Army releases doctored photos of dead soldiers.
By on Sep 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Army releases doctored photos of dead soldiers.
The Kicker reports that “the Associated Press retracted two government-issued photographs last night after a photographer in Texas alerted the agency that the photos in question appeared to be doctored.” The photos depicted two U.S. soldiers, Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin, who both died in Iraq on September 14. Between the two photos, only the name, rank, and face of each soldier changes:
Bob Owen of the San Antonio Express-News, who first discovered the photos had been digitally altered, commented, “I’d like to think that the media holds itself pretty accountable and we try really hard to keep high standards. … Obviously the army, and the government, doesn’t see anything wrong with that [photo altering] at all.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Where’s the shame? Oh yeah, when it involves Iraq we put the Surge “smiley face” on it.
“USA, USA!!”
September 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pmWHAT?????? WTF?????
September 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pmIt seems like a dumb thing to do. Are you telling me that the military didn’t have an individual picture of each of these two lads that they could have used ? So why doctor a phono ?
September 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pmHere is three panel version of the above pic, where I included the difference of the photo with its modified version:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ngp/2871347010/
My heart goes out to the families of Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin, for both their lose and now this.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:48 pmJeez… How could one not tell that the photo had been doctored. I could tell even before I read the headline…
And why?
I just shake my head at the stupidity sometimes…
September 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pmPardon my ignorance. Why would they do this?
September 19th, 2008 at 5:51 pmThis is not the real world This my guess is that they either had only facial shots or group shots. Why not just send the facial shot or extract the facial image from the group with an explanation? Well, that would simply not be the Bush way of doing things. Why do something honestly when you can lie?
September 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pmI suspect a decision was made about the background that would project a “powerful and continuing expression of nationalism”, which is the 1st of the 14 Points of Fascism:
http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html
September 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pmSince the Pentagon is into photo doctoring, that gives me hope John McCain and Sarah Palin will like these photos:
September 19th, 2008 at 6:03 pmI think I can understand why this happened, and it wasn’t to lie, mislead, or obfuscate. No wrongdoing was intended.
It’s customary when someone in the armed forces dies in battle, the paper runs their portrait with their obituary. As a former Navy photographer, I can tell you that all recruits get their portraits taken (usually with a flag background) when they enter the service, and often when they advance in rank.
These soldiers should have had such portraits in their personnel file. It might be that because of some snafu, these portraits were lost, or may not have been taken in the first place. Whoever did the Photoshopping probably did so because he/she wanted their obits to have pictures similar to the portraits of other soldiers.
There are a number of “should’ve” things going on here. The official portraits should’ve been taken. Better oversight on records should’ve happened, to ensure portraits were there when needed. The military should’ve explained to Associated Press that there were no official portraits available, and that these photos were retouch jobs with authentic faces (which AP could have run with a disclaimer).
Yes, it was wrong. But I doubt that mischief was the motive here.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:08 pmmissmolly. as usual, you make a good point.
I don’t have any background as a photographer, but it seemed possible that they had an official photo of one of the soldiers, but not one of the other.
Although, this seems strange, I imagined someone making a decision to take a civilian or casual photo of one and trying to make it comparable to the more official photo of the other.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:14 pmWhy?
September 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pmmaybe it’s my screen
but they did not do a
very good job with the
picture of the soldier
on the left.
^
a sad state of affairs.
#
September 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pmmisshusseinmolly @ 10
In normal circumstances I would agree with you, however, since there is evidence of this administration controlling everything that becomes public, no matter how trivial, I’m inclined to believe that this is part of some Pentagon program implemented under Bush/Cheney.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Yes, it was wrong. But I doubt that mischief was the motive here.
I do agree with you there. The person that did the photoshop job was probably just trying to do their job with what was available.
Good post, as always.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pmAnd the Army will run another cover up and no higher-up’s feet will EVER be held to the fire although they may sacrifice an enlisted person or two.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pmJust respect something, sometime, just once – people need to have reason to keep faith.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pmi’d say the DOD would do a bang up job at one of those green screen challenges…
September 19th, 2008 at 6:34 pmWait a minute, if the Pentagon thinks it’s ok to decieve
September 19th, 2008 at 6:36 pmby doctoring photos… You don’t think they would doctor other things, would they? Hmmmm? I think they would.
I don’t know a thing about photography, but even I saw that these photos are doctored. What was the point?
Why would they do such a thing — because they could? Does the Pentagon feel they can and will lie about everything?
September 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pmSaint Augustine Says
September 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
In normal circumstances I would agree with you, however, since there is evidence of this administration controlling everything that becomes public, no matter how trivial, I’m inclined to believe that this is part of some Pentagon program implemented under Bush/Cheney.
________________________________________________________
You raise an excellent point, and that is because this administration has lied to us about so many things — mostly for less than honorable motives — it’s tough to believe that ANY lie could have an innocent reason behind it.
Such is the danger when one pees into one’s own pool.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pmNot to throw cold water on the doctored photo issue, but take a close look at the uniforms. SSG Dawson is wearing E6 rank (as he should), while SGT Durbin is wearing E5 rank (no ‘rocker’). Additionally, SGT Durbin appears to be wearing a combat patch on his right shoulder, while SSG Dawson is not.
I’m not a fan of Cheney & his STASI either, but I’m not so certain they used the same ‘uniform’ shots.
P.S. When I went thru Army Basic Training in 1985, all of us new GIs took similar photos. And with the exception of our smiling faces, each and every one of them looked almost exactly the same . . .
