Conflict Reporting Aestheticising Objectivitypdf
Conflict Reporting Aestheticising Objectivitypdf
Page 1 of 130
Alfredo Cramerotti shared this file. Want to do more with it?
  1. Conflict ReportingAestheticising ObjectivityAlfredo Cramerotti and Lauren MeleIntroductionThe goal and assumption of objectivity in journalism and media reportinghave long been exposed as both unachievable and even pointless since onecannot avoid cultural, political and economic mediation of the contingentsituation reported and of the larger context in which it happens. As such,a degree of manipulation is nothing but second nature in the informationindustry.But what happens when the idea of erroneous objectivity is embracedand advanced not by media journalism but by contemporary art? Arethere alternative perspectives to those of art or media outlets in responseto issues of visualisation and engagement? And where does emancipationstand in relation to representation? This article seeks to establish a linkbetween what is viewed and what is reported; what is seen and whatremains outside the picture; and, importantly, it also attempts tounravel what is viewing and what is witnessing.Subjectivity and PerformanceRepresenting a conflict is inherently problematic, and the pursuit ofobjectivity in the reproduction, distribution and reception of sufferingis futile. One indulgence–or necessity–that art is at liberty toembrace, and that journalism is not, is subjectivity. Contemporaryart is a platform for knowledge production, with regards to specta-torship in the context of crises.1Media workers, including photo-journalists, are bound by perspective, format and timing,irrespective of personal opinion. Today, artists who touch upon thesubject of mainstream media and voyeurism often usefilm and pho-tography as a means of discussing how images of misery are shownand distributed.CTTE1873003 Techset Composition India (P) Ltd., Bangalore and Chennai, India 1/7/20215101520253035404550Third Text, 2021https://doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2021.1873003© 2021 Third Text1 John Douglas Miller,‘Watching v Looking’,ArtMonthly340, October 2010,p 10
  2. Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin,The Day Nobody Died, 76.2×600 cm, unique C-type, © Adam Broomberg andOliver Chanarin, courtesy Lisson Gallery, photograph by Jack HemsColour both in Print and Online5560657075808590951002
  3. Within the institutions of image production–namely photojournal-ism, but also NGOs–neutrality is unachievable in the context of huma-nitarian crises and suffering: it is impossible for anyone, be theyjournalists or humanitarian workers, to be neutral in such difficult situ-ations. Such image production calls into question what hierarchical pos-ition the viewer holds in the act of looking and what responsibility comeswith the power to provide visibility, as has been discussed by Michel Fou-cault inDiscipline and Punish.2Those who cannot see but can be seenimmediately become subjects for viewing or surveillance.3Artists Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin articulate this juxtapo-sition between the unseeing subject and the viewer. Although theyinitially trained as photographers and photojournalists, their collabora-tive practice progressively shifted towards art, and the circulation oftheir work moved away from mass media outlets to book publications,exhibitions and international forums. In June 2008 they travelled toAfghanistan to be embedded with British Army units on the front linein Helmand Province. In place of their cameras, they took a roll of photo-graphic paper 50 metres long and 76.2 centimetres wide contained in alightproof cardboard box. They arrived during the deadliest month ofthe war, which had begun in 2001. During thefirst four days of theirstay, attacks pushed the number of British combat fatalities to onehundred. The title of the resulting work,The Day Nobody Died, refersto thefifth day of their embedding, the only day in which nobody wasreported to have been killed among the forces of the internationalcoalition. During their embed, Broomberg and Chanarin went onpatrols with the soldiers, embarking on journeys up to six hours long,in the back of an armoured vehicle in forty-five-degree heat with justtwo apertures, each ten centimetres wide, to look out of, constantlyaware that at any point they could hit an IED (Improvised ExplosiveDevice). In response to each of these traumatic journeys, and to a seriesof more mundane moments that a photographer would record, Broom-berg and Chanarin unrolled sections of light-sensitive paper from thebox, in the back of the vehicle that they had converted into a mobile dark-room, and exposed it to the sun for twenty seconds. They eventuallyexposed four rolls, each six metres in length.The resulting photographs are the inverse of traditional war repor-tage. The six-metre long images deny the viewer the cathartic effectoffered by the language of photographic documentation of war and putforward a critique of conflict photography in the age of embedded