Literature Review

This research examines iconic photos that emerged from the Vietnam War era, in order to determine if these photos are remembered by the public, and how these photos contribute to the collective memory of the war.  The following literature review will examine a variety of topics, including collective memory, media and photojournalism during the Vietnam War, iconic photos, and specifically, each of the five photos chosen for this study.

Collective Memory

“Collective memory,” a term used interchangeably with “public memory,” “social memory,” and “popular memory,” refers to recollections of the past that are determined and shaped by a group.[1] Memory is social because people remember collectively, publically, and interactively.[2] The creation and maintenance of collective memory involves the ongoing thinking and talking about an event by the affected members of society.[3] According to Pennebaker and Banasik, the Vietnam War affected collective memory because it was an important turning point in American self-views, producing a new generation of people who questioned America’s role in the world.[4]

The press has contributed to the American construction of collective memory, especially in the mass publication of newspapers and magazines.[5] The role of the journalist in the collective memory has been the focus of many studies.[6] According to Kitch, “In doing so, [journalists] extend the cultural authority of mass media as the shapers (and repository) of public memory.”[7]

According to Schudson, cultural artifacts are dedicated memory forms, which are explicitly and self-consciously designed to preserve memories.  For this study, iconic photos will be considered a cultural artifact in order to examine the effectiveness of iconic photos in the role of triggering and preserving collective memories.[8] Cultural artifacts and social cues prompt the act of remembering.[9] According to Zelizer, media serve a “warehouse” function of storage for memories.  Visual records can stabilize the fleeting qualities of memory and can aid in the recall of past events.[10] This study will examine the warehouse function of photographs and will explore how iconic images influence collective memories.

However, just as people remember, they also forget, therefore distortion is inevitable in memory.  The passage of time causes memory distortion as memories are reshaped due to the loss of detail and the loss of emotional intensity.[11] Both of these factors are important to this study as the photographs were taken between 46 and 37 years ago.[12] The passage of time also allows for historical perspective, allowing for an understanding that might not have been possible during the time of the event.  In his study of generational effects on collective memory on major American events, Schuman concluded that people sometimes make judgments that reflect primarily the perspectives of historians, but for the most part, it is the intersection of personal and national history that creates the most vital connection to the time period in which they lived through.[13] According to Zelizer, “Collective memory is not necessarily linear, logical, or rational.”[14] The unpredictability of memory is a significant limitation that has stalled the study of memory because studies are unable to foresee which aspects of the past will become a part of the collective recollection.

Media and Vietnam

Foreign policy can be used to manipulate mass media, but mass media can also influence foreign policy.  Prior to the Vietnam War, censorship in war reporting was used to prevent damage to the spirits on the home front as well as prevent the opposing side from gaining significant information.[15] According to Hallin, Vietnam was the first war in which journalists were not subjected to official censorship, for the most part because the United States government did not recognize Vietnam as an official war.  “Voluntary guidelines” were implemented, creating 15 categories of information that the press was not allowed to report on.  Reporters were allowed access to almost all aspects of the front, establishing the modern precedent.[16]

Americans were for the first time able to see images of the war on their television sets, which is why the Vietnam War is referred to as the “first televised war.”[17] With the media more widespread in its coverage of Vietnam than any prior conflict, war coverage was distributed at a faster pace, and was more prevalent than ever before.  In January of 1968, there were 179 American journalists in Saigon reporting on the conflict.[18] Americans saw television coverage of the battles, the results, and the repercussions of war, and they were more informed of the war by the press than any prior conflict.

Television provided visuals to go along with the reports of the war in Vietnam, making the news coverage much more vivid than previous wars.  Visual details are important to the perception of war because, according to Iyengar and Kinder, there is a different understanding between knowing and seeing Americans fighting and losing their lives in Vietnam.[19] Television also has the power to direct views to certain features of the war and ignore others.[20] There was much suffering and death in Vietnam, and the media was there to record it.  Chomsky and Herman found that the mass media had the ability to make the distinction between “worthy” and “unworthy” victims and could choose which to portray in their coverage.[21]

Through his study on the television coverage of the Vietnam War, Hallin found that television portrayed the North Vietnamese as cruel, ruthless, and fanatical.  The NLF was also portrayed through a consistent theme of terrorism, showing it as a criminal unit rather than a rival government.  Hallin also looked closely at television’s portrayal of the Tet Offensive and how journalistic coverage of Tet framed the war as slipping out of control.[22] The American press had the power to make Tet a win or loss for the administration based on its coverage.[23]

