer." Sometimes, as in the cause for discussion here, they function much as civilian press photographers might, but in a military context. They might take ID photos, they might take photo op pictures when a visiting dignitary comes to visit a base.
Other times, when a unit goes into combat, they will go along, and keep taking pictures under fire, in conditions no civilian photographer would ever consider subjecting him or herself to -- or, if a mission is classified, be allowed to go along for. They were there for the landings at Normandy. Their images have historical value. Training value. These units have existed for decades.
The nation has literally tens of thousands of such photos because when American forces go to war, so do combat photographers who document the horror and heroism of battle, as well as the quiet moments of preparation before a mission and reflection or rebuilding after the fighting stops. The work of these soldiers with cameras sometimes attain a realism and intimacy beyond anything Steven Spielberg filmed for "Saving Private Ryan."
The images are routinely released by the Pentagon to highlight the work of the armed forces and to make the Pentagon's case before the public. They appear in Defense Department publications and on its Web sites, and are available to news organizations.
But other pictures go unseen. Some are classified because they reveal the secret ways the United States wages war. Placed in archives, they are available for study by those with the proper security clearance. Some are made public after many years, resonating like Mathew Brady's prints from the Civil War.
These military photographers also document their fellow soldiers' journeys home, even if that journey is made inside a flag-draped coffin.
Why do I bring this up?
Can we now finally put to rest the canard that the Pentagon filmed the rescue of Jessica Lynch for some kind of nefarious propaganda purposes? It was just not that unusual to have that mission filmed. And plenty of the people who implied otherwise damn well knew better.


For those of us who don't know, what is the 'dead tree Times'?
Posted by: Gordon Daugherty | April 24, 2004 at 10:11 AM
For those of us who don't know, what is the 'dead tree Times'? Each newspaper means someone killed a tree?
Posted by: Gordon Daugherty | April 24, 2004 at 10:16 AM
Sorry -- just means paper as opposed to cyber. As in, "how many trees did they kill for that . . ." No idea where either term originated, actually.
Posted by: dauber | April 24, 2004 at 12:30 PM
By the way, this isn't limited to newspapers. We use this terminology in meetings. "How many trees were killed for this memo?" Like that.
Posted by: dauber | April 24, 2004 at 12:38 PM
"Can we now finally put to rest the canard that the Pentagon filmed the rescue of Jessica Lynch for some kind of nefarious propaganda purposes?"
I doubt it.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 24, 2004 at 05:29 PM