AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo

djupedal notes a story up at the BBC about the Associated Press's suspension of the use of Department of Defense photos after a photo of General Ann Dunwoody was found to have been altered (before and after comparison). "The Pentagon has become embroiled in a row after the US Army released a photo of a general to the media which was found to have been digitally altered. Ann Dunwoody was shown in front of the US flag but it later emerged that this background had been added. The Associated Press news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defense photos. 'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,' said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography."

Unadultered Alterations

[hagardtroll (562208)]

The alterations of of images transposed from within the confines of allocated semiconductor memory is a travesty of trustworthiness that makes on think of the simpler days of the chemical process for capturing images and storage on layered flexible devices. Those recollections also recoup melancholy days of sipping the Tranya amidst the family on late autumn holidays. One weeps for what this has become.

Re:Unadultered Alterations

[jcr (53032)]

Strange how they don't have any issues at all publishing altered photos from Hezbollah

Actually, they do have an issue with it, and they're very embarrassed about getting suckered by the perps. That's why they're so touchy about it now.

-jcr

Re:Unadultered Alterations

[postbigbang (761081)]

Gosh, the DoD and White House pay for news all the time. They pay for commentators, pundits, and so on. Your tax dollars at work in the propaganda war.

The flag 'shop was amusing. I though they might give her bigger [censored by the US Department of Homeland Security]

My eyes, they burn!

[Chaos Incarnate (772793)]

That's not only altered, but altered badly. You'd think the US armed forces could afford to hire a decent graphic designer!

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

Actually, I was thinking exactly the opposite. If that original really was that blurry and grainy, and the Photoshop artist made it that sharp and natural looking, it was an incredible job. I'm staring at it, and I don't even know why you would think it was bad. The head is too sharp against the flag?

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm staring at it, and I don't even know why you would think it was bad.

That's automatic. Post any photo that's known to have been photoshopped and someone will always say how bad it is. It's guaranteed. The effect works even with pictures that have not been altered.

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[esme (17526)]

The original looks bad because it's a low-res version, and the altered version looks better because it's a hi-res version from AP. The bad photoshopping is how completely synthetic the flag looks. It doesn't even look passably real. A decent photoshop would at least use a real picture of a flag with similar lighting to the original photo, so the contrast between the subject and background is so jarring it's obviously been altered.

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

In order to protect the public right to be informed, and in light of the Department of Defenses demonstration that they have no moral qualms about releasing doctored photos, we've decided that we're not going to show you anything they release whatsoever. In order to protect you, the citizen, and your right to be informed. Now, please pay attention as this airbrushed supermodel tells you how wonderful Coke is.

For $DEITYs sake

[RMH101 (636144)]

It's a promo picture: it's practically a logo. Head and shoulders photo alphablended with a neat background. It's not like they were misleading anyone. Do you think the AP logo on their website is a photo? It's a graphical design rather than photo reportage we're talking about here.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[dsoltesz (563978)]

Yeah, I have to agree with this... I think AP is being pissy for pissy's sake. It's a simple portait (possibly because there's no professional portrait available?) intended to do nothing but show what she looks like. And frankly, a professional portrait done in a studio would have been touched up too. This photo is not trying to capture an event or otherwise document anything really at all. I can guess what happened because I've done it -- grab a person in the hall, take a photo of them, Photoshop into a pretty head shot for their web page or whatever.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[kremvax (307366)]

But it's not being used as a logo. It's being used to identify a person.

"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography.

You know, if the army is "promoting" her, in a literal and figurative sense, would it have been so hard to send someone around with a camera and take a decent picture of her in front of a flag?

Photoshoppery from my government, even if it's just to make our leadership appear more endearing to the masses, is a bad habit at the very least.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

What is the difference between setting up a stage with a flag on it and getting her to sit there for a photograph, and getting her to sit in her office for a photo and adding the flag later? Both are synthetic environments.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[Rary (566291)]

What is the difference between setting up a stage with a flag on it and getting her to sit there for a photograph, and getting her to sit in her office for a photo and adding the flag later?

The main difference is the assumption of consent from the subject.

If the person was photographed in front of the flag, then anyone receiving a copy of the photo can assume that the subject consented to being photographed in front of the flag. If the flag was digitally added after the fact, the recipient of the photo cannot make that assumption.

