![]() | Is There A Difference Between A Combat Photographer and a Combat Correspondent? by Cpl. Joel A. Chaverri Article rating: 7.07 |
“The brave ones were shooting the enemy. The crazy ones were shooting film."
- Norman Hatch USMC WWII Combat Photographer
Many people often confuse the two fields involving photography, believing that the jobs are interchangeable. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The difference between the two in the Marine Corps is probably bigger than you would think.
Combat Correspondent is a term exclusive to the Marine Corps. The Combat Correspondent program was started in World War II because of the lack of news coming out of the war zone. It was felt that the Marine Corps’ success in the war weren’t being reported accurately to the American people. It was a problem that needed to be fixed immediately.

There was no time to train Marines to be writers, so instead they did the opposite. Writers with no less than five years experience were recruited and trained to be Marines. No corners were cut, or slack given. Lieutenant General Thomas A. Holcomb, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, 1942, said “the Marine Corps is sacrificing none of its high standards, and combat correspondents must meet all physical requirements for regular Marines.”
Newspaper photographers were also recruited at the same time. The two were usually assigned together, one to write stories, one to take pictures.

As the years passed, the two fields became increasingly demanding. News writers were given more responsibilities, facilitating all communication flow between the Marine Corps and the general public. Along with writing, editing, and publishing materials, they were in charge of special events, media relations, radio and television broadcast, magazine production, and their own photography.

Likewise, photographers were given a much larger workload. They participated in investigations, research, documentation of events, and poster printing, all with their primary duty of operational and intelligence imagery.

As a result, two separate Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) were created: Public Affairs (Combat Correspondents) and Visual Information (Combat Photographers). Both attend the Defense Information School at Fort Meade, Maryland for an intensive three-month course in their respective field.

The differences lie in their mission, because after all, everything that’s done in the military is for a specific mission.

As a Combat Correspondent, my mission is to tell the Marine Corps story. Everything I do is news or feature news related. That is my mission, so the photos I take have to correspond to the story I’m writing or perhaps even tell the story standing alone.

When Combat Correspondents go out on a photo shoot, they need to get all the different kinds of photos that tell the story: horizontal, vertical, unique angles, long, medium, extreme close-up. Their photos need to show action, emotion and be alive. In a word, they need to "pop."

When I am on the job in the field, I have to rely on myself. I’m constantly looking for the right angle, the right position, the right lighting, the right candid moment and all the right qualities to take a picture that tells the story.

This is not a requirement for Combat Photographers as they primarily photograph events for documental and historical purposes. They may go on a photo shoot that has little or no news qualities. Some of their photos tend to lack action, emotion, and some of the necessary traits that qualify a “stand-alone-photo” (a photo that needs no explanation or story).

Please don’t get me wrong. Many Combat Photographers are extremely talented. But it’s like trying to tell a story with a photo of a mountain by Ansel Adams. Beautiful, amazing, and obviously taken by a talented photographer, but it’s just a photo of a mountain not DOING anything. It’s not photojournalism or good story telling.

I’ve worked side-by-side with the Combat Photographers and we’ll come back with entirely different photos. Many times I can’t use theirs at all. The reason being, Combat Photographers are not trained to take the kind of pictures Correspondents need to tell the story.

Please don’t get me wrong. Many Combat Photographers are extremely talented. But it’s like trying to tell a story with a photo of a mountain by Ansel Adams. Beautiful, amazing, and obviously taken by a talented photographer, but it’s just a photo of a mountain not DOING anything. It’s not photojournalism or good story telling.
Recently, in Fallujah, dozens of Combat Correspondents and Combat Photographers alike went into the city with the Marine and Army infantry battalions. Each one was required to do everything the grunts did. All of them did an amazing job of photographing the historical event, and they both deserve credit for their hard work.

Between the two jobs, one is not better than the other; they are just different. Those interested in journalism should consider being a Combat Correspondent. Whereas those only interested in photography and aren’t strong writers should stick with Combat Photography. Regardless of the path one may go down, they are both rewarding military careers for those interested in photography.
