Capturing War and Bringing It Home: How Photojournalism and Iconic Images Affect Public Opinion During Wartime

Item Type text; Electronic Thesis

Authors Nielson, Alec Brittney

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 28/09/2021 06:47:16

Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/146630 Nielson 1

CAPTURING WAR AND BRINGING IT HOME:

HOW PHOTOJOURNALISM AND ICONIC IMAGES AFFECT PUBLIC OPINION

DURING WARTIME

By

ALEC BRITTNEY NIELSON

______

A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College

In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in

Journalism

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

May 2010

Approved by:

______

Dr. Terry Wimmer School of Journalism

Nielson 2

ABSTRACT

A historical analysis indicates that photographs taken during wartime affect public opinion. This seems to be especially true in regard to photographs that have gained iconic status. This study examines the relationship between patterns of war coverage and public opinion during the Iraq War. Through a coding system, the study uncovers reoccurring themes in photographs, measures the emotions depicted in the images and counts the graphic images published. The research pays particular attention to the relationship between iconic images and the public’s support, or lack thereof, for the war. While the results of the study were not able support a definitive relationship between public opinion and photographic coverage, they did suggest a potential relationship. The results found in this study should be used to further study the impact of iconic images on public opinion.

Nielson 3

INTRODUCTION

“Public opinion wins war,” General Dwight Eisenhower said during World War II

(Malkin, 1996, p. 77). He was referencing the media’s ability to influence public opinion and support for the war. Whether purposefully or not, throughout history media has proved capable of affecting public sentiment. It seems media must wield an influence on public opinion, if for no other reason than without it the public would likely lack the information necessary to form an opinion. Quoting Bernard Cohen, Bardes, Shelley &

Schmidt (2008) write, “the media may not be successful in telling their audience what to think, but they are “stunningly successful in telling their audience what to think about,””

(p. 195). As such, history, especially during wartime, has demonstrated a continued relationship between media and public opinion. This connection seems particularly prevalent in regard to photographs.

Photojournalism is a powerful branch of the media, as photographs are capable of eliciting an immediate emotional response. Pfau et al. (2006) explains that photographs have this effect because they are processed by the right brain, “which tends to be more holistic and emotional, and is processed automatically and quickly” (p. 151) He adds,

“These emotions serve as decision heuristics and exert considerable impact” (p. 151).

Thus, photographs evoke an emotional response and simultaneously cause the viewer to make quick decisions and form swift opinions. Furthermore, unlike text, photographs can provide huge stores of information in a small amount of space (Moeller, 1999, p. 47).

Perhaps most importantly, the public has a tendency to trust the credibility of photographs. This was true as far back as the Civil War when the public accepted the content of photographs without question (Walton, 2003, p. 994). Newton (2001) remarks Nielson 4 that modern trust exists as well. Her research reveals, “despite journalists’ low rank in credibility polls, readers still may intuitively believe images they see in newspapers” (p.

10).

In a discussion of wartime photojournalism it is important to also mention iconic images. Hariman and Lucaites (2007) provide a list of definitions for iconic photographs, including but not limited to: “They are easily recognized… They are reproduced widely… They come to represent large swaths of historical experience…They are accessible, undemanding images suited to mass-mediated collective memory” (p. 1). In other words, like any icon, iconic photographs are widely recognized representations of some idea or event. Kroes (2000) notes, “Often such images start leading their own lives, serving as summary recapitulations of recent history” (p. 184). The iconic images in this study are also assumed to have had some control over public opinion during wartime.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, it seeks to examine patterns in photographic coverage of the Iraq War. Second, it examines the effects that war photographs have on public opinion. Specifically, it will explore possible correlations between common characteristics and reoccurring themes in the photographs depicting the

Iraq War and the measured public opinion at the time of the photograph’s publication. Nielson 5

The study will use a coding system and content analysis to look for common characteristics in photographs depicting the conflict in Iraq. These photographs will be taken from four online photo galleries that serve the purpose of summarizing the war.

As with the rest of the study, there will be a focus on iconic images, which will be identified by the literature.

In order to observe correlations between public opinion and the photographic coverage, the study will compare the results from the content analysis to a USA Today/

Gallup poll that, at various points between 2003 and 2009, finds the percentage of people who believe entering the Iraq War was a mistake.

Finally, this study will create a timeline of public opinion and iconic images. It will examine changes in the nature of the iconic images as compared to changes in public opinion, to search for potential relationships between the two.

Statement of Relevance

The Iraq War is an ongoing conflict. Therefore, it is important to understand how the war is being covered. This information will serve not only as a reference for future conflicts, but because the war is ongoing, journalists will have the opportunity to make adjustments to coverage of the war if the data shows biases.

That being noted, the importance of this study is based on its ability to show how certain methods of war coverage can impact public opinion. When photojournalists or their editors stray from objectivity, public sentiment, and resulting support for or against Nielson 6 the war, may be impacted. The journalist should at least understand the potential impact of self-censorship and/or subjectivity.

Additionally, the purpose of the media is to serve as a government watchdog. As such, journalists should continue to conduct studies that test the objectivity and balance of their coverage. Editors as well as journalists should consistently analyze their self- censorship to make sure it is both appropriate and ethical. They should check their photographs for biases that could unjustly affect public sentiment and support.

Furthermore, it is imperative, especially during time of war, to recognize the power and impact of this journalistic outlet. In particular, editors and journalists should be aware of the impact of iconic images that media reinforce. The role and purpose of the media is to divulge information and disseminate truth. This work is imperative during wartime. There are few other methods for the public to receive information about international conflicts than through the media. Thus, journalists should continue to examine the credibility and truthfulness of their coverage, and, through research and analysis, should recognize the impact it has on public opinion.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A historical analysis of four wars in the United States’ history gives insight into the role of photojournalism during wartime. This examination of both specific photographs as well as general journalistic policies demonstrates the profound impact images had on public opinion during past wars. Nielson 7

As the analysis illustrates, photographs have played an important role in depicting warfare and establishing an overall image or view of war. Photographs, especially the iconic images, have helped define conflicts.

This review researches four different conflicts in United States history. The first is the Civil War, which was the first war to be heavily photographed (Getlein, 2002).

Following is World War II—a war that was heavily censored (Roeder, 1993) but also greatly supported (Casey, 2001). Next the review examines the Vietnam War, which, opposite to World War II, went almost completely uncensored (Hallin, 1986) and received mostly negative attention from the public (Willis, 2007). Finally the Iraq War is a modern and ongoing conflict that will be studied in more depth later on in this study.

Civil War

In September of 1862 the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War was fought on Union soil (Walbridge, 2000, p. 9). Matthew Brady’s photograph, On The Antietam

Battlefield (1862), depicts the graphic consequence of that battle—a line of uniformed corpses covers the black and white image. (Walton, 2003, p. 994). Matthew Brady’s work did not end with the Battle of Antietam. Rather, Brady and his staff of photographers took approximately 7,000 glass plate negatives over the course of the war (Griffin, 1999, p. 132). Their work was innovatory—this war was the first in history to be closely photographed (Boyer, Clark, Kett, Salisbury & Sitkoff, 2008, p. 452). Nielson 8

According to Griffin (1999), Brady decided to photograph the war and then

“received permission from Abraham Lincoln himself to accompany Union troops on their campaigns” (p. 131). The photographs Brady and his staff brought home from the battlefield had no small effect. They allowed the public to view real images of war, and by doing so, they altered the public’s view of war (Boyer et al., 2008, p. 452). For the first time, prints of death were being brought to people’s doorsteps.

Once transmitted to wood engravings, Brady’s photographs could appear in the news (Getlein, 2002, p. 212). Brady also exposed the public to images of war by displaying his photographs in exhibits. In September of 1862 one such exhibit displayed photos from the Battle of Antietam—Brady’s first thorough record of war (Lanning,

2006, p. 154). According to Lanning (2006), “The smoke had barely cleared the battlefield before Brady’s images…were shown in New York in an exhibit titled “The

Dead of Antietam”” (p. 154). In a room in New York, visitors could view photographic representations of death and dying and despair, the likes of which they had never seen before. Shortly after the opening of his exhibit, the New York Times reported, “Mr.

Brady has done something to bring home to us the terrible reality and earnestness of war.

If he has not brought bodies and laid them on our dooryard and along the streets, he has done something very like it.” (quoted in Lanning, 2006, p. 154). In the wake of the Civil

War—a conflict that would be branded as the war in which brother fought against brother and that, in four years, would kill 600,000 Americans (Catton, 2004, p. 7), Brady disclosed the horrors of war. He “placed a human face on the horrible consequences of warfare” (Turner, 2007, p. 177). Nielson 9

Brady and his staff (who went widely unrecognized as Brady was credited with all photographs) accomplished this feat with thousands of photos; however, a few stand out amongst the crowd. One of these is Brady’s photograph, Embalming Surgeon At

Work, ca. 1865, which shows a doctor wrapping a dead soldier in order to send him home to the North (Walton, 2003, p. 994). Although there do not seem to be photographs labeled iconic during the Civil War, Griffin (1999) notes that the two most reproduced photographs were taken by Timothy O’Sullivan and Alexander Garner and titled

“Harvest of Death” and “Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter” (p. 132). Both show dead soldiers (a practice that would later be censored). In addition, Bleakney (2006) notes that

O’Sullivan’s photo “illustrated how dying in war lacked gallantry” (p. 129). The uncensored quality of these photos impacted the public.

