Presented By

Clichés are tricky things. They convey a kind of truth — but can ring hollow. They can sound profound — but once uttered, they’re utterly forgettable. And while often employed to pay tribute to an individual, or to describe a specific profession, some clichés can be applied to a litany of vocations.

When other people run away from danger, they run toward it. They go into battle armed with nothing but courage. Like everyone else, they experience fear — but unlike everyone else, they keep going.

Ultimately, though, there’s one especially odd, defining characteristic about clichés: they endure for a reason. And while some of the assertions above — about running toward danger or experiencing fear — could easily pertain to any number of pursuits, from firefighting to mountain climbing, very few occupations in the world can make those platitudes sound new and meaningful again quite like the job of war photographer.

Fast food companies have long been criticized for catering to children in advertisements, and studies have shown that kids are vulnerable to forming emotional connections to brands, especially when toys and Happy Meals are used.
                        
                        A new study, published in <em>JAMA Pediatrics,</em> now shows just how powerful that advertising and branding can be. Researchers showed children stills from fast food commercials and asked them to name the various foods in the frame. Only 10% of the kids correctly identified Burger King's apple slices, packaged liked french fries, while the majority confused them for french fries. Around one-half to one-third of the kids in the study couldn't correctly identify milk in McDonald's and Burger King children ads.
                        
                        Watch the confusion here:
                        
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9uHUeWztY&amp;feature=youtu.be
                        
                        "Burger King's depiction of apple slices as 'Fresh Apple Fries' was misleading to children in the target age range," said study author Dr. James Sargent, the co-director Cancer Control Research Program at Norris Cotton Cancer Center <a title="in a statement" href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/tgso-ffg033114.php" target="_blank">in a statement</a>. "The advertisement would be deceptive by industry standards, yet their self-regulation bodies took no action to address the misleading depiction."
                        
                        That the children identified what they had come to expect from these fast food brand makes apparent the power of their advertising to young, impressionable minds; Burger King only started to advertise healthier options like apple slices and milk in 2010.
                        
                        Earlier research from the study authors showed that brands increase awareness among children by using giveaways. <a title="Critics" href="http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/29/forget-the-food-fast-food-ads-aimed-at-kids-feature-lots-of-giveaways/" target="_blank">Critics</a> of these methods say targeting kids with brand-oriented messaging develops a deep-seated loyalty, which can be harmful to their health. Some companies, like Walt Disney Co., <a title="have taken pledges" href="http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/06/disneys-diet-no-more-junk-food-ads-on-kids-channels/" target="_blank">have taken pledges</a> to cut down on the amount of unhealthy advertising aimed at children. Disney says it plans to ban all junk food advertising from its TV channels, websites and radio programs catering to children by 2015. (Ralph Morse—Time &amp; Life Pictures/Getty Images)
Fast food companies have long been criticized for catering to children in advertisements, and studies have shown that kids are vulnerable to forming emotional connections to brands, especially when toys and Happy Meals are used. A new study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, now shows just how powerful that advertising and branding can be. Researchers showed children stills from fast food commercials and asked them to name the various foods in the frame. Only 10% of the kids correctly identified Burger King's apple slices, packaged liked french fries, while the majority confused them for french fries. Around one-half to one-third of the kids in the study couldn't correctly identify milk in McDonald's and Burger King children ads. Watch the confusion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9uHUeWztY&feature=youtu.be "Burger King's depiction of apple slices as 'Fresh Apple Fries' was misleading to children in the target age range," said study author Dr. James Sargent, the co-director Cancer Control Research Program at Norris Cotton Cancer Center in a statement. "The advertisement would be deceptive by industry standards, yet their self-regulation bodies took no action to address the misleading depiction." That the children identified what they had come to expect from these fast food brand makes apparent the power of their advertising to young, impressionable minds; Burger King only started to advertise healthier options like apple slices and milk in 2010. Earlier research from the study authors showed that brands increase awareness among children by using giveaways. Critics of these methods say targeting kids with brand-oriented messaging develops a deep-seated loyalty, which can be harmful to their health. Some companies, like Walt Disney Co., have taken pledges to cut down on the amount of unhealthy advertising aimed at children. Disney says it plans to ban all junk food advertising from its TV channels, websites and radio programs catering to children by 2015.
Ralph Morse—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

Here, in a short film by Will Wedig, Jonah Weintraub and Bill Shapiro — made to honor recipients of Time Inc’s prestigious Briton Hadden Lifetime Achievement Award — the profession and the passion of war photography, as practiced across decades by acknowledged masters, get their due.

One of the honorees, LIFE’s Ralph Morse, was sent to the Pacific in World War II as the youngest war correspondent working in that theater. All he managed to accomplish during the conflict was to survive the sinking of a cruiser off of Guadalcanal; make dozens of the most celebrated (and shocking) pictures to come out of the global conflagration; chronicle the liberation of Paris in 1944; and record the German surrender to Eisenhower in 1945. (Morse went on to so devotedly and inventively cover the early days of the Mercury Seven and the Space Race that John Glenn dubbed him the “eighth astronaut,” while LIFE’s long-time managing editor George Hunt once declared that “if LIFE could afford only one photographer, it would have to be Ralph Morse.”)

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on Tuesday released his fiscal year 2015 budget, in which he cuts $5.1 trillion in spending, mostly from health care, to balance the budget by 2024.
                        