jour-nalism. As the artists commented,‘the usual means to determine thevalue of the photojournalistic image–its composition, its proximity todanger, its value as evidence–are all undermined’.4There is a powerfulparadox at play. As abstract, non-figurative images, they are definitelyuseless as evidence. Yet they are proper‘action photographs’, directwar representations and a witnessing statement. When one gets toknow the context, based on information provided by the artists whenthey exhibit the photos, it becomes impossible to forget that they weremade during an embed. This is materially inscribed in the pictures. Inthe case of a traditional photojournalistic report, conversely, theattempt may be to obscure this fact.The artists devised this strategy for a number of reasons. The main onecomes from their direct experience in previous conflict zones such as10511011512012513013514014515015532 Michel Foucault,Disciplineand Punish: The Birth of thePrison, Random House,New York, 19913 Jeremy Bentham created aprison design in the lateeighteenth century that hetermed the panopticon,which, through creativearchitecture, allowed guardsto watch prisoners withoutthemselves being seen.4 Artists’talk for thepresentation ofThe DayNobody Diedat theBarbican Art Gallery,London, 4 December 2008
  4. Rwanda, Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Darfur and Iraq. In each casethey have struggled with how to represent these events and how represen-tation itself is complicit in their perpetuation. In Afghanistan, sitting inthe media operations tent in Camp Bastion in Helmand Province, theywere able to observefirst-hand the transformation of events into head-lines and into images that appear to distil the essence of conflict. Intheir words:‘To watch mutilated bodies being carried out of helicopterson stretchers, followed by the inevitable polite announcements, madeexplicit a process in which stock phrases, and stock images, are exploitedin order to neutralise the horror of these events.’5Being embedded offered unprecedented access to the war, but inreturn the military apparatus had unprecedented access to them. Atthe end of each day memory cards were scrutinised, and throughoutthe embed there was an agreement about what could and could notbe made public. Broomberg and Chanarin’s aim evolved from docu-menting war throughfiguration to becoming an act of resistance–an interruption of the narrative the military and mass media wouldhave liked them to contribute to. The main protagonist of that‘theatre of war’performance, the cardboard box containing thephotographic paper roll, became a sort of proxy, a mute witness ofa harsh, man-made situation with no intention of documenting any-thing but the performance itself, in which the artists, the military,the civilians and us, as viewers, were equally complicit.This work, like others by Broomberg and Chanarin, avoids thepressure of media output that demands images of‘the now’. Instead,they use other outputs, like books, and museum or gallery walls, ashosts,‘taking advantage of them as sites of critical discourse and histori-cal comparison’.6The artists fully recognise that photojournalism cannottransgress or be critical, just as it cannot be objective. But while they havereal problems with the role of the professional observer, they also believethat suffering demands a witness. They attempt to acknowledge this suf-fering in a self-reflexive manner that avoids a particularly sanitised depic-tion of war–with the‘veracity’of the evidence that is expected to bepresent–while at the same time highlighting one’s awareness of the situ-ation in which images are produced. They demand that we look harder.Visualisation and InertiaAlthough artists and scholars are bringing the problematic facets of rep-resentation to light, there have not been significant alternatives suggestedfor the current structure of distribution and consumption of images ofconflict. As artist Hito Steyerl points out in a text about documentarypractice,‘The only possible critical documentary today is the presentationof an affective and political constellation which does not even exist, andwhich is yet to come’.7Reflecting on our present information system it isclear that there is not a productive solution; it is, indeed, yet to come.Research continues to be conducted by artists, art institutions,alternative media sources and scholars, as well as other collaborative struc-tures, in order to investigate and understand the precarious nature of therepresentation of mass suffering. Responses to the issue are now surfacingthrough disciplines beyond mainstream media, bringing forth‘alternative’16016517017518018519019520020545 Ibid6 Ibid7 Hito Steyerl,‘DocumentaryUncertainty’,A PriorMagazine,15 June 2007
  5. perspectives. As long as we collectively behave as passive spectators, con-suming violence from the comfort of our homes, we shall lack the capacityand power to wholly understand. The question arises, then: what role mustwe fulfil to undo this inertia? Is viewing people who suffer from a distancethrough mediated images different from viewing suffering up close inperson? Susan Sontag argues that it is still just‘watching’and that weare unavoidably voyeurs.8As long as the system for relaying‘news’isintact, we remain spectators. The challenge at hand is that offinding anintelligent form of voyeurism, and to initiate a transition from thecurrent system of visual production to one that confronts its strategy ofobjectification and the prioritising of political and corporate priorities.9New directions in art are exposing weaknesses in a system that feck-lessly coerces us into spectatorship, and as a result awareness isgrowing. Many artists and writers emphasise the space between thelived reality of crisis and its translation into words or imagery. Philoso-pher Giorgio Agamben’s work on the witness and on the Holocaustwould suggest that it is indeed possible to attest to atrocity:‘The authorityof the witness consists in his capacity to speak solely in the name of anincapacity to speak.’10Writer and academic W G Sebald expressedsimilar concerns. Specifically referring to the unreliable nature of eyewit-ness accounts of the destruction of German cities by aerial bombardmentduring World War II, he highlights how stock phrases such as‘that fatefulnight’,‘all hell broke loose’,‘we were staring into the inferno’, and others,function almost to neutralise experiences that are beyond the humanability to comprehend.11The shortcomings of projects that attempt to portray crises and suffer-ing are productive in that they have made something that has alwaysexisted visible: the failure of our existing format for recording tragedyand informing us of it.From a moral standpoint, an artist cannot travel to a foreign land tofilm and photograph suffering strangers or victims of trauma alongsidephotojournalists and then refer to themselves as separate from themedia.12After all, artists too must benefitfinancially from the worksthey create, and by being an outsider with a camera in a war-torncountry are they not‘atrocity tourists’just as much as the journalistsare? Does our consumption of what they produce imply that we are thesame but from afar? Perhaps. We are all a part of the same cause-and-effect machine responsible for the objectification and mediation of suffer-ing. We cannot disconnect from the Western world’s historical burden inregard to the perpetuation of these issues of representation. That is, wecannot detach from how governments, media and institutions defineour culture and history and contextualise our being, and from howthis becomes part of the deception that the artworks discussed in thisarticle reflect.Ethics and AestheticsThe system for showing pictures of suffering is systemically exploitative,although it is not referred to as such. Those creating and exporting imagesof human carnage, however, are not unaware, and with awareness comesmoral responsibility. Photojournalists walk a very precarious line in this21021522022523023524024525025558 Susan Sontag,Regardingthe Pain of Others,Picador, New York, 2003,p 1059 Miller,‘Watching vLooking’, op cit, p 710 Giorgio Agamben,Remnants of Auschwitz:The Witness and theArchive, Daniel Haller-Roazen, trans, Zone Books,New York, 2002, p 15811 W G Sebald,On TheNatural History ofDestruction, Anthea Bell,trans, Hamish Hamilton,London, 2003. Our thanksto the artists AdamBroomberg and OliverChanarin for pointing outthis passage.12 Joe Scanlan,‘Alfredo Jaar:Museum of ContemporaryPhotography, Chicago’,Frieze22, May 1995, p 66
  6. respect: they must maintain composure in the face of tragedy and devas-tation and yet capture images of it.Artist Alfredo Jaar addressed the conflicting nature of this position,specifically that of late photojournalist Kevin Carter, in his pieceTheSound of Silence(2006). Carter became famous for a photograph thathe took in Sudan in 1993 of an emaciated young boy, wearing a hospitaltag, being closely watched by a loitering vulture. The image ran in theNew York Timesand soon became the face of the Sudanese conflict.Carter won the Pulitzer Prize for the image and faced an equal amountof scrutiny, being referred to as a vulture himself; people wanted toknow what happened to the boy. The starkness of the image is a challengeto the viewer, for whom an indifferent response is impossible. Whenasked what he did after photographing the child he said that he satunder a tree, lit a cigarette, talked to God and cried.13Carter committedsuicide two months after winning the Pulitzer Prize.Jaar’s work consists of a large light box with words describingCarter’s life. After a few moments Carter’s photographflashes onto thescreen as quickly as the click of a camera shutter, imprinting the imageonto the viewer’s psyche. We are, in fact, as much the‘vulture’fromCarter’s image as he was accused of being. Through this piece, Jaarattests to the burdensome moral pressure that weighs on photojournalistsand manifests his empathy towards those charged with the challenge ofmaking objective pictures. The artwork confirms that the problem isnot whether images like these should be made and viewed, butrather the system for which they are created and how they continue tobe communicated.14Respected Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk wrote a book addressingthe personal difficulties he experienced in conforming to a journalisticcode that lackedflexibility and was characterised by the absence of avariety of perspectives. He wrote about his role as the Middle East corre-spondent for a Dutch newspaper, and how his experiences conflicted withhow he was expected to report.