It seems relevant to note, however, that those photographs, which brought war to the doorsteps of civilians, were fraught with some limitations. First, photographs were taken largely from the perspective of the Union, as photography was less accessible to the

Southern states due to “the Union blockade of the South, dwindling photographic supplies, and the sinking Confederate economy” (Boyer et al., 2008, p. 453). Although the South had some photographers of its own, according to Boyer et al. (2008), the South was photographed, primarily, when it was being invaded by the North (p. 453). Surely a new perspective of the South would have been painted had there been a more permanent photographer on that side. Civil War photography, though, was not limited solely by its viewpoints. Technology also limited the photography. Long exposure times on cameras made capturing active subjects difficult, if not impossible (Turner, 2007, p. 178). Thus, Nielson 10 actual battle scenes were left out of New York exhibits—people saw the aftereffects of battle, not the fight itself.

Despite such limitations, people still considered photographs as evidence of truth.

In Photographic History of the Civil War (1912), Francis Trevalyan Miller deemed the war photographs to be “unarguable facts” (quoted in Trachtenberg, 1985, p. 1). This seemed to be the general opinion of the public—photographs were fact, not slanted by partiality. Particularly in the Civil War, people simply did not question the credibility of photographs being produced (Walton, 2003, p. 994). For the first time, people were viewing images from the battlefield in photographic form. The public accepted those photos as fact (what reason would they have had not to?) and, consequently, the people were affected by the images. Walton (2003) writes, “People were taken with these new incredible images that appeared to capture men as they met their horrible ends. The immediacy of these photographs captivated the public’s imagination” (p. 994).

Hearing about war was not unfamiliar to the American public—pamphlets and news written articles about war happenings were dispersed even during the American

Revolution. Photographs, though, brought a seemingly not debatable viewpoint of the war. Pieces of war and death were suddenly accessible to the public in their living rooms, brought to them in magazines (Biagi, 2007, p. 235). Photographs, it seems, were fated to affect public opinion of war. According to Boyer et al. (2008), “Americans appreciated the minute detail of photographs and the apparent truthfulness of the camera. They also responded with emotion to the content of photographs—to the courage of the soldiers to the massive might of the Union army, and to the deadly toll of war” (p. 453). The Civil

War marked the being of a history of photographs that would carry similar themes of Nielson 11 death, horror, courage and violence. Photographs affected people during the Civil War by exposing them to it. With black and white images caught on glass plates, photographers impacted how people saw war and, accordingly, how they responded to war (or at least images of war). Over time, the role of war photography would further develop and would continue to help determine public opinion.

World War II

Even before the United States joined the Allies to fight in World War II, media were drafted for the war effort. Among the draftees was photojournalism. The practice was already considered to be in its golden age (Jolly, 2009, p. 1). And according to

Griffin (1999), World War II was the time when photojournalism came of age (p. 125).

Several imperative and iconic photographs were taken during the war, with no small effect. Willis (2007) states, “This was probably the war that the world realized how important visual imagery is in conveying the horrors of war and in transporting readers to the bloody scenes of battle” (p. 123). Such photos were published in major newspapers and magazines as well as small papers around America (Willis, 2007, p. 123).

Incidentally, the sweeping effects of war photographs were sometimes, if not often, intended—censorship and propaganda were crucial to the war effort. As Roeder

(1996) puts it—“things unseen had as least as great an influence on American understanding of World War II as things seen” (p. 47). Although censorship was prominent, at least one World War I ban was lifted during the second world war: journalists were free to roam the battlefields (Kobré & Brill, 2004, p. 364). However, Nielson 12 another ban stayed, and for twenty-one months after the U.S. joined the war, photographers could not publish photos depicting dead Americans (Roeder, 1993, p. 8).

The government had realized the persuasiveness of photographs and, it seems, had begun to fear their effect. The censorship of dead bodies that lasted almost two years into America’s involvement in the war was triggered by the government’s fear that the defeats and stalemates, which were prominent in the beginning of the war, would undermine public support for the war (Roeder, 1993, p. 8). The government assumed avoiding tragic and gruesome photographs would prolong the public’s patience. The censorship was lifted when that supposition changed. In 1943 the War Department quit that censorship, stating that the public should “understand the ferocity of the struggle and the sacrifices being made on its behalf” (quoted in Sickels, 2004, p. 234). The War

Department lifted censorship when extended freedoms were advantageous to its purpose.

Roeder (1993) explains the character of censorship and propaganda during this time:

What Americans saw by 1945 was more revealing, and sustained a more

complex understanding of the war, than what they had seen in December

1941. Americans eventually saw more not because the government

loosened control, but because it used its power to encourage a different

emphasis in the visual presentation of the war (p. 25).

In this way, the government used photographs to manipulate the public into supporting the war. Government officials had realized the influence of photos. And specifically in the case of iconic images—photographs proved powerful.

On the tip of the Mount Suribachi, Joe Rosenthal took a photograph of five

Marines and a navy corpsman raising an American flag (Burrell, 2006, p. 132). The Nielson 13 impact of the photograph was significant. When the Associated Press photographer captured the image of six men raising a flag in Japan, impatience and disillusionment were increasing in America. Casualties were high, morale was low, and the enemy seemed unconquerable. (Hayes & Warren, 2008, p. 132). Captured February 23, 1945,

Rosenthal’s “Flag Raising on Iwo Jima” immediately became an icon of patriotism

(Burrell, 2006, p. 189). Faber (1960) writes that the photo “became a symbol that boosted the fighting morale of the United States at a time when the tide of World War II had been against us, both in Europe and the Far East. It gave the nation renewed confidence” (p. 90). This photograph depicting unity and triumph reinvested the public in the war effort. The photograph revitalized public sentiment, turning it from downcast and disillusioned to hopeful and encouraged. Still today, it serves as a “prominent national symbol of resolve and courage in time of the utmost adversity” (Haynes & Warren, 2008, p. 132).

The image was published within 48 hours and was published in several print publications including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and eventually Life magazine (Haynes & Warren, 2008, p. 133). In other words, the photo affected a wide audience. The iconic photograph’s influence did not suddenly halt subsequent to

February 23, 1945. Instead, it became the “most reproduced photograph in history”

(Burrell, 2006, p. 189). Effectively, newspapers and magazines were not the only administrators of this popular photo. It was printed on a stamp and became the basis for a number of monuments (Burrell, 2006, p. 189). Most notably, though, the photograph and the allegiance it inspired were used to persuade the public to purchase war bonds. The government brought the three surviving men from the photograph home from the war and Nielson 14 used them as “poster boys” to raise sufficient money to quickly end the war in the Pacific

(Willis, 2007, p. 123). The capability of this photograph was such that it affected not only a general sentiment in people, but also their willingness to support and aid the war effort.

The government realized this potential, and took advantage of it.

Many of the iconic images of World War II illustrate similar themes of courage, optimism and victory. For instance, one of the iconic images of the war shows General

Douglas MacArthur treading toward the Philippine shore. Two years earlier, in 1942,

MacArthur left the island that was under Japanese attack, but promised to return

(Bloomfield, 2003, p. 309). The photograph witnesses the fulfillment of that promise.

Moeller (1999) notes, “It is not happenstance that it was the image of General MacArthur striding back through the Philippine waves—not one of him fleeing the islands—that became an icon of World War II” (p. 47). Such was the nature of censorship and propaganda during the war. Censorship and propaganda were intended, not necessarily to prohibit photographs showing the devastation of war, but to convince the public that war was necessary and the outcome promising. Therefore, Eisenhower charged that photographs could show casualties walking or cheerful, but should not show anything of a “horrific nature” (Roeder, 1993, p. 25). At times more shocking photographs dodged censorship, but even these were cheered up by the stories that accompanied them. Sickels

(2004) observes:

While photographers took pictures that showed the negative side of life for

American civilians and soldiers, including photos of overworked,

exhausted, dead, and dying soldiers and of Japanese people living in Nielson 15

California’s internment camps, many of the stories had a cheerleading

quality to them (p. 234).