September 19th, 2008 at 7:18 pmTheir faces don’t even look real. I don’t get this.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pmWhy are soldiers spending time photoshopping pics? Shouldn’t they be fighting a war or something, and not propogandizing? Isn’t a camera a more effective tool in the hands of a professional? OH, I FORGOT. The press wasn’t invited to this particular war.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:44 pmPeaceMonkey Says
September 19th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Why are soldiers spending time photoshopping pics? Shouldn’t they be fighting a war or something, and not propogandizing? Isn’t a camera a more effective tool in the hands of a professional? OH, I FORGOT. The press wasn’t invited to this particular war.
____________________________________________________
While I share your outrage about the press, I think you should know that the military DOES have “professional” photographers within their ranks, just as they have professional doctors, professional lawyers, and professional everything else.
I served my country as a Navy photographer (PH2) back in the 1970’s. It was our job to take portraits of military personnel and take grip-and-grin shots of awards ceremonies, but also to document accidents and equipment damage and photograph newsworthy events. I really didn’t think of my job as a frivolous waste of time. And I WAS a professional. That was my job, the one the military trained me for. And quite well, I might add — the Naval School of Photography was one of the highest rated institutions in the instruction of photography in the country.
So be mad about the lack of media in this war. Be mad at the ratio of news to propaganda we get. But please don’t diss military photographers.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:07 pmThat’s why those hi-neck t-shirts are GI.
you only gotta change above the shirt-line…
interchangeable c=ogs in the machine.
sez the former sarge…
September 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pmBe mad at the ratio of news to propaganda we get.
the ratio is one to one.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pmAll CorpoRat “news” is propaganda. It ALL “spins” the CoproRat line. In a CorpoRat State, corpoRat media ARE State Media. It just can’t be any other way…
It isn’t even that hard to make them more believable in Photoshop.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm“I’d like to think that the media holds itself pretty accountable and we try really hard to keep high standards.”
I hate to break it to ya, but no, you don’t. You wouldn’t know high standards if you ran into them.
The media have played the role of stenographers, and willing propagandists, more interested in keeping themselves in good terms with the Bush administration than in reporting facts.
Where were the San Antonio Express when the Bush administration lied about Iraq’s involvement in 9/11? Oh, that’s right: Busy helping this administration catapult the propaganda.
And now all of the sudden the media have use for facts? Please. I am tempted to think the only reason for their “outrage” is that they didn’t see a way to benefit financially and/or politically from this one lie.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:49 amsockmonkey – Take another look. And look closely at the uniforms! They have the exact folds in the exact places. Even shadowing is the same. That’s clearly the same uniform in both pics. The combat patch can be photosopped in, obviously. Or out as the case may be.
It’s the same uniform with the same folding and shadows.
September 20th, 2008 at 1:57 amAre you kidding me? Wake up. This war is fake. The reporting on it, fake. The justification, fake. STOP BUYING THIS SHIT PEOPLE. It is propaganda. We are being manipulated on multiple levels. This is completely unacceptable, and we should be marching in the streets. Not for this picture, but for this war, and the manipulated financial collapse, and yes, because 9/11 was engineered to facilitate it all. WAKE UP. WAKE UP. Before it is too late.
September 20th, 2008 at 2:25 amCal Malenky Says:
It isn’t even that hard to make them more believable in Photoshop.
I don’t think the Republicans put much stock into learning the in’s and out’s of computer imaging software…or just about any real tech that doesn’t come with Computer Professor as the default guide.
When Iran can pull the wool over the network’s eyes with their photoshop efforts, that makes this effort look like preschool finger painting.
September 20th, 2008 at 3:14 amYou are ignoring the real issue here.
These soldiers did NOT die in battle!
Look at their names and date of death. Read the news!!!!!
http://www.examiner.com/r-2306486~CNN___Dad__Army_Won_t_Tell_Me_Who_Killed_My_Boy.html
They were killed, probably at the hands of another soldier. A suspect has been taken into custody and these deaths are being investigated. This is another Tillman or Lynch or Johnson situation where the military is desperate to make heroes by falsifying the images. I doubt if either of them was photographed in front of a large flag.
Are these even the right faces? Were they special ops? What did they do to irritate a fellow soldier? Was the killing justifiable?
So while we notice the all-too-obvious photoshopping, the distraction, the real shame and the real story lies somewhere else. We know from bitter experience that the military will lie even to the families of the slain.
Notice this: photo not available!
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2008/sep/14/darris–j-dawson/
The truth won’t be available nay time soon, either.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:04 amI agree w/ sockmonkey. I see the edge of a combat patch on the right sleeve of SGT Durbin also. These photos are gonna look a lot alike because they ARE a lot alike. And when mine was taken, I don’t think a digital camera was used at all. I could be wrong, but that’s never happened before and I’d hate to start a negative trend now. =)
Hi Zooey, LTNS!
September 20th, 2008 at 9:28 am…
…
I can’t imagine someone would do this maliciously, but it really makes one say “WTF?”…
As others have pointed out, they take photos for their file so why would this be needed???
September 20th, 2008 at 9:37 amSgt Higgins… Says:
I agree w/ sockmonkey… And when mine was taken, I don’t think a digital camera was used at all.
Whether or not a digital camera was used is irrelevant. The photos, whether prints, slides, or negatives, could have been digitally scanned later.
I suggest looking at the link in comment #4, which shows the difference between the two photos. Obviously both are derived from a single original photo.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:20 amIt should be noted that only the photo on the left appears to have been altered, placing the head ofthe African-American soldier on the white soldiers’ body.
In the right photo, you can see the slight shadow around his collar, which is absent in the photo on the left. Both uniforms are identical down to the creases at the elbow and where the background meets the pattern.
The big question then is, “why alter the photo on the left”?
September 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pmWes is dead and ya’ll focusing on the stupid picture! stop! He was a good man! and a good friend!!
September 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm