New Afghanistan Embed Rule Bars Photographing Troops Killed In Action
By Donald R. Winslow
© 2009 News Photographer magazine
BAGRAM, AFGHANISTAN (October 14, 2009) – After several days of confusion over whether the military's embed rules about photographing troops killed in action in Afghanistan have changed or not, the U.S. military command in Bagram on Wednesday confirmed that is has banned journalists who are embedded with their forces in eastern Afghanistan from videotaping or photographing soldiers who are killed in action.
U.S. Army Master Sgt. Thomas Clementson, a spokesman for Regional Command East, told News Photographer magazine tonight that commanders in Afghanistan are "trying to strike a balance" with the new policy.
The change in the embed rules about photographing KIAs comes only a few weeks after a Pentagon uproar – raised chiefly by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates – after the Associated Press distributed a picture of U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard when he was mortally wounded by a rocket-propelled grenade that was fired against him by insurgents during a battle in Afghanistan's Helmand province.
In an eMail late tonight to News Photographer magazine, Master Sgt. Clementson explained how Regional Command East was able to change the rules of embedding.
"Each command in Afghanistan begins with a base document that derives from the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense], ISAF [International Security Assistance Force], and other higher command directed ground rules. The regional and task force level commanders may then add additional rules (but not take away) in order to clarify specific points and/or adapt to unit mission requirements," Clementson said.
"The comments relating to imagery of wounded service members and service members killed in action are a change to provide clarification of previous rules," the Master Sgt. told News Photographer. "Media have multiple ways to cover the war in Afghanistan and embedding is only one of the choices available. The press retains the option to report independently or as a media embed with military forces. When a reporter chooses to embed they are given unique and intimate access to our service members in a combat zone, which requires certain limits and rules be established to facilitate coverage and protect our forces. There are cases however, when protecting the privacy of our service members and propriety take precedence over media access," Clementson said.
"It is important to remember that embedding is a reporter's choice and that embedded access does come with some limitations," Clementson said. He stressed for those who might object to the new embed agreement's ban on photographing KIAs, "Embedding is only one of the ways a reporter can cover this war. Many come in and do so independently. Some even informally embed with our enemy."
The public affairs officer went on to clarify for News Photographer magazine, "The simple fact is that any journalist, while working independently can certainly collect imagery in Regional Command East and publish it with whomever chooses to purchase those images and that includes images of service members killed in action."
The ground rules are not intended as censorship, Clementson said, but are to protect the privacy of soldiers. "As a living Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine could tell an embedded journalist not to photograph them and [they could] decline an interview, what protection do they have while incapacitated or dying? This is not the final image they would choose to leave with their families."
In the new embed rules for Regional Command East that Clementson provided to News Photographer tonight, dated 30 September 2009, the language is succinct and specific:
"14. Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action."
Earlier in the day, Clementson told reporter John Donnelly of Congressional Quarterly magazine, "While the publication of Lance Cpl. Bernard's photos was certainly a factor, a clarification was needed in order to balance the level of unique and intimate access give to reporters who choose to embed while also protecting the privacy of our service members and maintaining a reasonable level of propriety."
The photograph of Lance Cpl. Bernard that so incensed the Secretary of Defense was not, by the way, within the Regional Command East's territory where the new ban has now been put into place.
It's not yet clear whether the ban will be implemented in all regions of Afghanistan, or also in Iraq, for as of today it's only spelled out in the language in the embed agreement that's being used by Regional Command East in Afghanistan. But according to Clementson, each regional task force commander is free to make the same change they've now implemented in eastern Afghanistan.
QUESTIONS ABOUT A possible change in the eastern region's embed agreement came to the National Press Photographers Association's attention within the past two weeks when an American photographer for a large daily national newspaper, an NPPA member, landed in Afghanistan. He was surprised to discover the embed agreement contained a significant change from the one he'd signed on a previous Afghanistan trip. In the Regional Command East Ground Rules issued by the military at Bagram Air Field, and given to him at that time, Item #11 had been changed to say:
"11. Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action."
As he remembered, and then verified when he checked his old paperwork, the previous embed agreement said, "Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties" as long as the photographs were not published or released prior to the Department of Defense notifying the troop's next of kin.
When the photojournalist brought the changed language to the attention of his managers back in the States – editors who never would have sent him to Afghanistan if those were indeed the conditions – their conversations with the military, Pentagon, and Department of Defense officials in Washington led them to conclude that the embed agreement had been changed by a lone officer who did not have the authority to do so, and that shortly the documents would revert back to their original wording.
Sources told News Photographer magazine last week that a public affairs officer for one of the regions in Afghanistan was responsible for making the changes, and that the alteration had been done "in theater" without the knowledge or approval of his commanders back in Washington, so at that time most of the editors who were looking into the altered agreement came to believe that it was a "non-issue" and that it had been resolved.
But then this week the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press picked up on the document's changed language and RCFP posted four paragraphs about it under the blog tag "Prior Restraint." Today an industry trade magazine picked up on the RCFP post and cited it, and then later Wednesday afternoon Donnelly published his story on Congressional Quarterly's Web site after confirming the changed policy with Master Sgt. Clementson.
Julie Jacobson and AP followed the embed rules they were working under in the case of the much-discussed photograph of Lance Cpl. Bernard. The picture of the fatally-wounded Marine, shot by Jacobson on August 14, 2009, was part of a package of stories and photographs AP distributed on September 4, 2009, three weeks after Bernard was killed. "Death Of A Marine" was embargoed for 24 hours after it was distributed as well, so that editors had time to discuss and consider what they might pick to publish from the collection.
Today News Photographer magazine asked the head of AP photos about whether they've been informed of the embed agreement's changed language and the ban on photographing KIA troops, and what they're doing about it. Santiago Lyon would only refer News Photographer to AP spokesperson Paul Colford's quote of yesterday: "We have queried the Pentagon about the photo rules and have been told that the matter is being reviewed."
TOUGH PICTURES. The former head of AP photos, retired picture editor Hal Buell, wrote about Jacobson's photograph and other "difficult" images from war and terrorism in the October issue of News Photographer magazine ("Tough Pictures," page 36). In his essay, Buell explains how sometimes the pictures themselves from World War II, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the public's reaction, makes news.
"The picture of Cpl. Bernard on the ground was used by only a few newspapers but its appearance started a dustup on the Internet of a proportion not seen in some time," Buell wrote in News Photographer.
"America Online carried more than 3,000 comments, the Huffington Post more than 2,200. Reactions were mixed: some sided with AP’s decision to distribute while others described AP’s decision as heartless and, in [Defense Secretary] Gates’ word, appalling. ... It is not uncommon for pictures of this kind to draw vigorous reader reaction. While there is a pattern to these reactions, each picture has its own peculiar twist."
"It is my personal observation that in the long history of such pictures, Jacobson's photograph is neither more nor less graphic than many others of this kind," Buell said. "Recall the horrific pictures of so many photographs from Vietnam of the wounded and the dead, the body bags lined up alongside helicopters, medics patching up the wounded, the bloody and bandaged helping others who were bloody and bandaged."
Vietnam was the most photographed war in history, Buell says, not only because of the duration of the conflict but also because of the incredible access photographers had to the battle, the lack of censorship, and because there was a much greater loss of life and injury in that war than in today's campaign.
"Compared to Vietnam, pictures of the dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have been rare," he said.
A New York Times story by Michael Kamber and Tim Arango in 2008 revealed just how rare these pictures have been.
"After five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers," they wrote.
"While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins, the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy," the Times story said.
When AP released the Jacobson photograph of the dying Marine, Defense Secretary Gates slammed AP president and CEO Thomas Curley and called AP's decision "appalling" and a breach of "common decency." The AP responded to Gates by saying the picture "conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it."
While World War II military censors prevented photographs of fallen Americans from being published (until George Strock's Life magazine photo of dead American soldiers on Buna Beach in 1943, when the government encouraged Life to publish because they wanted to stir the American people's support of the war and motivate them to once again buy War Bonds), and Pentagon censors kept graphic photographs of dead Americans or Iraqis – soldiers or civilians – from being seen back home during the first Gulf War, it's not clear whether photographers have ever before been told that they're banned from even shooting such pictures. The language in today's new Afghanistan embed agreement specifically says, "Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action," meaning taking the picture in the first place, never mind publishing it.
About how the public has reacted recently to photographs of war's fallen, Buell also points out that in Strock's picture in Life, the dead soldiers in the surf were anonymous, but in Jacobson's photograph of Lance Cpl. Bernard it was of a particular Marine who was well identified in the accompanying stories and multimedia slideshow.
"Readers came to know a great deal about Bernard's personal life, family, and history, and armed with that information reacted with more emotion," Buell concluded.
"This new embed rule goes back to the World War II censorship rules of combat coverage – no pictures of dead allied soldiers – a rule that was discarded because the homefront was becoming complacent and needed to know the price of allied victories at the time," Buell told News Photographer magazine this week. "Way back then the Washington leadership sensed the need for free and unfettred information, a lesson lost on contemporary 'rule makers.' At least, back then, they called it what it was: censorship."
During the first Gulf War under the administration of George H.W. Bush, military censors banned and prevented graphic photos from reaching American viewers, and during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan the administration of George W. Bush continued the long-standing ban on photographing dead American soldiers' flag-drapped caskets as they returned home to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.
But a change came this year with the new Barack Obama administration: the Dover ban was lifted and in April the media was once again allowed to photograph the return of remains if and when the troop's next of kin give permission for press coverage. U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers, killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, was the first Dover return witnessed by the media and seen by American viewers. NPPA was one of several press organizations who lobbied for the Dover ban to be lifted.
NPPA Marketplace
- Insure Your Equipment
- You go where the action is….so should your insurance! Hays delivers comprehensive insurance for your gear - covering cameras, computers, editing equipment and rental.
- Join the NPPA
- NPPA members receive a wide range of benefits, from educational opportunities to mentoring, exclusive discounts, insurance options, business tips, and much more.