This is loosely exemplified by the iconic image Margaret Bourke-White captured at the end of the war. The photo was displayed with the caption “Survivors behind Barbed

Wire, Buchenwald 1945” and Time deemed it great and iconic for “inform[ing] the world about the true nature of the Holocaust” (quoted in Zelizer, 1998, p. 181). Bourke-White’s photo and similar photos depicting concentration camps were horrific. They were not censored, though. Rather, they were published in Life in May of 1945 under the label

“Atrocities” (Sickels, 2004, p. 234). Sickels (2004) states, “For the public, these photos served as something of an explanation and justification for American involvement in

World War II” (p. 234). In this sense, even appalling photographs were used as a rationale for war, particularly U.S. involvement in that war.

Censorship and propaganda permeated into the different mediums of coverage during World War II. For much of the war, photographs had to be approved by official headquarters and censors prior to publication (Kobré & Brill, 2004, p. 365). The purpose of this infiltration of censorship and propaganda was to ensure support for and high opinion of the war. And it was successful. World War II has been called the “good war.”

Despite Casey’s (2001) report that Franklin D. Roosevelt noted discontent more often than support for the war, he writes that the common classification of World War II seems nearly irrefutable:

Clearly, there was a broad consensus within the United States that the

country’s involvement in the conflict was necessary and vital. Clearly, too,

any popular discontent remained within distinct bounds—on this occasion, Nielson 16

for instance, there was no vocal and influential peace movement.

Moreover, World War II undoubtedly had a profound, even beneficial,

impact on America, not least because of the extraordinary achievements of

the domestic economy (p. xviii).

Certainly, photojournalism and censorship cannot be granted full credit for public support during World War II. A number of other factors—a few noted above—impacted the public’s decision to bolster the war effort. It can however, be soundly assumed that media, censorship and propaganda helped define and alter public sentiment. Roeder

(1996) notes that while it is difficult to pinpoint the exact impact of war-related images, opinion polls and studies by the Office of War Information indicate that photographs and the themes they portrayed did, in fact, affect the public (p. 47). Thus, photographs, particularly those labeled iconic, persuaded the public and ultimately affected its opinion, as they would continue to do.

Vietnam War

In AP photographer Nick Ut’s picture, the girl is running toward him. She is screaming, she has burns from a napalm attack, and she is naked (a fact that would threaten publication of the photo). On June 8, 1972, Nick Ut took the photograph of a little girl that would become a symbol of the horrors of war. The photograph strays from conventional war photography, as “it features civilians rather than soldiers, those acted upon rather than those acting, people harmed by our actions rather than by the enemy, a failure to protect rather than protection extended, unintended consequences rather than Nielson 17 strategic action, war’s continuing hurtfulness rather than an after math of dead bodies in repose.” (Hariman & Lucaites, 2008, p. 178).

While World War II depended on censorship and propaganda to boost home front morale, the Vietnam War has been called the uncensored war (Hallin, 1986, p. 128) and the “living-room” war (Hoskins, 2004, p.13). Through television stations and photo- featuring magazines, journalists brought unobstructed visuals of the war straight into viewers’ homes. Turning away from the idealized images of World War II, the media evolved during Vietnam War. As Willis (2007) writes: “Vietnam was a war like not other the United States had waged, and the role the press played became increasingly important in how the war was conducted, the protest movement in the United States, and eventually

\the decision to withdraw American troops altogether” (p. 125). Journalists found themselves in a war zone with unrestricted access and a certain amount of skepticism about the truthfulness of government-relayed information (Steinman, 2002, p. 6). And so, a new type of iconic image emerged.

Kim Phuc, the girl in Nick Ut’s photo, was published on the front pages of newspapers around the world (Chong, 1999, p. xv). Additionally, the image of the napalm girl was reproduced manifold times after the year it was taken (Chong, 1999, p. xv). Americans were appalled by the image (Willis, 2007, p. 127). They had seen images depicting tragedy, injury and even death before, but this image strayed from conventional war themes. Carter & Petro (1998) write, “This image dramatically portrayed the impact of the war on non-combatants, a concept that had been reported in print media for some years but never with the force of this photo…Ut’s photograph redefined what American weapons of fire were doing ‘over there’” (p. 106). When this photo was released in 1972, Nielson 18 the American public saw a war whose victims were not only valiant soldiers and unforgivable enemies, but also innocuous civilian children. The image was printed when

Americans were already questioning the government’s motives in this conflict, and the iconic photo captured a moment that could not be justified—even by an honorable war

(Hariman & Lucaites, 2007, p. 176). By showing the child victim—this new war casualty—Ut changed the public’s judgment of the war. His photograph of the screaming, injured girl “has been credited as one of the major influences in the shift of American attitudes about the war” (Carter & Petro, 1998, p. 106).

Although it is remembered as the television war, many of the enduring images of

Vietnam are photographs (Patterson, 1984, p. 35). Among theses, Hariman & Lucaites

(2008) list the four most distributed: the Buddhist monk lighting himself on fire, the Viet

Cong prisoner with a gun to his head, the shooting at Kent State and the napalm girl (p.

87). The authors cite Marita Sturken’s (1997) observation about the similarities of these four images—they earned more money than any television footage and emphasized facial expressions (in Hariman & Lucaites, 2008, p. 87). The emphasis on emotion and expression is especially notable in the photograph picturing the execution of the Viet

Cong man. In a 1968 issue of Life, Shana Alexander describes the photo:

His face is square to the camera, squinched in its instant of death, distorted

by the bullet’s impact like a pilot’s in a power dive. Inches from his ear

the instrument of that death is gripped by the bare hand and arm of a taller

man with a turtle head. The killer is national police chief General Loan.

The victim is identified as an officer of Vietcong (p. 19). Nielson 19

Huebner (2005) writes that the footage depicting this event must have “sickened millions” (p. 159). Surely the photograph did the same. Equally disturbing is the photograph of the burning monk, or as the image is also titled—the self- immolating Buddhist. This photograph depicts a monk committing suicide as an anti-war protest, and according to Carter & Petro (1998), photographs illustrating these suicides were common (107). The burning protestors were “impossible to ignore” (Carter & Petro, 1998, p. 108).

These were the images that defined the Vietnam War. Gone were the stinted photographs of World War II. Whereas World War II had restricted them from showing an emotionally distressed soldier even after the war (Kobré & Brill,

2004, p. 364), no such prohibition existed during the Vietnam War. This new image of the soldier could be pitied—eventually, the soldier was even shown as bitter and “emotionally scarred” (Huebner, 2005, p. 152, 157). In addition, during the Vietnam War, an execution could be published on the front page. Often journalists followed the military into the war zone, and they were not limited in what they were permitted to capture or publish (Hallin, 1986, p. 128). There were certain methods of implementing censorship, although, they were much subtler than those applied during World War II. For instance, journalists were regularly asked not to show graphic photos of dead bodies and an unpopular journalist might be denied an interview (Huebner, 2005, p. 152). In addition, there was a period during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency when the White House media attempted to convince the public, by way of the press, that there was a light at the end of this tunnel called war (Willis, 2007, p. 127). For a while, it seemed to be Nielson 20 working. However, January 1968 rang in a new year with the Tet Offensive, which refueled the nation’s negativity, and many of the most explicit images were published thereafter. (Willis, 2007, p. 127).

The important thing to realize is that the presidential administrations for both Johnson and Richard Nixon, recognized the power of the press in regards to public opinion (Willis, 2005, p. 127). Although there is some dispute as to the actual impact of the media on public opinion (for instance, Patterson’s (1984) research of magazine p hotos did not indicate a increase of graphic photos between 1968 and 1973, nor did it justify the public’s change of opinion about the war), the prevailing opinion is that media had at least some effect on public sentiment. Willis (2007) writes, “To this date historians still debate whether the

American pullout came because of the intense press coverage of the war, and most believe it did” (p. 128). He added, “The press is a big determinant of

American public opinion, and this was certainly the case with the Vietnam war”

(p. 128). When considering this, it is interesting to examine the correlation between the role of the press and popularity of the war. World War II with its censored and optimistic media has been acclaimed the most popular war (Mueller,

1973, p. 63). Years later, Vietnam, featuring unrestricted, graphic photographs, was, perhaps, the most unpopular war in history (Mueller, 1973, p. 156). The correlation seems to suggest that photojournalism and media do impact public opinion of and support for the war.

Nielson 21

Iraq War

April 2003. One of the first iconic images of the Iraq War was photographed by

Cheryl Diaz Meyer of the Dallas Morning News, and with a group of war images, it won the 2004 Breaking News Photography Pulitzer Prize. The photograph pictures a lieutenant and lance corporal rescuing an Iraqi civilian who was caught in battle (Pulitzer,

2004). They are dragging the hurt man away from the danger, as a car fire smokes in the background. In the same group of images, taken by Meyer and David Leeson, there is an

Iraqi soldier burning from a car fire caused by U.S. soldiers, a woman hiding in a ditch with her children, a child with terrible burns from attack, but it is the hero photo that became iconic. Griffin (2004) writes, “There seems to have been a special effort to make and publish images of U.S. aid to Iraqis. Several pictures show soldiers holding (and presumably rescuing) infants…In sever photographs, female soldiers, British and

American, are shown assisting Iraqi women” (pp. 396-397). Meyer’s iconic photograph represents this trend in photographs to depict the American side as the hero rescuing the victim Iraq. This pro—American coverage would continue to dictate iconic photographs throughout the remainder of the year.