The groundbreaking coverage of Vietnam led to the conception that the media affected the outcome of the war. However, many studies have found that the media did not have as much of an effect on the outcome of the war as was once thought.[24] Media held power over the thoughts of Americans, but the media could not fully control those thoughts.  The media cannot tell the public what to think, but it can tell them what to think about.[25] Herz denied that the media coverage of Vietnam caused the eventual failure, but he concluded that it did play a significant role in that failure.[26] “Selective perceptions” of the media’s coverage of the Vietnam War have led to an overstated conception of the actual amount of coverage.[27] As found in Patterson’s study, only 25 percent of television news reports from 1968 to 1973 were on Vietnam.  Coverage in news magazines on the war in Vietnam was even less, at only 7 percent.[28] Prior research suggests that the media was not as great of a force on public opinion during the Vietnam War as the common perception suggests.

Photojournalism and Vietnam

Photographs are a visual depiction of life.  A photo captures a fraction of a second in time, or the “decisive moment,” a phrase coined by photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson.[29] Berger and Mohr wrote, “With the invention of photography, we acquired a new means of expression more closely associated with memory than any other.”[30] Photography is an effective vehicle for reporting news because it is “presumed” that photographs represent reality.[31] In theory, a photograph represents exact truth, but in reality, what is not depicted in a single negative could be the actual truth.  Memories are the “residue” of continuous experience, whereas a photograph isolates an instance and does not allow for the understanding of events that were not recorded in the frame.[32] According to Brothers, photographs are not evidence of history, showing incontrovertible proof, but rather they are indications of the circumstances in which they were shot.[33]

News photographs add greatly to the impact of words in print media, contributing to the significant role the media played in the Vietnam War.[34] Photojournalism can be understood through the standard themes of editorial photos.  According to Joe Elbert, the Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor for Photography, there are four categories in the “hierarchy of editorial photographs: informational, graphically appealing, emotionally appealing, and intimate.”[35]

According to Perlmutter, photojournalists are “aware of their potential shock value of what falls into their viewfinder,” and it is that shock value for which they strive.  Perlmutter found that there are five theorized effects of visual images; easy recall ability, ability to become an icon, aesthetic impact, emotional power, and potentially significant political impact.[36] All of these aspects are prevalent in the work of great photojournalists.  The Vietnam War was a turning point for photojournalism.  According to Robert Elegant, it was the first war in which the outcome was not determined on the battlefield, but rather in print.[37] According to Brothers, photographs of the Vietnam War “influenced public attitudes to the hostilities.”[38]

Photographs are a valuable source of information in the media because, as many studies have shown, visual images are recalled more quickly and for a longer time than words.[39] Mendelson found that photos are more or less significant based on the viewer’s learning styles and how the photos resonate with the individual viewer.  The study showed that high visualizers are able to store information about individual news photographs, recognize news photographs to be less complex than the written word, and find photographs more appealing than those who are not visual learners.[40] Domke, Perlmutter, and Spratt found that images have the ability to “trigger” people’s pre-existing values, cognitions, and feelings.[41]

Iconic Photos

If people have different learning styles, and some individuals are more susceptible to remembering and digesting visual images, how is it that certain “icon images” are claimed to be understood and recognized by everyone?  According to Hariman and Lucaites, Nick Ut’s Accidental Napalm photograph is the defining image of the Vietnam War because “that little girl will not go away, despite many attempts at forgetting,” as it confronts U.S. citizens with the immorality of the war.[42] Hariman and Lucaites defined iconic images as those that are recognized by everyone, are understood to be representations of historically significant events, activate strong emotional responses, and are regularly reproduced across a range of media, genres, or topics.[43] Iconic photos also can motivate public action on behalf of democratic values.[44] Michael Griffin said the “great pictures” typically symbolize national valor, human courage, inconceivable inhumanity, or senseless loss.[45]