‘As a correspondent, I could tell differentstories about the same situation. The media could only choose one, and itwas often the story that confirmed a commonly held notion.’15Luyendijk concluded that to break the cycle of‘one-dimensional’reporting, a paradigm shift in media reporting was necessary. Thechange needed would not necessarily be a fundamental one but ratherwould involve reporting on a situation in a way that provides contextua-lising parallels or counterbalancing views.‘One violent incident would beset, not against another violent one in which victim and perpetratorsswapped roles, but against an inspiring story’ –a story, he suggests,about members of both sides not committing any violence.16This is aromantic notion that is unlikely to ever be more than just that. Afterall, watching, from the comfort of a living room, clips of distant commu-nities suffering alongside clips of members of those communities doingsomething‘inspiring’does not change our position as voyeurs. The inade-quacy of the format, as a means of bringing us closer to the real, remains.Is it critically and ethically possible to represent responsibly thehardship of others through photographic orfilmic media? A certain con-temporary documentary approach in art has established the role of theobjective observer asfictional and artists are now referring to theirposition as neither objective nor subjective, but rather‘engaged’.17260265270275280285290295300305310613 Scott Macleod,Timemagazine, 199414 Jacques Rancière,TheEmancipated Spectator,Verso, London, 2009,p 10015 Joris Luyendijk,HelloEverybody!: OneJournalist’s Search forTruth in the Middle East,Michele Hutchison, trans,Profile Books, London,2009, p 616 Ibid, p 18817 Ibid
  7. The way in which artists today aestheticise the problem of representationis changing. Some artists hold aesthetics subordinate to ethics in thecontext of what they are presenting. However, in doing so, they aredescribing the relationship between the documenter and the documentedmore loudly, perhaps, than their peers who depend on context as avehicle.Expectations and FulfilmentThrough his artworkRaw Footage(2006), Dutch artist Aernout Mikqualifies awareness and perception as being circumstantial. The piecepresents left-over archival footage of the Bosnian war, found on thefloor of the cutting room of Independent Television News (ITN),compiled into a thirty-nine-minute two-channel video installation.RawFootageexposes a temporal reality of the war that would not havebeen aired; it is thirty-nine minutes of inaction and calm. The footagewas voided as it does not suggest any ethnic cleansing; it is uneventfuland portrays soldiers laughing and drinking, and people going abouttheir business. Mik demonstrates how the media uses short scenes ofspectacular occurrences to paint a picture of an entire conflict. Themundane nature of the footage is eerily disturbing (echoing whatHannah Arendt referred to, in her bookEichmann in Jerusalem,18as‘the banality of evil’) and reveals the ordinariness of wartime and howunsettling that is.The truth-value expectations that we have of factual documentarytechniques, such as live broadcasts and interviews, means that suchoutput is rarely questioned when it comes to news articles or pro-grammes. Critic John Douglas Miller compares news media to pornogra-phy, explaining that its functions are facilitated through repetition andexpectation,19something that artist Chris Korda demonstrated with therather unnerving videoI Like to Watch(2002), compiled not long afterthe attack on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001, in whichTV footage of the explosions of the airliner impacts, and the subsequentcollapse of the twin towers, are interspersed and synchronised with por-Q1nographic acts and orgasmic scenes¶.20In a subtler manner, Mik’sRaw Footagecriticises the aestheticdesign of‘spectacle’and its echoing appropriations from one newsoutlet to the next, and highlights the way in which it conforms to audi-ence expectations. By using the media‘lens’itself he provides insightinto decisions the Western media make when‘aestheticising’distantconflicts. In distant war zones, and on camera, personal trauma ceasesto be a private experience; rather it becomes content for‘spectators’via popular media outlets.21Awareness that representation is subjectiveand constructed in the context of humanitarian crises in the mediabrings us to reconsider the possibility of an emancipated representation.How then does our understanding of image consumption in this contextchange, and must we adopt a moral standpoint? Steyerl offers this view:‘if we are to acknowledge that subjectivity is no longer a privileged sitefor emancipation, we might as well just face it and get on with it’.22What else are we supposed to do? A productive answer has yet to beformulated.315320325330335340345350355360718 Comparison highlighted byJohn Douglas Miller,‘Watching v Looking’, opcit, p 919 Miller,‘Watching vLooking’, op cit, p 1020 Chris Korda,I Like toWatch, video, 200221 Hito Steyerl,‘A Thing LikeYou and Me’,e-flux journal15, April 2010; publishedonline 6 July 201422 Ibid