April 2003. In another of the early iconic images, a statue of Saddam Hussein is falling down In fact, it is being pulled down—toppled in a symbolic seizure reminiscent of significant and celebrated historical events, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Nielson 22 destruction of Lenin statues at the end of the Cold War. That is, at least, how the media portrayed the event. (Tumber & Palmer, 2004, p. 110). Even without written reports like the one in the New York Times describing “newly-freed Iraqis toppl[ing] the figure of their tyrant” (William Safire quoted in Tumber & Palmer, 2004, p. 100), the photograph gave an overly optimistic view. The photograph shows a gathering of Iraqi civilians taking down the towering statue of Saddam Hussein and celebrating his fall (Welch,

Gruhl, Comer & Rigdon, 2010, p. 115). The iconic image provided a positive depiction of U.S. involvement in this war. Only a few weeks into the conflict and America already had a victory—even if it was mostly symbolic. The photograph gave the overwhelming impression that the United States was winning the war on terror and the Iraqis were grateful. The image, though, was misleading. Welch et. Al. (2010) writes, “In reality, the incident was staged as a photo op by the American military. The statue, which was attached to a cable, was pulled down by a tank, and Iraqis, who were transported to the square for the cameras, number only 30 to 40” (p. 115). Some of the public’s first perceptions of the war then, were based on a somewhat disingenuous photo that became a quick icon of the war. Similarly, a photograph was published a few weeks later that would be called the “war’s greatest photo op” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 43).

May 2003. Smiling, outfitted in a flight suit and located on the U.S.S. Abraham

Lincoln, President George W. Bush made a speech announcing the end of major combat in Iraq (Mitchell, 2008, pp. 42-43). Behind the president a large banner proclaims:

“Mission Accomplished.” The photograph picturing the event was extremely optimistic about the war effort, and it stands on its own. With or without a caption explaining

Bush’s end-of-combat declaration, the message in the photo is clear: Mission Nielson 23

Accomplished. President Bush, teamed with this photograph, told the nation, this war is basically over. According to Kennedy-Shaffer (2009) “most of the nation believed him”

(p. 3). A mere six weeks into the war, an optimistic image made Americans believe that a swift conclusion was around the corner. However, the picture was premature (Welch et al., 2010, p. 115). When quick closure did not come, the photograph took on new meaning it was used to deride the president. Ansen (2006) observes, “The iconic images that were meant to stir a nation, such as the toppling of Saddam’s statue, had short shelf lives. Or, in the case of the president’s “Mission Accomplished” strut across a [aircraft carrier], they have been used against him” (par 3). Still, positive images continued to be the ones that reached iconic status into the end of the year.

December 2003. When Saddam Hussein was captured, a new type of image emerged. These photographs did no explicitly laud the achievements of the U.S. There were no banners or cheering crowds. Instead, the images portrayed a more subtle message about the power of the American forces and the weakness of the former Iraqi leader. The striking contrast between the before and after photos of Saddam Hussein illustrated the downfall of the leader—a downfall brought on by Americans. Prior images had pictured Hussein as a powerful leader and strong military operator, but in the photos of his capture, he appears old, rough and disheveled. (Bielsa & Bassnett, 2009, p. 118).

An iconic photograph resulted from the coverage—the dejected version of Hussein is having his teeth examined (Hariman & Lucaites, 2007, p. 172). Bielsa & Bassnett (2009) note the underlying implications of the image:

It emphasized his fall from a high position to his present powerlessness, it

hinted that he had been reduced to a level little more than an animal, yet Nielson 24

conversely it also implied that his captors were humane people,

sufficiently concerned about his welfare to subject him to a medical

examination (p. 118).

To reiterate, the photographs depicting the capture of Saddam Hussein reinvented him. In place of a strong leader, the photographs showed a weakened captive.

Such was the nature of iconic images during the first year of the war. They were hugely optimistic, portraying Americans as heroes, victors and benefactors. Journalists, though, argue that it was not their intention to dull the coverage of the war. While Tom

Fiedler, editor of the Miami Herald (2004) said he does not believe there was “a conscious effort to sanitize the war,” he does say, “I think the pictures that our own photographers were getting, or those we were relying on were pictures that probably reflected more the successes the American military was having” (quoted in Robertson,

2010, p. 2). In general, journalists denied purposeful self-censorship, stating instead that photographic coverage changed and developed with the war (Robertson, 2010, p. 2).

Scholars, though, cite a different reason for the dulled coverage, which seem to have been particularly prominent at the start of the war. They fault the practice of embedding reporters. Garner (2008) states that the government used this policy to control journalist and curb their pursuit for newsworthy material (p. 80). As Salhani (2004) puts it, “Invited to join up…the media became far more manageable for the generals and the Pentagon suits (p. 127). Embedding journalists was this war’s version of censorship. In addition, recalling censorship policies of World War II, embedded reporters were prohibited from publishing photos with identifiable people who were dead or wounded (Simpson & Coté,

2006, p. 152). Although no every reporter was embedded, the unilateral journalists were Nielson 25 still affected by a form of censoring. As an embed, a journalist had to stay with the military, as an independent, a journalist often could not get close enough the battle

(Katovsky & Carlson, 2003, p. x). Journalists were thus restricted.

As in wars before, photographs continued to play an imperative roe during the

Iraq War, despite some restrictions. Lucaites and Hariman (2007) write that the Iraq conflict proves the “in the emerging digital age, photojournalism will continue to provide powerful resources for advocacy, for manipulation and perhaps for critical reflection” (p.

285. In particular, the iconic images would hold this power. Michael Hill is hesitant to name the iconic images prior to the end of the conflict in Iraq, because he states the icons will be determined by how the public decides to remember the war; however, he does list contenders (cited in Hariman and Lucaites, 2007, p. 172). The seven images he lists repeatedly appear in the literature marked as iconic. The first three have already been reviewed in this section (American hero, toppling of Saddam statue, Mission

Accomplished and Saddam’s dental examination). The next four image were published in

2004, and they demonstrate a dramatic change in coverage.

March 2004. “Contractors Hanging on Bridge,” and Associated Press photo, shows the culmination of a horrific event that occurred in Fallujah, Iraq, just over a year into the war. Perlmutter & Major (2004) describe:

On March 31, 2004, Iraqi terrorists, throwing grenades, killed four

America civilian contractors who were driving through the city of

Fallujah, Iraq. A quickly swelling crowd of civilians then beat the

burned bodies (with anything in hand, including shoes), dragged

them through the streets, and hung two of them from a nearby Nielson 26

Euphrates River bridge. Many onlookers and participants danced

with joy and chanted anti-American slogans. The horror was

caught on camera” (para 1).

The photograph ran in multiple publications, including the front page of the New York

Times (Perlmutter & Major, 2004, para 5). In the Pulitzer Prize winning image, two charred bodies, hanging from the bridge are visible in the mid-ground. One Iraqi still holds the rope suspending the blackened body from the bridge. The man closest to the camera has his arm raised—he appears to be yelling. The photograph had two, sort of opposing, consequences. First, it informed the American public that not every Iraqi was grateful for American military presence in Iraq. In direct contrast to the photograph showing Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam’s statue and thereby celebrating American, in this photograph, the Iraqis are celebrating the death—their murder—of Americans.

The men in the AP image are happy, McCullough (2008) writes; he adds, “from the point of view of those in the crowd that day, it really was a cause for celebration…They had managed to retaliate against the vastly more powerful coalition forces, which had invaded their sovereign nation” (p. 144). This was the first iconic image that did not show

American forces saving the poor Iraqi nation. Instead, it showed a group of Iraqis that clearly did not want to be saved. The second thing the photo did, though, was create an image of an enemy. In an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal, Noonan (2004) writes, “The terrible glee of the young men in the crowds, and the sadism they evinced, reminds us of the special power of the ignorant to impede the good” (para 2). In this photo, the enemy is portrayed as horrific, evil and statistic. Like the commonly used technique of Word War II, the image negatively portrays the other side, turning the Nielson 27 people of Iraq into the evil adversary. It must be assumed then, that some people on the home front saw this photo as another reason to carry on the war. However, it also stood as evidence that some civilians in Iraq were not cheering on American presence as had been previously depicted.

