91Èȱ¬

Depicting the reality of conflict is probably beyond the range of any photograph, but a good picture can at least capture something of the experience of those involved.

The recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have often been seen through the eyes of video images captured by military hardware. Guided missiles record their last moments until impact, all very clever, but obviously they fail to capture the destruction and death they cause.

Photographers on the ground are usually embedded with troops, and that comes with a long list of engagement rules. There are things you can and can't photograph and occasionally a .

There is currently a row in the US surrounding a picture taken by (AP) photographer Julie Jacobson whilst on patrol with US marines in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.

Jacobson's picture shows the moment after Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard, aged 21, was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush on 14 August. Bernard was transported by helicopter to Camp Leatherneck where he later died of his wounds.

The picture is one of a sequence taken in mid-August that shows the marines on patrol and their engagement in a firefight with the Taliban.

The photograph was taken from a distance but the AP decided to hold off publication until after Bernard was buried.

When the picture was shown before publication to Bernard's family, his father objected, saying it was disrespectful. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates also wrote a strongly worded letter to AP President and CEO Tom Curley, saying it was a matter of "judgment and common decency" not to use the photo.

In response, AP senior managing editor, John Daniszewski, said he respected Gates' view but that sometimes the government and press had different perspectives. "We thought that the image told a story of sacrifice; it told a story of bravery," Daniszewski added in a later statement. "We believe this image is part of the history of this war. The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice."

A check by AP on Friday found the story had been published on at least 20 newspaper front pages, though the picture was only used, if at all, on the inside pages.

We have not reproduced the picture here as the family have made it clear they don't want it to be shown. Using images of death, or in this case the moment that caused death, is something covered by our editorial guidelines.

It's true to say that war by its very nature is distressing and to only see one side of a conflict can give a false impression. Look back through the pictures of the last century's many wars and you will find many photographs like this one, the war in Vietnam being a prime example, yet there are few that have been published in the West in recent times.

You do of course have to be mindful of those pictured and their families, and show respect. The photographer did indeed show all the images to Bernard's comrades who had no objection to them being published.

Photographer , who has worked in many conflict zones, said in an interview on the 91Èȱ¬ World Service that:

"You are there to do a job to depict the reality of a situation and war is dirty, messy and results in huge loss of life. Therefore you sometimes question what you are doing there when the editors that have sent you don't publish the images which have been taken at great risk to one's personal life, but also when I have been with soldiers they also do their utmost to secure you from incoming fire."

There is also the political angle. One can understand why depicting the death of a soldier would be opposed by governments, yet pictures showing dead enemy combatants are released by the same governments - one notable example being the pictures of Saddam Hussein's sons from 2003.

There's no right and wrong answer on this one.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?