Perlmutter found that iconic images are created and kept in circulation by “discourse elites”—prominent people in politics, the media, and the academy, “from presidents to anchor people.”[46] Perlmutter also defined many qualities of an iconic image; including celebrity (a famous image that people can identify when prompted), prominence (how prominent a photo’s appearance is in the media), frequency (how often a photo appears in the media, measured quantitatively), profit (the icon’s value as a commodity), instantaneousness (how quickly an image achieves fame), transposability (reuse across multiple media outlets), fame of subjects (recognizability or notoriety of the photo’s subjects), importance of event (when an icon is tied to a significant social or historical event), metonymy (when a photo of a single event is used to exemplify general conditions), primordially and/or cultural resonance (when an icon alludes to a biblical or classical historical scene), and striking composition (when a photo contains superior compositional or visual elements or depicts “the decisive moment”).[47] He said that an icon provokes a strong negative reaction, or outrage.  Contrary to popular beliefs, Perlmutter found that the population as a whole is not familiar with “iconic images.”[48]

This research study will examine five iconic photos of the Vietnam War era.  The photos include John Paul Filo’s “Kent State” (1970), Malcolm Brown’s “Self-Immolation” (1963), Eddie Adams’ “Tet Execution” (1968), Ronald Haeberle’s “My Lai Massacre” (1968), and Nick Ut’s “Accidental Napalm” (1972).[49] According to Sturken, all of these photos include depictions of horror, challenge ideological narratives, and have acquired far greater currency than any video footage of the war.  The photos “acquired iconic status by shocking the American public and creating widespread disillusionment over the United States’ role in the war.”[50]

Kent State

The Kent State Massacre occurred on May 4, 1970, when soldiers of the Ohio National Guard opened fire on students who were protesting the Vietnam War. Thirteen students were shot, killing four.  Student photographer John Filo took a photo of a girl screaming out over a body lying on the pavement and the photo went out on the AP wire later that day.  That photo would become an iconic photo of the Kent State Massacre and the Vietnam War.

According to the categories that Perlmutter uses to define the qualities of an iconic photo, the Kent State photo is iconic because it is has a celebrity quality, meaning people recognize the photo, it instantaneously achieved fame, and it portrays a significant historical event.  The subject of the photo is not famous, and therefore does not fit into Perlmutter’s category of fame because, as he states, only a handful of people alive today could identify the woman kneeling over the body.[51]

The Kent State photo has been studied excessively by scholars, resulting in findings that much of the power of the photo comes from the expression of outrage on the woman’s face.  According to Hariman and Lucaites, “The girl’s cry is a direct demand for accountability and compensatory action.”[52] The feeling on her face is powerful not only because of its expressiveness but also because it matches the political situation represented by the photograph.[53] The woman draws attention onto herself, away from the boy who is lying in front of her, presumably dead, because of her intense emotional response.  In their book No Caption Needed, Hariman and Lucaites said, “Her scream seems to be ripping out of her heart, spontaneous, uninhibited, and unanswerable—almost if she had been the one shot.”[54]

Hariman and Lucaites also believe that the photo has become an icon for the event because the photo is gendered.  A woman is a more appropriate vessel for a public emotional response.  The woman is positioned between two males, the one lying motionless on the ground and the one standing beside her, seemingly unmoved.[55] Hariman and Lucaites also pointed out that the Kent State girl acts as a ventriloquist for the murdered body on the pavement.”[56] According to Lovelace, the anguish in the woman’s face is catapulted to a national level because of the anonymity of the body lying face down in the foreground of the photo.[57]

One of the less than praising aspects of the photo, as Perlmutter pointed out, is that this photo is technically poor; it violates the techniques of photography because “a fence post grows out of the woman’s head.”[58] This compositional error prevents it from falling into the striking composition category that Perlmutter has determined as a quality of an iconic photo.


The “Burning Monk” photograph was taken by Malcolm Browne on June 11, 1963, when Thich Quang Duc sat down in a busy Saigon intersection and set fire to himself to protest the South Vietnamese government.  A march of 300 Buddhist monks and nuns blocked all entrances to the intersection while fellow monks poured a combustible mixture on Thich Quang Duc.  He struck a match and was instantaneously engulfed in flames.[59] This photograph was one of the first to introduce Americans to the conflict in Vietnam and according to Dionisopoulos and Skow, “its undeniable force transfixed the attention of the American public on the dramatic events portrayed.”[60]

According to Perlmutter, this photo is one that exemplifies the emotional reactions that iconic images incite.  “Typically, the picture is annotated as one that occasioned a reaction of “shock and dismay.”[61] When he saw the photo for the first time, “President Kennedy’s reaction was undoubtedly similar to that of many others, as he was heard to exclaim ‘Jesus Christ,’ when the morning papers were delivered to him.”[62] According to Hariman and Lucaites, the photo indicated that the Saigon government was so powerless that it could not put out the flames as the body burned.[63]