  8. Image-life to Real-lifeSteyerl takes the representation of women as a departure point for a dis-cussion about perspectives on authenticity: stereotyping, representing andmisrepresenting are problematic. Steyerl advances this position:‘Butwhat if the truth is neither in the represented nor in the representation?What if the truth is in its material configuration? What if the medium isreally a message? Or actually–in its corporate media version–abarrage of commodified intensities?’23Her work echoes these questionsand looks at medium as subject and object, going beyond what is rep-resented versus whatis.Her worksNovember(2004) andLovely Andrea(2007) look atimages and their circulation beyond their original contexts, by investi-gating their origins and using documentary techniques mixed with exist-ing imagery from popular culture andfiction. Ultimately, what the viewercan take away from her work is that images live their own lives, which aredisconnected from those of their subjects.24Novemberrecalls a child-hood friend of Steyerl’s, Andrea Wolf, who was killed and named amartyr of the Kurdish liberation movement. It explores the impactthat images carry beyond the control of their subjects. Andrea made theColour both in Print and OnlineHito Steyerl,November, 2004, DVD, single channel, sound, 25 minutes, image CC 4.0 Hito Steyerl, image courtesy of theartist, Andrew Kreps Gallery, New York and Esther Schipper, Berlin365370375380385390395400405410415823 Ibid24 Anna Altman,‘HitoSteyerl’,FriezeNovember/December 2009, publishedonline 6 June 2014
  9. Hito Steyerl,Lovely Andrea, 2007, single channel video; sound in English, Japanese and German with English subtitles;colour, 30 minutes, image CC 4.0 Hito Steyerl, image courtesy of the artist, Andrew Kreps Gallery, New York andEsther Schipper, BerlinColour both in Print and Online4204254304354404454504554604659
  10. transition from B-movie star to revolutionary in the Kurdish conflict onher own terms. However, asNovembershows, the destiny of her imageposthumously was out of anyone’s control.25Upon her killing in 1998by the Turkish Police, who regarded her as a terrorist, her imagebecame an icon displayed alongside the founder of the PKK (KurdistanWorkers’Party) on street posters and protests. Thefilm considers thetransitions that happened in her lifetime in parallel with the life of herimage.26In Steyerl’sfilmLovely Andrea(2017), commissioned for the inter-national, quinquennial exhibition documenta 12 in Kassel, Germany,the viewer follows the artist searching for a photo made when sheposed as a bondage model during her student days at the JapanAcademy of Moving Images in Tokyo, in the 1980s. The work reiteratesher image-life theory fromNovember, with the representation of herselfas a bondage model assuming its own life and present. Twenty yearsafter the image was taken it took only three days tofind it. Referring tothe discovery of her image’s parallel life, Steyerl said:‘It was a piece ofpaper. It was printed–something produced within certain modes of pro-duction. I couldn’t control it ultimately. It was a version I didn’t want tocontrol either. I just followed its trail.’27In this instance, the fact that thelife of her image was beyond her grasp was not problematic. In somecases, however, the lives of images can be powerfully destructive to thelives of their subjects.Staging and IconographyTwo images have been burned into the psyche of history from theVietnam War. Thefirst image,Vietnam Napalmby Nick Ut, is of anaked young girlfleeing from her village under attack. The second,1969 Pulitzer Prize winnerSaigon Executionby Eddie Adams, is theexecution of a member of the Viet Cong by a South Vietnamese general.AlthoughVietnam Napalmwas published without any bystanders inthe frame, there was in fact an American journalist in the original image.A photojournalist behind the young girl can be seen calmly reloading thefilm in his camera, but he was edited out because his presence and preoc-cupation muffled the drama of the image.28An oblivious passer-by wasalso edited out ofSaigon Executionbefore it was published, but themost haunting detail of the photo is not the image itself but its life postFebruary 1968.Susan Sontag wrote ofSaigon Executionthat the occurrence wouldnot have been staged had the media not been present to capture it, imply-ing that the execution was arranged for the journalists present.29Thosewho were there, however, and