Okay, I'm still in New York. But it feels pretty global, does that count?
Yesterday was a little academic - I went to a few lectures at NYC on coverage of the 2004 election; a little touristy - I went to an Aztec art exhibit at the Guggenheim; and a little old-friend-catch-up-y - I had lunch with (well, I'll leave out his name so I can give him a link) the author of Neo Tokyo Times.
One of the things mentioned during the academic part of my day was the New York Times cover photo from yesterday's paper (can't find it, or I'd post it). It depicted some U.S. Marines practicing medical evacuations, etc, preparing for potential Fallujah casualties. One panelist made the point that the NYT was editorializing already just by choosing that particular photo. Surely, U.S. forces were also drilling down heroic marching patterns or practicing bombing things. It was a pretty dark photo. I had noted it myself that morning - though not as a commentary on the paper's editorial decision making for the front page.
By now, of course, you see why the discussion interests a blogger with a site name playing on photography. Of course, image football has been a journalistic, punditry pastime since the war started. Images of coffins, of injured soldiers, etc. So here's a photo of soldiers who aren't even injured yet. They're fine. But it strikes a creepy cord because - well, shoot - think about what they are prepping for.
So is the New York Times just beating the liberal bias drum or are they showing truth? This IS what soldiers practice. Is it all they practice? No. But I bet it sells more papers. Your thoughts?
[On a personal photo note: Yours truly was in a pretty cool photo in Wednesday's USA Today. I can't find the image online, but at the very least, I'll scan it in and get it up soon. In the meantime, on the off chance you have, or can get ahold of, extra copies of the Nov 5 USA Today, save it for me. Page A3, or 3A or however they paginate.]