The War Photo No One Would Publish Summary

When the public is informed about the shortcomings of war, rarely are they shown lavishly graphic imagery, unless one has personally sought it out. This probable notion of censorship is the issue raised by Torie Rose Deghett in the article “The War Photo No One Would Publish”. Deghett introduces the reader to a potentially unfamiliar and graphic image taken during the Gulf War by photographer Kenneth Jarecke. The mere description of this image is distressing and leads to Deghett’s main argument, where she questions if broadcasting images of this nature are necessary in order to keep the public informed. Throughout the piece, Daghett appears mainly in favor of allowing these images to be present in the media, throughout describing how the

An editorial decision was made “...to remove an image of dead passengers from an online story...and replace them with photos of mechanical wreckage.” (Daghett 2) Yet Daghett’s opinion on the removal of this photo differs greatly from her opinion on the blocking of Jarecki’s photo. Daghett agrees that the photo was removed for “...valid ethical reasons...” (Daghett 2) and strengthens her argument by examining the difference between censoring that photo and photos like Jarecke's stating, “Not every gruesome photo reveals an important truth about conflict and combat...Sometimes though, omitting an image means shielding the public from the messy, imprecise consequences of war- making the coverage incomplete and even deceptive.” (Daghett 2) This reflection shows that Daghett does not want graphic imagery to be shown merely for shock value, but rather that she believes it has an instrumental role in keeping the public informed and aware. While a noble thought, there are many questions that can be raised from this sentiment. For example, what would factor into determining what photos are necessary or unnecessary for the public to see? And furthermore, is there really a plausible way to keep news outlets from using certain imagery to push their own narrative or agenda? There both reasonable and unreasonable

Effectively, Daghett communicates that the myths spread about the humanitarianism of the Gulf War could quickly be dispelled by this single photograph. She then informs the reader about the intense restrictions placed on the press, “...by the time the Gulf War started, the Pentagon had developed access policies that drew on press restrictions used in the U.S. wars in Grenada and Panama in the 1980s.” (Daghett 3) This information greatly bolsters Daghett’s argument as it leaves the reader wondering what information and imagery has been kept from them and why? Throughout the next few paragraphs Daghett is able to prey on the reader’s sympathies, by using examples of the extreme lengths photographers went to, so as to capture the war through their lenses. For example, Daghett states “Gravitational forces multiplied the weight of his cameras- so much so that if he had ever needed to eject from the plane, his equipment could have snapped his neck.” (Daghett 4) She builds off of this momentum by then explaining how invisible these photographs are to the American people, only further excruciating the measures taken to get said photographs. Daghett’s description of the determination of the photographers, and the potential intrigue of unseen photographs may lead the reader to be more partial to Daghett’s argument that these photos