April 2004. Rows of coffins—at least 20—are placed in an aircraft in Kuwait in this next iconic image. The coffins are draped with American flags, indicating that they carry American soldiers who have been killed in the war (Nolan, 2004, para 2). Images of the caskets had not been published previous to this one, because taking this type of photograph was restricted. Garner (2008) explains, “In this war initial policies forbade press pictures of draped coffins, so that readers at home would not think of the inevitable—death—in relation to the war” (p. 80). An employee of Maytag Aircraft Corp. took the photo, and she was fired for capturing the image, but not before it appeared on the front page of the Seattle Times (Smoklin, 2004, para 9). Editor of the Seattle Times,

David Bordman, expected the photograph to elicit two reactions: “I think some people will see this as, yes, this is the toll of the war in Iraq, the human toll. Other people won’t see that at all. They will see, isn’t this great that these guys are being treated this way, and they died for a good cause” (quoted in Nolan, 2004, para 15). Either way, this was an emotional and powerful image.

April 2004. In the same month that the draped caskets were photographed, some of the most controversial images of the war appeared. These were the Abu Ghraib torture photos. Describing the photos, Andén-Papdopoulos (2008) states, “few photographs in recent years have been deemed so ‘shocking’ and ‘compelling’ as the amateur snapshots of the U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad. Nielson 28

They instantly rose to iconic status” (p. 5). The photographs were broadcast on CBS 60

Minutes II on April 28, 2004—two weeks after the Defense Department asked that the station hold the photos and more than four months after the torture occurred (Bennett,

Lawrence & Livingston, 2007, p. 73). In the Abu Ghraib prison, some American soldier took snapshots as they tortured their prisoners (Garner, 2008, p. 80). The snapshots would stir the nation. These images were a far cry from the pro-American images that, just a year ago, had dominated coverage deemed iconic. The publication of the photos that negatively depicted U.S. involvement “broke the bough” of optimistic and sanitized war coverage (Robertson, 2004, p. 2). Anden-Papadopoulos (2008) agrees, noting: “The sudden appearance of the photographs of torture at Abu Ghraib, the argument goes, helped destroy the dominant Iraq war narrative of American liberation and moral superiority, and promoted public attention to the occupational power’s making of a quagmire in post-war Iraq” (p. 1). In addition, Barbie Zelizer observes that these torture photos, and, incidentally, the coffin photo before it, were not taken by journalists; thus, other forces, besides journalism played a major role in developing an image of war (cited in Robertson, 2004, p. 80).

One image from the prison, in particular, has acquired iconic status. In the photo, the prisoner is standing on a box. A black cover hides the man’s face and body. It does not hide the electrical wires to which the man is hooked. Once again, the public’s reaction was two-fold. There were those that believed the Bush administration’s released message that this was an isolated incident and was not a symbol of “policy failures”

(Anden-Papadopoulos, 2008, p. 8). However, the other side saw “evidence of foreign Nielson 29 policy gone awry,” and expressions of viciousness and imperialism (Anden-

Papadopoulos, 2008, p. 8).

November 2004. Seven months after the torture photographs appeared, a Los

Angeles Times photographer took a picture of a tired marine smoking a cigarette. The photograph won a Pulitzer Prize, was published in more than 100 newspapers and

“quickly moved into the real of iconic” (McDonnell, 2004, para 7-8). Paralleled with the previous image of the American soldier, this photo shows a change in coverage. The

2003 image of the American soldier shows a confident hero carrying n Iraqi victim— risking his life to save a civilian. The marine in this photo still looks something like a hero, but he is an exhausted hero—and rightfully so, the photo was taken after more than

12 hours of combat (McDonnell, 2004, para 6). As for the public’s reaction, the were fascinated by the image. McDonnell (2004) write, “The Los Angeles Times and other publications have received scores of e-mail wanting to know about this mysterious figure.

Many women, in particular, have inquired about how to contact him” (para 9). To the public, Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, who has been called the Marlboro soldier, was an imperfect hero—and icon they wanted to know better.

As will be examined further in the following sections, these eight iconic images had a notable impact on public opinion.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESIS

Nielson 30

The following research questions were proposed to examine journalistic coverage of the Iraq War and the potential correlation between visual coverage of the conflict and public opinion:

Research Question 1: What characteristics dominate visual coverage of the Iraq War in the time frame from March 2003 to December 2009?

A coding sheet was developed to locate and highlight different aspects of wartime coverage presented in the photographs. The system was then used to identify leading characteristics in the specified time frame. The coding evaluated aspects such as: the angle of the photograph, the central message it conveys, and the emotion of pictured person.

Research Questions 2: Is there a significant correlation between aspects of coverage and the percentage of people opposed to the war at any given time?

In this section, certain aspects of visual coverage were compared to public opinion of the war. Public opinion was determined by a USA Today / Gallup poll. Specifically, the poll identified the percentage of people who believed the U.S. made a mistake sending troops to Iraq. This section searched for significant correlations between type of coverage (as evaluated by the coding sheet) and public opinion. Charts and frequencies created by

SPSS, a predictive analytics software, were used to determine whether there was a correlation. Nielson 31

Hypothesis 1: Iconic images of the Iraq conflict will have an impact on public opinion of the war. Specifically, visual coverage with themes that positively depict U.S. involvement will correlate with a higher opinion of/ less opposition to the war. Correspondingly, negative themes and depictions of the U.S. will result in a more negative opinion of the war.

Although there are some mixed opinions in literature about the influence photographs wield over public opinion, the researcher believed there was enough evidence to hypothesize that the iconic images of the Iraq War would have an effect on public opinion. Furthermore, a historical analysis of past wars shows a parallel between visual coverage and public opinion. The relationship seems to be particularly relevant in regards to iconic photographs. This is likely because the iconic images are widely reproduced giving the public sufficient opportunities to view the photos. In addition, iconic images, relating to war coverage, often serve as a representation or definition of the overarching conflict. Specifically Hariman and Lucaites (2007) support this hypothesis.

To test this hypothesis, the study examined specific characteristics of the iconic images and then compared them to public opinion over time. It examined the effects that positive and negative depictions of the United States (which were based on the initial impression of the coder) had on public opinion. It seeks correlations between the theme or emotion of the photo and the number of people who believed the war was a mistake at the time the photograph was taken. In other words, the iconic images were placed on a timeline with Nielson 32 the results of public opinion polls describing the number of people who considered the war in Iraq a mistake. The hypothesis was tested by seeking out changes in coverage that corresponded to changes in public support for the war.

METHODOLOGY

For this study, content analysis was used to measure the visual content of photographs that depict events during the Iraq War. As defined by Kerlinger (1973)

“content analysis is a method of studying and analyzing communications in a systematic, objective, and quantitative manner to measure variables” (quoted in Riffe, Lacy & Fico,

2005, p. 24). Wimmer & Dominick (2006) adds, “the goal of content analysis is an accurate representation of a body of messages” (p. 74).

The body of images, or population, in this study consists of photographs taken of, and during, the Iraq War. The sample of these photographs was taken from four publications with online catalogs displaying coverage of the war over time. The three publications are: Life1, CBC News2, Associated Press3 and the New York Times4. The goal

1 Today’s Wars: Iraq and Afghanistan [Photo Gallery]. Retrieved March 30, 2010 from http://www.life.com/image/2187982/in-gallery/27032 2 Iraq Anniversary [Photo Gallery]. Retrieved March 30, 2010 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/indez.html 3 Pulitzer Prize Winning Photos [Photo Gallery]. Retrieved March 30, 2010 from http://www.ap.org/media/falsh/pulit/swf 4 Iraq 5 Years In: An Overview of Major Events in the Conflict [Interactive Feature]. Retrieved April 17, 2010 from Nielson 33 of this sampling process was to get a general view of photographs that have been made available to the public over the course of the Iraq War. The internet-based photo galleries were chosen because they provide a wide range of images with the intention of summarizing the war. Additionally, this study places a particular emphasis on images that have been characterized as iconic. As such, there is an additional purposive sample, which includes photographs that have been repeatedly defined as iconic. These include the eight photographs listed in the literature review: the toppling of the statue of Saddam

Hussein; President George W. Bush with the mission accomplished banner; Hussein submitting to a dental examination; a U.S. soldier rescuing an Iraqi civilian; American contractors hung on the bridge in Fallujah; draped caskets on an aircraft in Kuwait; the

Abu Ghraib torture photographs; and the Marlboro soldier. While multiple scholars have considered these images iconic, Hill (2004) specifically lists the abovementioned images—with the exception of the Marlboro soldier—as competitors for iconic status (in

Hariman & Lucaites, 2007, p. 172). McDonnell (2004) confirms the iconic status of the smoking soldier (para 7). Photographs that overlapped in the two samples were not duplicated.

The time frame for the sample begins January 2003 and finishes December 2009.

This study recognizes March 20, 2003 as the official start of the Iraq War, as this is the date when the U.S. ultimatum requiring Saddam Hussein to exit Iraq expired and main attacks on the country began (Cordesman, 2003, p. 61). The iconic images in this study have only been determined for the first two years of the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/03/18/world/middleeast/20080319_IRA QWAR_TIMELINE.html?#tab1 Nielson 34

In this study, the unit of analysis is the photograph. If more than one person appeared in the photograph, the primary subject(s) was chosen. The photographs were analyzed using a coding sheet (Appendix A). Specifically, a priori coding system was developed. In this type of coding, the categories are decided prior to the conducting of the study, and are chosen based on “some theoretical or conceptual rationale” as opposed to creating the coding after observing the content and pulling out common themes (Wimmer

& Dominick, 2006, p. 159). The theoretical foundation for the coding used in this study originated partially from historical examples of iconic images found in literature. In addition, this study adapted a coding sheet model from Shahira Fahmy (2010).

In this study, the independent variable is time, while the dependent variable is method of war coverage. As aforementioned, the coding sheet will determine the methods of coverage. Thus this study will evaluate things such as types of emotion portrayed, central messages revealed and amounts of blood and gore shown in comparison to time.

Besides studying the nature of coverage, this study seeks to analyze photographs’ impact on public opinion. Since content analysis alone cannot determine media’s effects on an audience (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006, p. 153), this study combines the results from the content analysis with data from public opinion polls. The purpose of this study is not to observe the immediate emotional or intellectual impact war photographs have on individuals. Instead, it seeks to examine potential relationships between the overall trends in photographic coverage and public opinion during wartime. Therefore, by comparing changes in public opinion over time to changes in photographic coverage on the same timeline, it will be able to seek for correlating trends. The decided iconic images will be highlighted, enabling an examination of their specific relationship with the poll data. Nielson 35

The public opinion poll used for this study was a USA Today/ Gallup poll5 that was asked on a Gallup Daily tracking survey. The poll begins March 24-25, 2003 and extends to July 10-12, 2009. The poll asked, “In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?” Possible responses included: yes, no and no opinion. Together the public opinion poll data and coded photographs allowed this study to draw conclusions about the relationship between public opinion and photographic coverage during wartime.

RESULTS

Overall, 78 photographs were coded and analyzed. Eight of the images were considered iconic, as identified by Hill (2004) and McDonnell (2004). The other 70 images were found in photo galleries, which were displayed in the following online publications: Life, CBC News, Associated Press and the New York Times. However, these publications do not necessarily exercise ownership over the photographs. The photos are owned by or were originally printed in nine publications. (Chart 1). The Associated Press claimed the largest percentage of photos, with 45 percent, or almost half the images.

Getty Images and the New York Times followed with 32 and 15 percent respectively.

Fifty photographers are responsible for taking the 78 images. Furthermore, 22 photographs were awarded the Pulitzer Prize, one image was a finalist for the award and

55 received no prize. In regard to the iconic images, two won Pulitzers, one was a finalist and five received no award.

5 Gallup. Iraq. Retrieved March 18, 2010 from www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx Nielson 36

In the full group of photos, 56 were taken from a medium angle, 15 show a wide view and seven are close-up images. In addition, 70 of the photographs were taken from various locations in Iraq, seven were captured in the United States and for one photograph the location is not specified.

In addition, this data set shows a significant decrease in photographic coverage after January 2005. (Chart 2). While this steep decrease may not be an accurate representation for published images in every publication, it does insinuate that the defining war photographs—photos in online galleries meant to summarize the war—were primarily captured at the beginning of the war.

Common Characteristics in Visual Coverage of the Iraq War

While journalists claim they did not sanitize coverage of the war (Robertson,

2010) the data reflects the opposite. The large majority of photographs show no damage to the primary subject. Moreover, less than 13 percent of the pictured persons are inflicted with the highest levels of physical damage: death and severe injury. (Chart 3).

The depicted emotions in the photographs show a somewhat similar complacency. In 33 percent of the photographs, the pictured persons display no obvious emotion. The next most common emotion, demonstrated in about 15 percent of the photographs, is contemplation. Fear only shows up in 9 percent of the images, and pain is represented the least in a mere one percent of the photos. (Chart 4).

The most common theme, or central message, in the photographs was the

American soldier in action. This reoccurring subject was exhibited in 19 photographs, or Nielson 37 about 24 percent of the images. Interestingly, there was a tie between the next most common messages—negative depiction of the enemy and victims. Both usually displayed

Iraqis, although in entirely different lights. It is worthy of note that one depiction of the

Iraqi people did not outweigh the other. Rather, they were equally represented. The obviously positive or pro-war central messages (i.e. U.S. heroes, celebrations of the U.S. and democracy) accounted for 18 percent of the photographs, whereas negative or anti- war themes (i.e. death, prisoners, anti-war protesters and destruction) amounted to more than 25 percent of the images. (Chart 5). These data suggest that while photojournalists and/or editors may have avoided gory and graphic images (refer to Chart 3), they did not, necessarily, favor the United States or the war in thematic coverage.

In regards to the people represented in photographic coverage of the war, the most frequent primary subject was the American forces/ military. This subject accounted for

41 percent of the photographs. Iraqi forces were only displayed in 5 percent of the images. However, the second most common subject was the Iraqi civilian. This group was depicted in 36 percent of the images. People who made the least amount of appearances were medical personnel; in fact, this group was featured in only one image as the primary subject. American government officials and Iraqi officials showed up in three photographs each. In addition, only three photographs displayed no person. (Chart

6).

The predominant age group depicted in the photographs was adults. They claimed more than 85 percent of the photographs. The rest of the age groups were fairly equally distributed. Babies and/or toddlers were shown in three images, school children appeared Nielson 38 in two images, adolescents appeared in two images as well, and the elderly were depicted in one photograph. (Chart 7).

The data point to a few noteworthy implications about the nature of photographic coverage during the Iraq War. First, despite the graphic nature of war, only a small percentage of the photographs that represent that war can be considered graphic or horrific. In addition, few photographs depict especially raw emotions, and instead, lean toward more neutral feelings, such as: contemplation, solemnity, sadness and no emotion at all. Second, the data suggest a trend of covering American troops, but not necessarily a pattern of supporting the United States and its cause. The former, at least, is likely a result of photojournalists being embedded. Finally, a greater percentage of photographs with anti-war messages were published between 2003 and 2009 than pro-war images.

Relationship between Coverage and Public Opinion

There seems to be a relationship between public opinion and the severity of physical damage shown in the photograph, at least at the highest levels of damage. (Chart

8). The two highest levels of physical damage (i.e. death and severe injury) also have the highest mean percentages of people opposed to the war. The same correlation did not exist for the lower levels of physical damage.

The only themes that seem to have had an explainable effect on public opinion are

“celebration of the U.S.” and “death.” (Chart 9). Death had the highest percentage of opposition to the war in the category with a mean of about 50 percent. Celebrating the

U.S. had the lowest percentage, with a mean of 26 percent opposed to the war. While this Nielson 39 data showed a negative central message corresponding with a more negative view toward the war and a pro-American message comparing to less negativity toward the war, this is not a reliable correlation. Other pro-American themes, such as U.S. guided democracy, matched with a high percentage of opposition to the war. Similarly, many anti-war and negative messages had lower or matching mean percentages of opposition to the war.

There did seem to be a slight correlation between public opinion of the war and the manner in which photographs depicted the United States. (Charts 10-11).

Photographs with a positive depiction of the U.S. corresponded more frequently with low opposition percentages (mean = 40.11 percent opposed to the war). On the other hand, photographs that negatively depicted the United States matched with more opposition to the conflict (mean = 47.79 percent opposed to the war). (Note: positive and negative depictions were based on the initial impression of the coder. Some photographs were considered neutral.)

There did not appear to be a correlation between the emotion depicted by the primary subject and opposition to the war. In addition, no relationship between the primary subject or the age of the primary subject and public opinion was assumed.

Impact of Iconic Images on Public Opinion

Eight iconic images were captured between April 2003 and November 2004. The person(s) in half the images are inflicted with no physical damage. The highest level of injury shown in the iconic photographs is “wounded,” which is only the third most severe

(out of five levels). In the iconic photographs, the most commonly depicted subjects are Nielson 40

American soldiers (n=4 or 50 percent). The next most common subject is the Iraqi

Civilian (n=2 or 25 percent). Furthermore, the only age group represented in the iconic images is adults.

Regarding some of the more thematic categories—50 percent of the images portray the U.S. in a positive light, three images give a negative depiction of the U.S. and one photograph is neutral. Also, 50 percent of the photographs show subjects without an identifiable emotion. The other four emotions are mixed. (Chart 12). The two most common themes are negative depiction of the enemy and celebration of the U.S. (Chart

13).

Chart 14 illustrates the percentage of people, over time, who thought U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was a mistake. Similarly, Chart 15 provides some insight concerning the effect of iconic images on public opinion. Three of the positive or pro-

American images are published right before a slight rise and then fall in opposition. The last positive image is published in December 2003, at a time when public opinion appears to have been fairly stable. Interestingly, the three negative images are published just before a more than 10 percent rise in public opposition to the war. Incidentally, the neutral photograph is published after a drop and during a rise in public opposition.