In this particular case, it's unlikely that the subject would have objected to being photographed in front of a flag, but that's not really the point. The point is that if this image is allowed, what other retouched images could be allowed? Here's a portrait shot of the general in front of a flag. Here she is holding a copy of the Koran. Here she is shaking Osama Bin Laden's hand. Oh sure, we retouched it a little, but it's okay. We just wanted to show her in a particular setting. There's nothing wrong with that, as it's just a portrait, not a description of events.

If the subject would not have consented to the photograph being physically staged as such, then it's not necessarily an accurate representation of that person. So, even though this particular case is pretty minor (at least, most of us think it is, but there may be others who disagree), and even though my last example was somewhat exaggerated to make the point, the best way to eliminate this kind of subjective judgement of each photograph is to simply ban any and all modified images.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

Think about this logically. She is from the military. They are primarily liberals. Therefore they ~HATE the military.

Fuck you.

No, seriously, fuck you.

I am a liberal. I am a veteran. Most of my family and friends are also liberals, and many of them are also veterans. Those of us who are veterans are proud of our service, and those who aren't are proud of us for having served. None of us hate the military.

I am a Democrat, and I among my fellow Democrats I do not encounter hatred of the military. What I encounter is respect for my service and -- frequently -- the bond of meeting a fellow vet, who is also proud of having served, as well as a committment to cleaning up the mess that conservative chickenhawks have made of the country over the last eight years. You know, the people who "support the troops," but God forbid they or their kids should ever actually serve a day in uniform or hear a shot fired in anger.

Liberals hate the military? In many cases, we are the military. See, one of the great things about the military is that it's pretty much a cross-section of the country. Liberal and conservative and libertarian, black and white and Asian and Hispanic, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist and Hindu and every other religion you can think of -- you will find all of these, in every possible combination, serving America. Which is, when you come right down to it, a pretty liberal phenomenon in itself.

You, I expect, have lived your entire life surrounded by people pretty much just like you, and you're perfectly happy in your little comfort bubble where "the troops" are heroic abstractions doing heroic things far, far away. I.e., a conservative chickenhawk, just like your heroes Bush and Cheney. Don't worry, you can keep doing that. People like me, and people unlike me, who can put their differences aside to agree on a common goal, will keep on defending your right to be a self-righteous asshole, however little you deserve it.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[discontinuity (792010)]

This comment is spot-on. If the AP is cracking down on the DoD for this, they also need to crack down on PR firms that issue retouched photos of celebrities.

I think I would agree with the AP if the background they added made it look like she was in the field or something. That would have been a gross misrepresentation of the facts. This was just a headshot. The only people who should be upset at the retouching are people interested in dating the General.

And let's not forget the AP probably would have whined (albeit, not publicly) had the DoD issued the original, grainy photo with the cluttered background.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[NekSnappa (803141)]

No kidding. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that people were complaining that Time or Newsweek didn't retouch a photo of Sarah Palin?

yeah...

[jav1231 (539129)]

Because if there's going to be any altering of photos for impact, it damn well is going to be done by the media themselves! Wouldn't want to subvert their authority to alter perception now would we?

Remember Zombietime? [zombietime.com]

Re:yeah...

[OverlordQ (264228)]

Also dont forget Reuters [zombietime.com] doing the exact same thing.

Making an example

[pzs (857406)]

It's good that they're taking a firm stance and everything, but are they absolutely confident that none of their other pictures are photoshopped? Not everybody who doctors image is a clueless muppet [blogspot.com].

I hate to say this

[Xest (935314)]

But I think it's AP that are being rather pathetic on this one.

Such a mountain is being made out of a molehill with this story. Certainly if it was like the most recent Israel/Lebanon war where Reuters and co. had been daft enough to fall for doctored photos of Lebanon to make it look like the damage was worse than it was it'd be one thing but here we're talking about a picture of a member of the US military having her picture changed from standing in front of her office wall, to standing in front of a US flag. That really has absolutely no propaganda value whatsoever, I can't imagine even the most over the top patriotic American shouting "OMG SHES IN FRONT OF A US FLAG FUCK YEAH!" at the excitement of seeing the picture in question.

I'm not sure if it's AP's fault for it being blown out of proportion or whether they simply followed protocol on a hardline rule of no doctored photos no matter how harmless (although that has implications of it's own, hardly any photo is a raw image now without at least automatic alterations by cameras) or whether the fault lies at the feet of other media organisations.

When I saw this originally on the BBC the other day I have to admit it's arguably the most pointless slow-news day excuse for a story I'd seen in a while.

You hit the nail on the head

[Shivetya (243324)]

The AP is making a mountain out of a molehill because they are trying to remove the stain on their industry that they are other so called leaders have put there. As such they need to exaggerate even the silliest of things and scream like a schoolyard brat "see see see"

I gave up long ago believing anything from Reuters when it came to stories involving Israel and for that matter the entire Middle East. They just lost their right to be trusted.

Re:You hit the nail on the head

[sycodon (149926)]

AP and Reuters have more to worry about than just photos. Their so-called "journalism" is just as fake and altered as they claim these photos to be. The difference is that the pentagon's photo alteration are the equivelent of correcting grammer and using different, but synonmous words.

In order to rise to the level of fraud AP and Reuters typically exhibit in their journalism, the Pentagon would have had to put a mustache on her and make her a minority of some kind.

Re:I hate to say this

[ScreamingLordByron (649928)]

As a photographer, I have to call B.S. on this. Film or digital, virtual or otherwise, Head shots and other non-journalistic photos are manipulated in a million different ways: choice of lighting, choice of depth of field, use of make-up, use of mocked-up backgrounds, etc. Whether this is done with Photoshop or actual props, lights, make-up, etc. makes no difference. As such the AP's arbitrary choice to apply their policy to non-journalistic shots is ridiculous. People are repeatedly asking: "Where do you draw the line?" The answer is easy (although, like life, not always simple). Retouching of photo-journalistic shots (i.e. pictures that either carry editorial content or are intended to represented an accurate depiction of a reported-upon event or location) should be vigorously guarded from manipulation to the greatest extent possible. Pictures presented for non-editorial (ex. public relations, identification, etc...) purposes need not bear the same scrutiny unless the change is such that it renders the picture clearly deceptive (ex. Portraying a picture of a person 20 years ago as a current shot). Rules are good, but they are not a substitute for sound editorial judgment.

Not Surprised

[doomicon (5310)]

I served in the Army for 7+ years. Three years of which in a PAO (Public Affairs Office), that handles press releases, photo's, etc. Most people have this idea that there is this all encompassing control in the Army, as well as a focused strategy of deception. Believe me.. there isn't, they aren't that smart (like most companies we all work for).

This picture is photoshopped badly because just like any small shop in the civilian world, some SPC or PFC got a request for a photo of Gen Whats Herface, thought it would be "cool" to use this new app on my computer. He then shows the photo to the Captain(or Major) who is the "Manager" of the office... He's technically a dud (like most Managers) and thinks it's awesome. So they hand it over.

Point is, don't forgot the U.S. Army isn't unlike most Corporations when it comes to things other than "War (Training, etc."), they have bad manager's, are poorly run, make mistakes... I've personally NEVER seen a case where they were trying to cover something up, or lie, and I was working during the Cuban Camp setups in Central America (sh!t hit the fan with that one). Nobody even thought about lying or being deceptive, there was just this idea that you just don't do it, because we're soldiers, it's a black eye when the truth does come out, and it always does. (Now, when it comes to Operational Information, ie War. that is different. You don't have press releases that will tell the enemy 'Hey we'll be there next Friday, act surprised')

On the flipside, when deceptive things happen or poor photoshop jobs are released, it's usually poor decisions by LOCAL offices or commands. It's not an all encompassing strategy.

Just my personal experience :-)

Re:Not Surprised

[db32 (862117)]

I can't for the life of me figure that anti-military nonsense out. How the hell can people maintain 1. The military is a huge evil system hell bent on massive deception and evil lies while also maintaining 2. The military is a bunch of clueless incompetents that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The only thing I can get out of this is the people trying to maintian this kind of nonsense are actually saying "We are the biggest bunch of braindead morons for being so easily decieved by a bunch of incompentent fools".

Honestly, from my experience I would almost expect things to have gone the other direction from what you lay out. The Captain/Major says "We need a photo of Gen Whosits, but she is too busy for us. Go dig up a picture of her and make it look like a nice handout picture". Given that you can walk into almost any government building and see pictures of the entire chain of command for that organization all the way up to the President, and almost every one of those photos are identical with the person sitting in front of a flag with perfect lighting etc... My guess it was downward directed because the Gen was too busy to actually stop to have one of these pictures done so they found an existing picture and turned it into one of these.

For all their college education so many of the stupid ideas come from the officers...poor enlisted folk just get blamed for the execution of such goofball ideas.

Sharpening

[Fëanáro (130986)]

Forget the background, how did they add so much sharpness to the blurry original?

Is it actually possible to get such a big improvement, or is the left picture just a blurry reproduction of a sharper original?

If there is a tool that can do that, I'd have some pics myself I would want to touch up.

Re:Sharpening

[fastest fascist (1086001)]

I'm guessing the left picture is not the original, there's severe compression artefacting for one. But the flag is not the only alteration, you'll notice heavy airbrushing over the face as well as general tonal alterations - although done considerably better than the background switch. The shiny highlights from the flash used have been toned down and they've removed a number of lines on her face, especially around the eyes.

Overblown and then some

[Ritchie70 (860516)]

If the AP really has a policy regarding altered images then they did the right thing.

But the reality of this situation is probably that someone needed a press-suitable head shot of the General, snapped a quick pic in her office and edited in a background. They also appear to have smoothed out her face, but that is part of a professional portrait photo these days.

The exact same image would likely have been fine if it had been done at the local Wal*mart portrait place in front of a flag backdrop and the guy there had blurred the focus a little to have a similar effect on her face.

There are photos that are fact reporting, and there are photos that are PR head shots. This is a PR head shot, and nobody should think that it in any way reflects reality.

My boss, a low-level director at my company, had a head shot done recently for PR reasons. I barely recognize him in it.

I feel sorry for General Dunwoody in this; she was just made the first US female 4-star general three days ago, and now she has to put up with this stupidity.

The AP has a WONDERFUL track record...

[LynnwoodRooster (966895)]

Remember Sgt. "GI Joe" Thomas [blogspot.com], or remember Arafat giving blood after 9/11 [newsbusters.org], or fake tornadoes [wjnoblog.com], and on and on...

.
Yet changing a stock head shot background from an office to a flag, and touching up skin is a hideous travesty of judgment. Glad to know the AP has standards!

In Response

[Zordak (123132)]

In response, the military has issued a new, official photo of Gen. Dunwoody. But again, it looks like they may have photoshopped it. If you look closely, you'll notice some differences between the before [mothertalkers.com] and after [google.com] pictures.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[jandrese (485)]

Certainly it would take all of the fun out of the thread to actually read the story and see the original photo.

Reading TFA we'd know HE is a SHE

[denzacar (181829)]

It is a clear case of "for publicity use" photo cleared for use by someone who has no sense of the "documentary value and purpose" of photos.
I've personally done greater "truthcrimes" for various aging local singers and celebrities.
Not to mention all those thousands of yearbook photos that needed "touching up".

BTW... I'm a bit confused by the photos.
While the left one (supposedly original) is highly degraded - the right one (polished version) has the exact same uniform.
The UCP digital camouflage pattern is identical as well as all the creases.
Now... Maybe someone on CSI (Miami) could "enhance" the left image to look like the right one, but not in the real world.

Sooo.. keeping that in mind, shadows around the left photo's head also appear kinda fake.
As if they were cut/pasted from somewhere else, with some feathering used in the selection.

 
As if someone took photo A of a perfectly looking blank uniform, and photo B of the general's face, and merged them into photos C (sitting in the office, hard at work) and D (posing in front of a flag, being patriotic).

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[jacquesm (154384)]

funny, to me the biggest difference is her face, she's made to look about 20 years younger than she looks on the original.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[Bandman (86149)]

Looking at the edited photo, I have to wonder how they found out that it didn't come right out of the camera like that. I mean, I've seen quite a few 'shops in my time, and I got nothing. *cough*

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[Neoprofin (871029)]

The point of cutting out photo alterations, even cosmetics, is to prevent people from confusing truth and fabrication, no matter how small. If you can show me someone who would have been confused by this mall photobooth backdrop I'd love to meet them.

If they added extra medals, maybe an impressive book on the desk, maybe made her teeth whiter these are all subtle alteration designed to make you believe the image they're trying to sell. That flag backdrop is less convincing than if they had photoshopped her into nazi germany riding a unicorn.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[MightyYar (622222)]

Easy. Make an exception for portraiture, and allow any analogs to traditional photographic techniques. Request an original for archival purposes.

Some allowable analogs:
exposure tricks = brightness/contrast settings
lens filters = soften/blur/color adjustments
backdrop = cut and paste background
makeup = touchup tools

For instance, you would not allow a fake war backdrop in traditional photography to dramatize a "real" photo - and nor should you allow a fake war scene to be pasted in using Photoshop. A portrait, on the other hand, would involve lighting tricks, exposure tricks, a fake background, and makeup. Adding these after the fact is no different and no more misleading.