were privy to the details of what lead upto the execution, criticised Sontag for failing to research the circum-stances of the image before assuming that the officer’s motivation hadto do with the press. As James Robbins states, on the subject of the power-ful consequences of images:One sees what the photographer wants the viewer to see and trusts that theimage is a true reflection of the events, not staged or altered after the fact.4704754804854904955005055105151025 Pablo Lafuente,‘For aPopulist Cinema: On HitoSteyerl’s November andLovely Andrea’,Afterall19, autumn 2008,published online 6 June201426 Altman,‘Hito Steyerl’, opcit27 Hito Steyerl,‘No Solution’,in an interview withJennifer Thatcher,ArtMonthlyApril 2014, p 328 James S Robbins,ThisTime We Win: Revisitingthe Tet Offensive,Encounter Books,New York, 2012, p 14529 Sontag,Regarding the Painof Others, op cit, p 53
  11. But the viewer also brings to the image that which he would like to believe,which has nothing to do with the photographer or sometimes even theevent, and therein lies the most compelling force of photography.30The officer in the image is General Nguyen Ngoc Loan who was thethird most powerful politicalfigure in South Vietnam at the time.Colour both in Print and OnlineAernout Mik,Raw Footage, 2006, 2 channel video installation, loop, courtesy of the artist and carlier | gebauer, (fiveimages)5205255305355405455505555605655701130 Robbins,This Time WeWin,op cit, p 143
  12. He was educated at MIT and was trained by the French and Americanarmed forces. He was cited by the CIA as a‘born leader’,31and on 19January 1969, theNew York Timesreferred to him as playing a keyrole in cutting terror attacks in Saigon.32The man being executed isBay Lop, a Viet Cong who had been responsible for the deaths of two offi-cers and their families, a total of thirty-four people, moments before hisarrest.33Setting aside the complexities of events before the image was taken,what happened afterwards was to irrevocably change the general’s life.When the photograph was published it became the poster-image ofanti-war sentiment. After being critically wounded during a battle, thegeneral retired to the US with his family despite enduring petitions forhis deportation and being denounced in congress as a war criminal.34Although the mission of the Viet Cong eventually failed, Adams’simage was their victory, inciting empathy and emotion in those whosaw Bay Lop’s death from afar.35After taking the picture, Adams saidthat he had done what he came to do in Vietnam, but after witnessingyears of the general’s subsequent treatment he expressed regret. Adamslived with guilt about how the general’s life and that of his family wereaffected by the life of the image. He wrote Loan’s obituary for the 27July 1998 issue ofTimemagazine, in which he stated:I won a Pulitzer Prize in 1969 for a photograph of one man shootinganother. Two people died in that photograph: the recipient of the bulletand GENERAL NGUYEN NGOC LOAN. The general killed the VietCong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are themost powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographsdo lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths...Thispicture really messed up his life. He never blamed me. He told me if Ihadn’t taken the picture, someone else would have, but I’ve felt bad forhim and his family for a long time.36With power comes responsibility. Images such as those of KevinCarter and Eddie Adams, although captured in the fulfilment of pro-fessional duty, unwittingly destroyed lives. The resulting lives of theirimages were to prove devastating, and, arguably, not productive in thesense that they could have been in revealing the truth about objectivityand context.Iconic images of this nature evolve beyond the photographer. AsRobbins points out,‘[Such] images transcend what the photographermay have intended, if in fact he intended anything. They are taken overby photo editors, caption writers, copy desks, reporters and broadcasters.That is ultimately where the meaning of the photos resides.’37Responsibility and ChangeThe media holds tremendous power in that it is able to deliver images andclips of harsh realities yet buffer its consumers from the gravity of thoserealities while maintaining a position of moral disconnection from thesubject matter. Televisual media allows us to consume faraway spectacles5755805855905956006056106156201231 Ibid, p 9332 Ibid, p 10033 Ibid, p 9334 Robert Thomas,‘NguyenNgoc Loan, 67, Dies;Executed Viet CongPrisoner’, theNew YorkTimes15 July 1998,published online 10 June201435 Robbins,This Time WeWin, op cit, p 14936 Eddie Adams,‘Eulogy:General Nguyen NgocLoan’,Timemagazine, 27July 1998, p 1937 Robbins,This Time WeWin,op cit, p 144
We use cookies to provide, improve, protect and promote our services. Visit our Privacy Policy and Privacy Policy FAQs to learn more. You can manage your personal preferences, including your ‘Do not sell or share my personal data to third parties’ setting using the “Customize cookies” button below.