In addition, the iconic photographs show a more consistent relationship between central messages depicted in the photos and public opinion of the war. For example, the two pro-American themes displayed in the iconic images, show a relationship with a low mean percentage of opposition (m=27). Negative themes, such as death and prisoners, are associated with higher mean percentages of opposition (m=42 and m=44). (Chart 16). Nielson 41

The hypothesis, which theorized that iconic images would have an impact on public opinion, and more specifically, that pro-American themes and depictions in the photographs would correlate with higher support for the war, was partially supported by the data. The data did not point to any definitive answers about the effect of iconic images (or photographic coverage in general) on public opinion. It did, however, hint that iconic photographs impacted the percentage of opposition toward the war. For instance, in chart 15, the positive images were published a few weeks prior to a significant fall in opposition toward the war. Similarly, negative images preceded a rise in opposition. This study does not make an effort to prove that the iconic images were the sole reasons for the declines and increases in the public’s opposition toward the war. However, this study does suggest trends that could be further examined in future studies.

ANALYSIS / CONCLUSION

This study sought to examine patterns and trends in photographic coverage during wartime. It then compared discovered trends to public opinion at specified times during the war to observe potential correlations. The 78 photographs coded and analyzed in this study, and especially the eight iconic photographs referenced, suggested that there is a relationship between images captured during wartime and public opinion of the war.

One of the most relevant results in the study concerns the patterns of photographic coverage. There was evidence in the study that few war photographs show graphic images (chart 3). This is interesting because war is inherently graphic, and to tell a complete story about war—to allow the public to have a comprehension of the nature of Nielson 42 war—graphic images must be used. This is not to say that editors should begin publishing gruesome photographs on the front paper of every issue they print, but perhaps, they should more carefully examine the publication to ensure that they are not overly sanitizing the war.

Additionally, related to this apparent sanitization of the war, are the emotion depicted in the majority of the photographs. Few of the photographs show subjects with strong emotions, such as pain and fear. Rather, the coverage seems to cling to more complacent emotions. Demonstrating this, the data showed that approximately 31 percent of the photographs show subjects with no obvious emotion. About 17 percent show the next most common emotion—contemplation. A little more than 1 percent show pain, 7 percent emote anger and only 10 percent show fear.

Having recorded the aspects of sanitation in war photography, it should be noted that the themes or central messages of the photographs illustrate a less sanitized war. In fact, negative or anti-war them (such as death, prisoners, anti-war protesters and destruction) outweighed pro-American themes. The negative themes accounted for more than 25 percent of the photographs. Central messages celebrating the U.S. or displaying pro-war images only added up to 18 percent of the coverage.

In regards to public opinion, the most significant correlation between the 78 coded photographs and public opinion comes through the comparison of physical damage and opposition to the war. The two highest levels of physical damage, also had the highest mean percentages of opposition to the war. (Death: mean = 51 percent opposed to the war. Severely Injured: mean = 46 percent opposed to the war.) Nielson 43

The data also exhibits a relationship between the framing of iconic images and their resulting impact on public opinion. In fact, there is a more decisive correlation between the iconic images and public opinion. For instance, by placing the iconic images on a time line that also displays public opinion, we observe that public opposition rises shortly after a series of negative images are published. The reverse is true for published positive images.

There are a few possible rationales for this more significant relationship between iconic images and public opinion. First, iconic images are more widely disseminated and reproduced, thus reaching a larger audience and having a greater opportunity to impact and influence the public. There is another possibility, which believes iconic images become icons not because they represent some truth about the war, but because they reinforce an idea that the public already has about the war or conflict. As (1999) writes:

The enduring images of war are not those that exhibit the most raw and

genuine depictions of life and death on the battlefield, nor those that

illustrate historically specific information about people, places, and things,

but rather those that most readily present themselves as symbols of

cultural and national myth (p. 123).

The media should be cautious of reinforcing these myths that do not necessarily further the education or understanding of the public. Photographs should provide a credible view of the war, and should not be used to unnecessarily or unethically evoke emotion in the viewer.

Concerning the data for both iconic and general photographs, the results of this study do not provide a definitive and all-inclusive answer about the nature of war Nielson 44 coverage or its effect on public sentiment. Rather, the purpose of this comparison is to provide a basis for further questioning.. Perhaps a cultivation analysis can be combined with this content analysis to get human responses to the Iraq War photographs— specifically those labeled iconic. This study may serve as the foundation for a wide range of similar studies.

It is the hope and intention of this study that photojournalists and editors will closely examine the coverage of the Iraq war and any future wars. Journalists should be aware of the impact their content has on the public. Most importantly, journalists should strive to give an accurate representation of the war, and should not merely cling to photographic myths or carefully set-up photo ops. Rather, photojournalists should pursue their roles as government watchdogs, and ensure that photographic coverage of wars is credible. After all, the public uses those information to make decisions about their support of the war, and as Eisenhower declared, “public opinion wins war” (Malkin,

1996, p. 77).

Nielson 45

REFERENCES

Alexander, Shana (1968, March 1). What is the Truth of the Picture? Life, 19.

Anden-Papadopoulos, K. (2006, June, 16). Abu Ghraib Revisited: News Narrative, Visual Culture, and the Power of Photography. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Cetnre, Dresden, Germany Online. Retrieved from http://www.alacademic.com/meta/p91561_index.html.

Ansen, D. (2006, Oct. 23). Clint Eastwood’s ‘Flags of Our Fathers’ asks hard questions about the way governments sell our wars. Newsweek. Retrieved from: http://www.newsweek.com/id/44948/page/1

Bardes, B. A., Sheley, M. C. & Schmidt, S. W. (2008). American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials (2007 ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bennet, L., Lawrence, R. G. & Livingston, S. (2007). When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Biagi, S. (2007). Media Impact: An Introduction to Mass Media (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Learning, Inc.

Bielsa, E. & Bassnett, S. (2009). Translation in Global News. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bleakney, J. (2006). Revisiting Vietnam: Memoirs, Memorials, Museums. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bloomfield, G. L. (2003). Duty, Honor, Victory: America’s Athletes in World War II. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press.

Boyer, P.S., Clark, C., Kett, J.F., Salisbury, N. & Sitkoff, H. (2008). The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Burrell, R. S. (2006). The Ghosts of Iwo Jima. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Carter, A. H. & Petro, J. A. (1998). Rising from the Flames: The Experience of the Severely Burned. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Casey, S. (2001). Cautious Crusade: Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Public Opinion, and the War against Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Nielson 46

Catton, B. (1988). The Civil War. New York, NY: American Heritage.

Chong, , D. (1999). The Girl in the Picture: The Story of Kim Phuc, the Photograph and the Vietnam War. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Faber, J. (1960). Great News Photos and the Stories Behind Them 2nd Revised Ed.). Toronto, Ontario: General Publishing Company.

Garner, G. (2008). Photography and Society in the 20th Century. In Peres, M. R. (Ed.), The Concise Focal Encyclopedia of Photography: From the First Photo on Paper to the Digital Revolution (pp 71-83). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc.

Getlein, M. (2002). Gilbert’s Living with Art (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Griffin, M. (1999). The Great War Photographs: Constructing Myths of History and Photojournalism. In B. Brennen & H. Hardt (Eds.), Picturing the Past: Media, History and Photography (pp. 122-157). Chicago, IL: Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

Griffin, M. (2004). Picturing America’s ‘War on Terrorism’ in Afghanistan and Iraq. Photographic Motifs as New Frames. Sage Publications, 5(4), 381-402.

Hallin, D. C. (1986). The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hariman, R. & Lucaites, J. L. (2007). No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Hariman, R. & Lucaites, J. L. (2008). Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography the Image of “Accidental Napalm.” In L. C. Olson, C. A. Finnegan & D. S. Hope (Eds.), Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture (pp. 175-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Haynes, F. & Warren, J. A. (2008). The Lions of Iwo Jima: The Story of Combat Team 28 and the Bloodiest Battle in Marine Corps History. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.

Hoskins, A. (2004). Televising War: From Vietnam to Iraq. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Huebner, Andrew J. (2005). Rethinking American Press Coverage of the Vietnam War, 1965-68. Journalism History, 31(3), 150-161.

Katovsky, B. & Carlson, T. (2003). Embedded: The Media at War in Iraq. Guilford, CT: first Lyons Press. Nielson 47

Kennedy-Shaffer, A. (2009). The Obama Revolution. Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, Inc.

Kobré, K. & Brill, Betsy. (2004). Photojournalism: the Professionals’ Approach (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc.

Kroes, R. (2000). Them and Us: Questions of Citizenship in a Globalizing World: Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

Lanning, M. L. (2006). The Civil War 100: The Stories Behind the Most Influential Battles, People and Events in the War Between the States. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.