On the other hand, pouring fake blood on a body should be disallowed whether the blood is real or Photoshopped. Adding smoke to a scene should be disallowed whether you open a can of smoke in front of the camera or add it digitally. Faking police brutality should be disallowed whether you dress up as an officer and pretend to beat up a protester for a real camera, or alter an image digitally. Etc...

All that said, it should be noted when a photograph has been staged/edited. A simple flag or some descriptive text would do nicely. Honesty and disclosure are more important than whether the photons are all "original".

Honestly, this "zero tolerance" stuff hardly ever seems to work out because reality is not binary.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[Rary (566291)]

There's one problem with allowing exceptions in portraits: it has the potential to hurt AP's credibility.

I, like many others here, spotted the fact that this portrait was photoshopped (poorly) at a glance. If I saw the photo being used in a news article, I would become aware that the AP is using Photoshopped images in their news articles. Being unaware of the official policy that allows exemptions specifically for portraits, I would begin to wonder where else photoshopping is occurring in AP news images. My level of trust in the AP would drop significantly.

So, how does the AP address that issue and ensure that people trust them? They say "don't touch up your photos, period".

Oblig.

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Move in, stop. Pull out, track right, stop. Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance 34 to 36. Pan right and pull back. Stop. Enhance 34 to 46. Pull back. Wait a minute, go right, stop. Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23. Give me a hard copy right there.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[DaveV1.0 (203135)]

Actually, that looks like a standard issue high ranking military officer's office.

Basically, it is a crappy picture of her sitting in her office.

100% agree

[PinkyDead (862370)]

If the photograph had been doctored to hide something or to give a wrong impression it would have been different. If I was going on a blind date with her, then yeah there might be a problem - but this is clearly just simple marketing.

The clearly rendered US flag and dodgy edging around her hair are just too obvious for this to reflect anything sinister. Maybe the photograph could have been rejected, and reminder of policy sent - but blocking them? that's just nuts.

This is someone trying to score political points and has nothing to do with integrity.

Re:100% agree

[jafiwam (310805)]

It's probably a good idea to keep top officials incidental information from leaking (like from the background of a photograph).

Remember that famous picture of the couple on the couch and the not so well hidden bottle of "anal lube" on the table nearby? Imagine that, only with some sort of tip that gives someone the last bit they need to go and do X (kill troops, distract a general because they kidnap the dog, etc.).

It's quite obviously an inserted background. Not an attempt to fool.

AND the image on the left is a compressed jpg for the web (and whomever did it did a shitty job at it) so there are lots of spots that are not "clean up" but rather "idiot writing the story doesn't understand compression" artifacts.

Yea, doctoring photos that are supposed to convey an event is bad, but doctoring one that is just supposed to remind you who the heck we are talking about is irrelevant.

Re:The US and US flags

[Ritchie70 (860516)]

I'm an American and don't understand it myself; it seems like it's gotten more pronounced over the last decade or so.

All I can offer as an explanation is that, as school children, many of us began each day saying the pledge of allegiance, which really seems quite flag-centric.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands...."

Re:The US and US flags

[caluml (551744)]

many of us began each day saying the pledge of allegiance

Which also I find quite bizarre. Talk about indoctrination from an early age. But I also find the obsession in the US with flags a little disturbing. In the UK, you won't see hardly any flags. Maybe on a few government buildings etc. It's seen as rather tasteless, rather low-brow. Duh, me Tarzan, me light fire, me wave flag.

Re:The US and US flags

[bentcd (690786)]

Which also I find quite bizarre. Talk about indoctrination from an early age. But I also find the obsession in the US with flags a little disturbing. (...)

Traditionally there wasn't really much to hold US citizens together. They came from a hodge-podge of different nations and subscribed to a hodge-podge of different religions that were often at odds with one another. One might have hoped that they would resort to their Constitution in order to create a nucleus to unite around but perhaps that document is just too heavy on points one can disagree with. So they used a symbol that is devoid of any meaning other than the one each individual puts their for himself: their colours.

The statesmen that once set out to create a national identify for my own country, Norway, learned this from the US and made us the no.2 flag-wavers of the free world. Absent anything else of much use, what united Norway and what set us apart from our Swedish overlords was our colours.

Most other established nations have hundreds and hundreds of years of culture to use as social binding agent. The US did/does not.

