Photoshopping History

[Deleted]

This isn't a matter of how you feel about climate change or politics. This is a matter of how you feel about disfiguring arguably the most memorable photograph in American history.

www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080417171532.aspx

[mickeyobe]

I have never been in the military nor am I an American but I feel very strongly that to use that great picture in the way that Time has is a desecration.

Mickey

[Deleted]

Mickey. Joe Rosenthal shot the photo with a Speed Graphic. He won the Pulitzer Prize for the photo. Actually a smaller flag had been raised and photographed a few minutes earlier..

A couple of years ago I met a Japanese man who lives on Okinawa who was on Iwo Jima--in the '60s or '70s when Rosenthal returned for several days to participate in some sort of program. Said he got to know Rosenthal pretty well and they corresponded for several years. Wouldn't that be something, to have known him, or Robert Capa or David Douglas Duncan?

[PeterW]

Whoever thought up the idea for that cover picture obviously doesn't care, or has forgotten, that the men and women who died in World War II died in order that he/she would have the freedom to publish insensitive pictures like this.

Richard Stengel, Time's Managing Editor is quoted as saying: "So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so."

Indeed yes, Richard. But just say so. You got your publicity, but I feel that cover may prove to be a serious error of judgement.

Feeling strongly is a weak excuse for irresponsibly riding roughshod over the feelings and sensibilities of many of your readers.

Perhaps I also made an error of judgement. I used to think, as I'm sure did thousands of others, that Time was a responsible magazine.

PeterW

[Deleted]

The surveys show the main readers of newspaperas and magazines are older people. Circulation for all the National daily newspapers and weekly news magazines is plummeting. The younger readers get all their info on line or on TV. And who is likely to be the most upset about using this photo in this fashion? Yep. Older people. TIME seems to have a death wish. Frankly the material in all those weekly news magazines is so dated by the time they hit the street I surprised anyone still subscribes. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the last gasp of a dying TIME.

[nikkortorokkor]

Interesting topic!

I'm sure I've seen Rosenthal's iconic image retouched to various effects before, but cannot for the life of me think of one now.

It is interesting that it is a cause not particularly near and dear to uber conservatives that has raised accusations of sacrilege. I mean no disrespect to veterans, but I think that various Veterans Associations around the globe provide goldmines for right of centre political parties and/or interest groups looking for good sound bytes expressing conservative indignation.

I recently watched Clint Eastwood's excellent brace of Iwo Jima films and oddly, found "Flags of Our Fathers" somehow more sad even than "Letters Home From Iwo Jima" which told, in intimate detail, of the doomed Japanese defense of Japan's farthest-flung outpost. The photo seemed to steamroller right over the lives of those who participated in its production, including Rosenthal himself, the flag raisers and the raisers of the 1st flag. Even a casual perusal of the history books (or wikipedia) will show that the Time cover is only the latest in a whole bunch of controversy surrounding the Iwo Jima flag.

The three survivors of the raising were whisked of the island to take part int he 7th war bond drive after FDR himself saw the picture and realized its marketing potential. It is not until we remember that the photo appeared on 3.5 million war bond posters that we remind ourselves that is not only an iconic photo, but an iconic advertising image also. The message outlived the War, and, in what some might regard as manufactured tradition, has come to represent the American War in the Pacific and, of course, the Marines themselves. One might argue that what Time did was infringe on brand copyright!

The steamroller effect of iconic (war) images is not confined to WWII or Iwo Jima. I remember reading a fascinating interview where Eddie Adams described the effect of "The Vietcong express" on the life of Nguyen Ngoc Loan, the Westpoint trained South Vietnamese General immortalized as a street executioner.

Was Time's cover a marketing mistake? Coincidentally, I just listened to a media analyst discussing the falling sales of print media. He suggested that newspapers and magazines might need to abandon the perceived objectivity that has been the sacred cow of 20th century news reportage and go back to the honest-to-God subjectivity of 19th century papers. As someone whose research takes me deep into the world of nineteenth century journalism, I can confirm that those guys wore their biases on their shirt sleeves!

And so it is today on the WWW and the blogisphere where the young-uns get their news, e.g., the right of centre businessandmedia.org site that reported Time's blasphemy with such righteous glee. I guess the mistake will be proved if the Times' bit of photoshopping violates the sense of personal ownership with which people regard Rosenthal's photo.

Sorry about the length, just a top-of-my-head response.

Here's another, slightly more subversive reworking of Rosenthal's theme:

presscue.com/node/31102/

very naughty.

