or does a photograph convey truth regardless? but which truth? and in who's favour?
'World War III will be a guerrilla information war, with no division between military and civilian participation.'
-- Marshall McLuhan
Sat, May 07, 05
Letter to the Irish Times:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0507/index.html#1113002080082
Madam, - The photograph of the US officer holding a wounded Iraqi child is certainly emotionally provocative. While I am not suggesting that the picture is a fake, or that the child was neither wounded nor subsequently died, I am curious about the rationale behind publishing such a poignant image, given its source and the associated propaganda value.
The US army is cited as an associated source for the picture taken by former special forces soldier Michael Yon, who now describes himself as an author and who is currently "embedded" with the US Army Stryker Brigade in Iraq.
Even a fleeting glance at Mr Yon's blog website would demonstrate its propaganda value for the US army. - Yours, etc,
GEORGE SWEENEY, Derry City.
-- -- --
→ Photo syndicated by Associated Press: http://tinyurl.com/dw8fc
From a Mil Blog for the Stryker Brigade (not official .mil site)
''CORRECTION: We originally attributed the photo to the US Army. The photo was in fact taken by Michael Yon.''
http://www.strykernews.com/archives/2005/05/03/terrorist_attack_kills_two_iraqi_children_injures_15.html
FOX News interviews David Yon about the photo:
http://www.dvidshub.net/vids/0505/DOD_I05050501.wmv
The photo becomes positive Iraq news in the US
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=732523
Michael Yon's own Blog:
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com
Michael Yon writes about the photo....
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/05/little-girl.html