Tet Execution

The photograph that has become known as the Tet Execution captured the precise moment that a Viet Cong prisoner was executed at point-blank range.  On February 1, 1968, Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of the South Vietnamese National Police, shot the prisoner with a small Smith & Wesson detective pistol in front of AP photographer Eddie Adams, as well as NBC and ABC camera crews.  The execution was aired on television, but it was the still photograph that captured the “decisive moment.”[64] According to Sturken, this photo acquired far greater currency than the video footage of the event.  The photograph highlights the facial expressions, it circulated more easily due to the tangible nature of a photograph versus the reliance on the network broadcast of the event, and the video footage of the events is actually more chaotic and horrific.[65] The photo won the Pulitzer Prize for spot news photography in 1969.

“Eddie Adams’ still photo appeared on the front page of most major newspapers; it was to be reprinted ad infinitum in magazines and books to the present day,” fulfilling both the instantaneous and prominence categories of an icon.[66] The photo’s prominence in the media yielded the credit of changing the course of history.[67] In his Time magazine eulogy for General Loan, Eddie Adams said, “Still photographs are the most powerful weapons in the world.”[68] Adams was tormented by the ramifications of his photograph.  He said, “The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera.”[69] Also in the article, Adams mentioned that photographs can lie even if they are not manipulated because his photograph could not depict the good that the general accomplished during the war and it could not explain the circumstances in which the general pulled the trigger.

The photo has a striking composition because it shows the two subjects with the gun in the center.  According to Sturken, “Its simplicity is crucial—the war depicted in this photograph is man against man, not the complex war of bombs, defoliation, and unseen enemies.”[70] The photo “became famous for its depiction of the indiscriminate brutality of the war,” wrote Sturken.[71] The executioner’s businesslike manner and lack of emotion indicate that this situation is routine.[72] And the Viet Cong’s expression of the unknown creates an empathy with the viewers. Hariman and Lucaites describe the Viet Cong’s expression as one that might be seen in a dentist’s office.[73]

My Lai Massacre

On March 16, 1968, the men of Charlie Company under the command of First Lieutenant William Calley expected to find the Viet Cong.  They found no enemy soldiers, only old men, women, and children, but they still killed them all in what would later be referred to as the My Lai Massacre.  Army photographer Ronald Haeberle accompanied the troops to My Lai that day and turned in a few black-and-white self-censored photographs of the infantrymen and Vietnamese huts.  However, on his personal color film camera, he took photos of the atrocities and murders that occurred that day.

Eight months later, on November 20, Haeberle gave the exclusive rights to the photos to The Cleveland Plain Dealer and an unusually large photo of a tangle of bodies, that were clearly women and children, was printed at the top of the front page.  The photos were later reproduced in newspapers and magazines around the world, including in the New York Post and the New York Times.[74] The photo became known as “And Babies?” and was used as evidence during the court proceedings that resulted in the conviction of Calley.

Scholars have studied the photo, and Sturken claimed that it “acquired iconic status by shocking the American public and creating widespread disillusionment over the U.S. role in the war.”[75] Sturken also said that the photograph “depicts terror and American atrocities in intimate detail.”[76] According to Goldberg, “The ‘And Babies?’ photograph got loose in the culture as an easily recognized symbol of what was wrong with America.”[77]

Accidental Napalm

The Accidental Napalm photo was taken by Associated Press photographer Nick Ut on June 8, 1972, near Trang Bang in South Vietnam.  The photo shows children fleeing in terror, with the focus on nine-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phuc, in the center, who ripped off her burning clothes after she was splashed by napalm.  There was a brief editorial debate about whether to print a photo involving nudity, but it was subsequently published all over the world the next day.[78]

According to Hariman and Lucaites, “The photo violates one set of norms in order to activate another; propriety is set aside for a moral purpose.  It is a picture that shouldn’t be shown of an event that shouldn’t have happened.”[79] Sturken claimed that the young, female, naked figure represents the victimized, feminized country of Vietnam.” [80] Lovelace argued that her nudity represented her innocence, an innocence that was taken from her by the war.[81]

There is a stark contrast between the soldiers and the children, the soldiers’ business-as-usual attitude contrasts with the girl’s pain and terror. The soldiers show that this seemingly rare event is not all that uncommon.  The soldiers are supposed to be protecting the children, but they are merely herding them down the road.[82]

This photo ignites a strong emotional response.  According to Hariman and Lucaites, “The dramatic charge of the photo comes from its evocation of pity and terror.”[83] Pain is the central frame of the photo. “The photograph projects her pain into our world.”[84] The child that is closest to the camera, in the foreground, also has a look of terror on his face, resembling Eduard Munch’s famous drawing of “The Scream.”

Sturken claims this photo is one of the most famous images of the Vietnam War and among one of the most widely recognized photographs in American photojournalism.[85]



[1] Barbie Zelizer, “Reading the Past Against the Grain: The Shape of Memory Studies,” Review and Criticism (1995): 214.
[2] Michael Schudson, “Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory,” in Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past, ed. Daniel L. Schacter (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1995): 360.
[3] James Pennebaker and Becky Banasik, “On the Creation and Maintenance of Collective Memories: History as Social Psychology,” in Collective Memory of Political Events, ed. James Pennebaker, Dario Paez, and Bernard Rimé (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1997): 4.
[4] Pennebaker and Banasik, “On the Creation,” 5.
[5] Janice Hume and Noah Arceneaux, “Public Memory, Cultural Legacy, and Press Coverage of the Juneteenth Revival,” Journalism History (2008): 157.
[6] See, e.g., Carolyn Kitch, “Twentieth Century Tales: Newsmagazines and American Memory,” Journalism and Communication Monographs 1, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 122; K. Lang and G.E. Lang, “Collective Memory and the News.” Communication 11, no. 2 (1989): 123-139; Schudson, “Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory,” 346-64; Barbie Zelizer, Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the Shaping of Collective Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
[7] Kitch, “Twentieth Century Tales,” 122.
[8] Schudson, “Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory,” 347.
[9] Schudson, “Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory,” 347.
[10] Zelizer, Reading, 233.
[11] Schudson, “Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory,” 348.
[12] At the time the interviews were conducted in September and October of 2009.
[13] Howard Schuman and Jacqueline Scott, “Generations and Collective Memories,” American Sociological Review (1989): 380.
[14] Zelizer, Reading, 221.
[15] Daniel C. Hallin, The “Uncensored War” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986): 127.
[16] Hallin, Uncensored War, 127-9.
[17] Sidney W. Head and Christopher H. Sterling, Broadcasting in America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982), 537-539.
[18] Peter Braestrup, Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet in 1968 in Vietnam and Washington (Boulder: Westview Press, 1977), Vol. 1, 11-2.
[19] Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, News that Matters (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 35.
[20] Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder, “Experimental Demonstrations,” 848-58.
[21] Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon, 1988).
[22] Hallin, The Uncensored War, 130-73.
[23] Braestrup, Big Story, 465..
[24] See, e.g., Braestrup, Big Story; Head and Sterling, Broadcasting in America; Shanto Iyengar, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder, “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs,” The American Political Science Review 76 (1982): 848-58; Iyengar and Kinder, News that Matters, 35; Hallin, The Uncensored War; Martin F. Herz, The Vietnam War in Retrospect (Washington: The Georgetown University Press, 1984); Chomsky and Herman, Manufacturing Consent.
[25] Bernard C. Cohen. The Press and Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963): 16.
[26] Martin F. Herz, The Vietnam War in Retrospect (Washington: The Georgetown University Press, 1984): 37.
[27] Oscar Patterson III, “Television’s Living Room War in Print: Vietnam in the News Magazines,” Journalism Quarterly 61 (1984): 35-9.
[28] Patterson, “Television’s Living Room War in Print,” 39.
[29] David D. Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy (Westport: Praeger, 1998): 18.
[30] John Berger and Jean Mohr, Another Way of Telling (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982): 89.
[31] Wendy Kozol, Life’s America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994): 5.
[32] Berger, Another Way of Telling, 89.
[33] Caroline Brothers, War and Photography (London: Routledge, 1997): 17.
[34] Ulf Hannerz, Foreign News: Exploring the World of Foreign Correspondents (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004).
[35] Kenneth Kobre, “Editing for Intimacy,” Visual Communication Quarterly 6 (1999): 18-9.
[36] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 20.
[37] Robert Elegant, “How to Lose a War: Reflections of a Foreign Correspondent,” Encounter 57 (1981): 73-86.
[38] Brothers, War and Photography, 1.
