Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 17:47, dante@umich.edu wrote: Capa, Ernie Pile etc. were not embedded with a particular unit. They could move around as they wanted, jumping from unit to unit as they chose. They were certified by the Allied forces as press photographers and if I remember correctly their photos had to be screened by censors. So, yes, their work was screened, but they weren't attached to a particular unit like PJ's were during Gulf War II. After Vietnam the Pentagon decided to clamp down on the freedom of the press in war zones. They didn't want news crews broadcasting daily action directly into living rooms across America. I remember the coverage of Gulf War I being very, very clean, as was that of the sequel. I am in no way knocking the guys and girls who went into Iraq. many of them paid with their lives and it takes a lot of balls to do what they did. Someone please jump in if the above information is incorrect. Feli > > And I'm sorry - someone remind me of how Capa bought it - embedded with > soldiers? Not like he was wandering around Asia by himself. And let's not > forget that Nachtwey (put your tongues away) and his editor Weisskopf were > themselves the guests of the military (that was a Humvee there were riding in). > Your heroes Duncan, Capa, Smith, &c were all what they would call embedded > journalists. And I'm almost sure that the controls on the press were just as > tight in WWII, Korea or Indochina. If it weren't for "embedding" (new term, > old concept), you'd be pretty lucky to have any coverage at all. Being > embedded vs. not is not a matter of ethics - it is a matter of > self-preservation. People aren't exactly breaking down the doors to do > coverage without cover. - -- - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html