[Reiska]

An interesting topic, thus not strictly a photographic but one step beyond as it should. I try to bring a balanced opinion to this discussion. I beg you pardon, but I have never been good at it.

Some time ago we had arguments about an animation were our national hero, marshal G.E. Mannerheim was presented as a homosexual . It was a desecration and a scandal for most of us. A dispute was extraordinarily aggressive. The consequences of the Mohamed cartoons came to my mind. I would have never believed, that the even-tempered and pacific Finns could act such a way. I have collaborated with a disabled war veterans over 25 years and I have noticed, that the understanding, more than the hate against the enemy is a prevailing attitude. They think, that the war is always a disaster for the both sides. An individual soldier is often not more than a pawn.
Using that famous picture this way is a desecration, it is commercial, it is aggravating, provocative, eye-catching or clever. How it looks is totally depending on what is it’s symbolic meaning or message to a spectator. I think, that many Japanese could have mixed feelings, bringing them back memories of the disaster and agony of that time. The war is different for the winner. Tell me the war which is started by a people who think that the reason is unjust or wrong. As usual I might have thrown this conversation on the sidetrack. Don't blame me, blame my bad English.

Reijo /F.L.

[olroy2044]

Reijo: Your English is more than up to the task. Well Said! Thank you. Roy

[Deleted]

I have no problem with members of the media, liberal or conservative who "wear their beliefs on their shirt sleeves." What I cannot abide are those who claim to be objectives while using their publications to further specific agendas.

My outrage probably comes from the fact that I am first and foremost a student of history. And I firmly believe that if we ignore lessons of history we surely will repeat the mistakes of previous generations only on a large scale.

I have never been a Marine. But the photo of the flag raising IS the Marines and a testament to the sacrifices members of the Corps have made. There is even a huge replica of the photo in the form of a statue near Arlington cemetery. Without those sacrifices 60 plus years ago, large portions of the world probably wouldn't be free to criticize how the world is being run today.

It is easy now to sit back and say the photo was an advertising icon used to sell war bonds but I'm guessing people who believe that was the only meaning of the photo are too young to remember the state of the world in those days or have never had any serious conversations with people alive at that time. It is very easy to reinterpret events 60 years after the fact and add a "spin" that supports your point of view.

Michael. As to the photo of soldiers allegedly holding up oil pumps, while I may not agree with it, since it is not a corrupted version of Rosenthal's actual photograph, I have no problem with the fact that someone created it.

[nikonbob]

I think it does a disservice to the Marine Corps just as the cartoons of Mohamed did to Islam. There are just some things that should not be taken lightly and seemingly ridiculed no matter how witty to some.

Bob

[alexkerhead]

I can understand why they did that to such a wonderful photograph, so I am not quite as disgusted by it; however, they could have done it without using the original image as a base. Time magazine is running out of time, as magazines become more biased and commercialized, people stop reading them.

I think it was easy for them to massacre history, because they don't give a crap about it. It is the new-world mentality that old is bad, forget about it or throw it away. Simpler and cheaper is the new way of things, and it is NOT just young people doing this, even a lot of 50yo+ people I know and converse with have the new mentality of "old is bad". Honestly, a lot of young folks get it from their parents, seeing them buy a new car every three years, change houses every 5 years, etc. This sets a bad example for young folks who need to know that cheaper and simpler makes for their seemingly pathetic intellects.

As far as a photographic standpoint, they weren't even creative enough to make something without using something classic.
It is absurd that anyone could surmise this would be a good idea.

I am not a scholar of history, but I like to know enough to keep myself aware of things.

If you want to touch on the history of that photo, you could listen to several songs about it(ex. Ballad of Ira Hayes), etc.

As history is slowly being stripped from high school in turn for more complex mathematics and sciences, we will one day see a less compassionate world, but one bent on efficiency and fast life. For instance about history lessons, my mother took world history, American history, honor's history, and geography; but she only took Regular Algebra. I myself took only world history and a tiny amount of social studies; but I took Algebra III with Trigonometry.

Seems to me history comes in more handy than Algebra III.. Hopefully one day the pendulum will swing back into the medium and we can start working this all out again, but until then, what is a 22yo like me to do? I guess just learn as much as I can from the people who know(ex. you guys here at TCC) and try to preserve as much as I can.

[olroy2044]

Bravo!! Well said, Alex. If us old f***s can foster that attitude in our younger folks, the future is in secure hands! Keep it up! Roy