Malkin, L. (1996). Censorship. In Cowley, R. & Parker, G. (Eds.), The Reader’s Companion to Military History (pp. 77-78). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McDonnell, P. J. (2004, Nov. 18). Soldier from Kentucky Just Wants His Smokes/ Photo of Combat-Weary Corporal Brings Home the Face of War. Los Angeles Tiems. Retrieved from: http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-11-18/news/1745377_1_james- blake-miller-marlboro-men-miller-drawls.

Mitchell, G. (2008). So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits—and the President—Failed. New York, NY: Sterling Publishing Co., In.

Moeller, S. D. (1999). Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Newton, J. H. (2001). The Burden of Visual Truth: The Role of Photojournalism in Mediating Reality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Nolan, T. (2004, April 23). US Newspaper Published Photo of Military Coffins. ABC Online. Retrieved from: http://www.honorthefallen.com/news/us-newspaper- publishes-photo-of -military-coffins.html.

Noonan, P. (2004, April 1). A Message for Fallujah: Those Behind Yesterday’s Atrocity Must Pay—Or We All Will. Wall Street Journal Opinion Archives. Retrieved from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004895.

Nielson 48

Patterson, O. (1984). Television’s Living Room War in Print: Vietnam in the News Magazines. Journalism Quarterly, 61(1), 35-136. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Perlmutter, D. D. & Major, L. H. (2004, summer). Images of Horror From Fallujah. Nieman Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100834.

Pfau, M., Haigh, M. Fifrick, A., Holl, D., Tadesco, A., Cope, J., Nunnally, D., Schiess, A., Preston, D., Roszkowki, P. and Martin, M. (2006, Spring). The Effects of Print News Photographs of Casualties of War. J&MC Quarterly, 83 (1), 150-168.

Pulitzer. (2004) Breaking News Photography. Retrieved from http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2004-Breaking-News-Photography.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S. & Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Robertson, L. (2004, October). Images of War. American Journalism Review, pp 1-10. Retrieved March 28, 2010 at http://www.ajr.org/Ariticle.asp?id=3759.

Roeder, G. H. (1993). The Censored War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Roeder, G. H. (1996). Censoring Disorder: American Visual Imagery of World War II. In L. A. Erenerg & S. E. Hirsch (Eds.), The War in American Culture: Society and Consciousness during World War II (pp. 46-70). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Salhani, C. (2004). The Embedded Media: Embedding as Bonding. In Walker, M. (Ed.), The Iraq War: As Witnessed by the Correspondents and Photographers of the United Press International. Dulles, VA: Brassey’s Inc.

Sickels, R. C. (2004). The 1940s. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Simpson, R. & Coté, W. E. (2006). Covering Violence: A Guide to Ethical Reporting about Victims and Trauma (2nd ed.). West Sussex, NY: Columbia University Press.

Smoklin, R. (2004, June-July). Photos of the Fallen: The Controversy over Coffin Photos Illustrates News Organizations’ Frustrations with depicting Death in the Iraq War. American Journalism Review, 26. docId: 5006534566.

Trachtenberg, A. (1985). Albums of War: On Reading Civil War Photographs [Special Issue]. Representations, 9, 1-32. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3043765 Nielson 49

Tumber, H., U Palmer, J. (2004). Media at War: The Iraq Crisis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Turner, T. R. (2007). 101 Things You Didn’t Know about the Civil War: Places, Battles, Generals—Essential Facts about the War that Divided America. Avon, MA: F+W Publications, Inc.

Walbridge, M. (2000). African-American Heroes of the Civil War. Portland, ME: J. Weston Walch, Publisher.

Walton, C. E. (2003). Death in Art. In C. D. Bryant (Ed.), Handbook of Death & Dying (Vols. 1-2) (pp. 989-987). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Welch, S., Gruhl, J., Comer, J. & Rigdon, S. M. (2010). Understanding American Government. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Willis, W. J. (2007). The Media Effect: How the News Influences Politics and Government. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass Media Research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: The Thomas Corporation.

Zelizer, Barbie (1998). Remembering to Forget: Holocaust Memory through the Camera’s Eye. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nielson 50

CHARTS

Chart 1

Publication

Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Associated Press 35 44.9 44.9 44.9

Dallas Morning News 1 1.3 1.3 46.2

Los Angeles Times 1 1.3 1.3 47.4

Getty Images 25 32.1 32.1 79.5

New York Times 12 15.4 15.4 94.9

60 Minutes II 1 1.3 1.3 96.2

Reuters 1 1.3 1.3 97.4

VII Network 1 1.3 1.3 98.7

Seattle Times 1 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 78 100.0 100.0

Chart 2

Nielson 51

Chart 3 Chart 4

Chart 5 Chart 6

Nielson 52

Chart 7

Chart 8

Report Percent Opposed to War

Physical Damage to Pictured Person Mean N Std. Deviation

Dead 51.00 4 3.162

Severely Injured 46.00 6 12.744

Wounded 37.67 3 9.292

dimensi on1 Minimum Harm 38.67 3 10.408

No Damage 42.89 53 11.104

Total 43.22 69 10.909

Nielson 53

Chart 9

Report Percent Opposed to War

Central Message Mean N Std. Deviation

Death 50.33 9 7.089 Victim 49.00 11 6.356 Negative Depiction of 43.91 11 10.502 Enemy American Soldier in Action 40.05 19 10.427 Prisoner 39.80 5 12.235 Celebration of U.S. 26.00 4 2.000 Hero 42.50 4 17.898 Destruction 42.00 7 15.470 Hospital/ Medical Care 42.00 1 . U.S. Guided Democracy 49.00 6 5.254 Total 43.36 77 11.173

Chart 10 Chart 11 Nielson 54

Chart 12

Chart 13

Nielson 55

Chart 14

70

60 r 50 Wa e th e s

o 40 p p O t n e 30 c r e P 20

10

0 8 8 9 9 8 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 4 4 3 4 7 8 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Publication

Nielson 56

Chart 15

Key (Photos)

Positively Depicts U.S. Negatively Depicts U.S. Neutral

Chart 16

Report Percent Opposed to War

Iconic Image Central Message Mean N Std. Deviation

Death 42.00 1 .

Negative Depiction of 41.50 2 .707 Enemy

American Soldier in Action 47.00 1 .

Prisoner 44.00 1 .

Celebration of U.S. 27.00 2 .000

Hero 27.00 1 .

Total 37.13 8 8.576 Nielson 57

APPENDIX A

1. Number (consecutive)

2. Photographer

3. Original Publication Date

4. Day of Conflict

5. Publication (Note: This refers to the publication with ownership of the image. Not necessarily the publication where it was viewed.) 1. Associated Press 2. Rocky Mountain News 3. Dallas Morning News 4. Los Angeles Times 5. Getty Images 6. New York Times 7. 60 Minutes II 8. Reuters 9. VII Network 10. Seattle Times

6. Pulitzer (Did the photographer win a Pulitzer Prize for the image?) 1. Yes 2. Finalist 3. No

7. Angle (What viewpoint was the photograph taken from?) 1. Close-up 2. Medium 3. Long/Wide Shot

8. Location 1. United States Nielson 58

2. Iraq 3. International 4. Not Specified

9. Type of Photo (Based on immediate impression.) 1. Negatively Depicts U.S. Involvement in the Conflict 2. Positively Depicts U.S. Involvement in the Conflict 3. Neutral / Unknown

10. Primary Subject – Main Person(s) Photographed 1. American Government Officials/ Leader 2. American Forces / Military 3. American Civilians 4. Iraqi Civilians 5. Iraqi Forces / Military 6. Iraqi Officials / Leader 7. Medical Personnel 8. No Person(s)

11. Central Message / Theme 1. Death (casket, corpse, memorial, etc.) 2. Victim (suffering person, especially Iraqi civilians) 3. Negative Depiction of Enemy 4. American Soldier(s) in Action 5. Anti-War Protester(s) 6. Prisoner(s) 7. Celebration of the U.S. 8. American Soldier – Hero (American Military Rescuing Person) 9. Destruction (smoke from bombs, building damage, etc.) 10. Hospitals / Medical Aid 11. Democracy (voting ballots, election posters, etc.)

12. Number of People in Main Action 0. None 1. Single 2. Small Group (3-5) 3. Group (More than 5)

Nielson 59

13. Age of Primary Subject 1. Babies / Toddlers 2. School Children 3. Adolescents (Teenage Years) 4. Adults 5. Elderly 999. Not Applicable

14. Physical Harm to Primary Subject 1. Dead 2. Severely Injured 3. Wounded 4. Minimum Harm (cuts, scrapes, scars) 5. No Visible Damage 999. Not Applicable

15. Emotion Portrayed by Primary Subject 0. No Obvious Emotion 1. Anger, Frustration 2. Sadness, Desperation 3. Pain 4. Hope 5. Happiness, Recovery, Excitement 6. Contemplating, Solemn 7. Courage, Confidence 8. Tired, Exhaustion 9. Fear

r Wa e th

e s o p p O t n e c r e P