[39] See, e.g., John R. Anderson and Rebecca Paulson, “Interference in Memory for Pictorial Information,” Cognitive Psychology 10 (1978) 178-202; Gary J. Anglin and W. H. Levie, “Role of Visual Richness in Picture Recognition Memory,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 61 (1985): 1303-6.; Marilyn A. Borges, Mary Ann Stepnowski and Leland H. Holt, “Recall and Recognition of Words and Pictures by Adults and Children,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 9 (1977): 113-4; John K. Burton and Roger H. Bruning, “Interference Effects on the Recall of Pictures, Printed Words, and Spoken Words,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 7 (1982): 61-9; Helen J. Emmerich and Brian P. Ackerman, “The Effect of Orienting Activity on Memory for Pictures and Words,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 28 (1979): 499-515; Robert Gehring, Michael P. Toglias and Gregory A. Kimble, “Recognition Memory for Words and Pictures at Short and Long Term Retention Intervals,” Memory & Cognition 4 (1976): 256-60; Joseph R. Jenkins, Daniel C. Neale and Stanely L. Deno, “Differential Memory for Picture and Word Stimuli,” Journal of Educational Psychology 58 (1967): 303-7; Allan Paivio, “Imagery in Recall and Recognition,” in Recall and Recognition, ed. J. H. Brown, (New York: Wiley, 1976).
[40] Andrew Mendelson, “For Whom is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?  Effects of the Visualizing Cognitive Style and Attention on Processing of News Photos,” Journal of Visual Literacy (2004): 1-22.
[41] David Domke, David Perlmutter, and Meg Spratt, “The Primes of out Times? An Examination of the ‘Power’ of Visual Images.” Journalism, No. 3 (2003): 131-159.
[42] Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, No Caption Needed: Iconic Photos, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007): 173.
[43] Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, “Dissent and Emotional Management in a Liberal-Democratic Society: The Kent State Iconic Photography,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly (2001): 4-31.
[44] Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, “Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of ‘Accidental Napalm’,” Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2003): 35-66.
[45] Michael Griffin, “The Great War Photographs: Constructing Myths of History and Photojournalism,” in Picturing the Past: Media, History, and Photography, ed. Bonnie Brennen and Hanno Hardt (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 131.
[46] Perlmutter,. Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, xiii-xvi.
[47] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 10.1-20
[48] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 1-34.
558 These photos are defined as iconic images by Hariman and Lucaites (2007): 195, and Marita Sturken, Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997): 89-94.
[50] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 89-94.
[51] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 16.
[52] Hariman and Lucaites, “Dissent,” 9.
[53] Hariman and Lucaites, “Dissent,” 8.
[54] Hariman and Lucaites, No Caption Needed, 140-1.
[55] Hariman and Lucaites, “Dissent,” 8-9.
[56] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 56.
[57] Angie Lovelace, “Iconic photos of the Vietnam War Eera: A Ssemiotic Aanalysis Aas a Mmeans of Uunderstanding,” The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications Vol. 1, No. 1 (2010): 38.
[58] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 18.
[59] George Dionisopoulos and Lisa Skow, “A Struggle to Contextualize Photographic Images: American Print Media and the ‘Burning Monk’,” Communication Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 4 (1997): 393-4.
[60] Dionisopoulos and Skow, “A Struggle to Contextualize Photographic Images,” 396.
[61] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 20.
[62] Dionisopoulos and Skow, “A Struggle to Contextualize Photographic Images,” 396.
[63] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 56.
[64] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 35.
[65] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 89-94.
[66] Perlmutter, Photojournalism and Foreign Policy, 36.
[67] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 93.
[68] Eddie Adams, “Eulogy,” Time , July 27, 1998, 17.
[69] Adams, “Eulogy,” 17.
[70] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 93.
[71] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 93.
[72] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 56.
[73] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 56.
[74] Vicki Goldberg, The Power of Photography: How Photographs Changed Our Lives,” (New York: Abbeville Press, 1991): 229-36.
[75] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 94.
[76] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 93.
[77] Goldberg, The Power of Photography, 236.
[78] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 39.
[79] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 41.
[80] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 93.
[81] Lovelace, “Iconic Pphotos of the Vietnam War Era,” 42.
[82] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 43-4.
[83] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 43.
[84] Hariman and Lucaites, “Public Identity,” 40.
[85] Sturken, Tangled Memories, 90.


Comments are closed.