Re:The US and US flags

[JohnFluxx (413620)]

You spent 10 years defending a flag?? Couldn't you have just let the enemy have it and make a new one?

This is a military person

[Shivetya (243324)]

Actually its common for business execs to have their logo in their picture so why wouldn't a General or even regular soldier have a flag in theirs? Sorry if it offends but many of us are actually very proud of our country, its heritage, and as such don't see reason to not celebrate it which can mean having the flag visible.

I guess its different elsewhere but we surrounded ourselves with the symbols of our freedom when we split from England, notice all the flags pictured then and the importance of some in song?

You did highlight the major difference though, we don't have to do it but we do so out of our own free will. Because of that we may seem excessive but there should never be anything wrong with such pride in one's country.

It would be more embarrassing to me to live somewhere where I would not feel comfortable showing it

What the flag means.

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

To most (non-american) people that's just plain bizarre. Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree).

You have to understand that the US has a history very different than that of European nations, in that we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom. That fight was symbolized from the very beginning by the flag, whose image was used to unite the disparate colonies behind a single goal of American freedom. That flag was commissioned by George Washington, who realized that a nation and an army needed a common identity if the war for independece was to be won. Realize that, prior to that point, America was just 13 colonies. The flag was used to make them a nation.

Because of that, the flag itself has become a symbol of freedom and the fight for it. That's why our national anthem is a poem written about the flag (in the War of 1812). That's why most lasting image of WWII (for Americans) is four soldiers lifting the flag at Iwo Jima. I could go on...

As such, particularly for the military, the flag represents both who you are and what you're fighting for. Because Americans fought for their freedom and to create our very existence as a separate entity from a colonial power, our flag means a whole hell of a lot more to us than it probably does for most countries.

You always take for granted that for which you didn't have to struggle. Americans have been taught about that struggle and what it means, and many of us refuse to take freedom for granted.

Because Americans are a Polity, not a Volk

[HighOrbit (631451)]

Flags are important to Americans because they are a common unifying symbol outside of ethnicity. Most modern nation-states are organic ethnically based. In those countries, the nation and the ethnicity are the same (for example Danes and Denmark). Ethnic solidarity defines those nations. A Dane does not have to profess adherance to the King of Denmark or the Danish Idea to be a Dane. He is a Dane because, he is ethnically a Dane. This is not the case in Amercia. America is, by design, a synthetic nation. Our entire national identity is based on adherance to common political ideas and there is no ethnic solidarity. Our national solidarity is based common identification with political ideas and with symbols of those political ideas (the flag, the liberty bell, statue of liberty, etc). Therefore, it is important to have regular socialization with and emphasis on those political symbols and ideas, least baser instincts (like ethnicity) boil up.

Few other nations (perhaps Canada) can credibly claim this. France similiarly claims to base its nationalaity on political ideas and common citizenship, but ethnicity and 'being French' seems to still be very important to them (although they deny it).

Re:The US and US flags

[Media Tracker (455903)]

why does Americans see the need to constantly surround themselves with US flags? [...] Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state

I think that's wrong. In Paris there flag poles on the street that serve no other purpose than to wave the French flag around. In Germany, following the last Euro cup, many people kept the German flags they had been displaying during the competition on their houses and cars (following a very long history of flag-taboo in that country, granted). In some neighbourhoods of my hometown of Montreal, hundreds of people display the Quebec flag on their porch for no other reason that affirm their patriotism.

I think we all have a natural tendency to notice flags much more when they have a negative connotation to us. Nationalist Quebecers notice Canadian flags everywhere but Quebec flags are invisible to them. Many people outside the US don't associate very positive thoughts to the Star-Spangled Banner, and the slight irritation it causes makes them notice it more.

And the picture we're discussing here is a military picture. Of course they're going to pose in front of their flag.

Just my $0.02 of course. Maybe the flag/capita ratio is indeed higher in the States than other countries, but I think that's the sort of domain where we're all heavily biased in what we notice and what we don't, so until I see actual figures I'll keep an eyebrow raised.

Re:AP doesn't use altered images? Riiiight...

[Don_dumb (927108)]

Do you have any link? I'm not questioning your memory of the story. But I would be interested to know if the AP retracted the photo and disciplined the photographer once his/her photos had been found to be doctored. Because that would then be consistent with their policy, a photographer can break their rules but their HQ should be able to re-enforce their policies after the event.
If anything it shows why they have to be so strict, as a news agency they are doing business on the accuracy of their information.