                        The budget would repeal ObamaCare, including the money-saving Independent Payment Advisory Board, cutting $1.2 trillion in federal outlays. It turns Medicaid into a block grant program for states, which would save $732 billion over 10 years. It essentially aims to privatize Medicare, offering enrollees in 2024 the choice of a private plan, while raising the age of eligibility and means tests for high income seniors. All told, more than half of the $5.1 trillion would come from health care savings. The document, provided on an embargoed basis to reporters, did not provide detailed budgetary outlays, but rather an overview of the budget's goals.
                        
                        Surprisingly, Ryan did not renew his recommendation from years past to essentially privatize Social Security. In this budget he simply notes the problem in long-term projected shortfalls and calls on Congress and the President to begin working on solutions.
                        
                        As in past budget, Ryan leaves the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department largely untouched, including only those cuts recommended by the Pentagon itself. In fact, he criticizes President Obama from cutting too much in military spending in his 2015 budget.
                        
                        While all of this may sound like a Republican, or at least Tea Party, dream, Ryan is expected to have a tough time getting his bill through the House. The measure assumes a 2015 spending baseline as prescribed in the deal he made with Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray earlier this year. That baseline mitigates the sequester cuts and assumes a higher level of spending than House Republicans like. Sixty-two Republicans voted against that deal, which passed on Democratic support. There will be no Democratic votes for the Ryan budget as it includes drastic cuts to programs Democrats seek to protect, which means Ryan must convince those 62 nay votes to support his budget despite the short-term increase in spending.
                        
                        Of course, this budget is going nowhere in the Democratically-controlled Senate, which has already announced it would not pass a budget this year citing the two-year deal Murray and Ryan forged earlier this year. Democrats, meanwhile, were gleefully anticipating the Ryan budget, hoping to use some of its more extreme positions against GOP candidates in a midterm election where they are portraying Republicans as unsympathetic to the working class. "The Ryan budget wouldn’t do a thing to help the middle class, and simply attacking Obamacare won’t get them the political victory they seek," Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in response to Ryan's budget on Tuesday. "We’ll put our agenda to give everyone a fair shot by creating jobs and raising wages, against a plan that guts the middle class and replaces Medicare’s guaranteed benefits any day of the week.”
                        
                        The plan eliminates USAID, moving international aid to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. It also cuts international education exchanges and programs like the East-West Center. In a nod to Benghazi, it maintains increased spending on diplomatic security—8% over 2013 levels.
                        
                        The budget drastically cuts clean energy and technology funds and funding to fight climate change, while expanding oil and gas drilling on and offshore. It also recommends approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
                        
                        It cuts $23 billion in agriculture subsidies and turns the food stamp program into a block grant program for the states. It trims funding to Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which Ryan says is being abused by the states. It would also slash federal pensions by $125 billion over 10 years. It would eliminate a program to repay federal employees’ student loans, and would encourage attrition in the federal workforce. It would cut welfare programs by $5 billion over 10 years. And it would bar people from receiving both unemployment and disability benefits at the same time, saving $5.4 billion over 10 years. It also eliminates printing costs by switching most records to electronic copies. And it would end election assistance.
                        
                        The budget would cut funding to the Securities and Exchange Commission, restrict the FDIC’s authority to bail out bank creditors. It would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and slashes $19 billion from the struggling U.S. Postal Service.
                        
                        It ends support for Amtrak, cuts some funding for the Transportation Security Administration, eliminates the Community Development Program, cuts funding to the Federal Emergency Management Program, noting that in the last three years 2,400 emergencies have been declared many of those decisions were “not made judiciously.” Ryan recommends reducing FEMA expenses by instilling per capita thresholds.
                        
                        The budget would streamline job training by getting rid of nearly 50 duplicate and overlapping programs. It would cut funding to Pell Grants by imposing a maximum income eligibility cap, ending funding for less than half-time students and capping the maximum award to $5,730. It would streamline Education Department programs, particularly the 82 programs focusing on teacher quality and calls for major reform to elementary and secondary programs. It would end all federal funding to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
                        
                        In a nod to Ryan’s anticipated move to become House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Congress’s top tax writing committee, Ryan included the bones of a tax reform plan he’s likely to push in the next session. That plan repeals the alternative minimum tax, cuts corporate tax rates to 25% and consolidates the seven personal income brackets to just three with a top rate of 25% and a bottom rate of 10%. (Larry Burrows—Time &amp; Life Pictures/Getty Images)
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on Tuesday released his fiscal year 2015 budget, in which he cuts $5.1 trillion in spending, mostly from health care, to balance the budget by 2024. The budget would repeal ObamaCare, including the money-saving Independent Payment Advisory Board, cutting $1.2 trillion in federal outlays. It turns Medicaid into a block grant program for states, which would save $732 billion over 10 years. It essentially aims to privatize Medicare, offering enrollees in 2024 the choice of a private plan, while raising the age of eligibility and means tests for high income seniors. All told, more than half of the $5.1 trillion would come from health care savings. The document, provided on an embargoed basis to reporters, did not provide detailed budgetary outlays, but rather an overview of the budget's goals. Surprisingly, Ryan did not renew his recommendation from years past to essentially privatize Social Security. In this budget he simply notes the problem in long-term projected shortfalls and calls on Congress and the President to begin working on solutions. As in past budget, Ryan leaves the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department largely untouched, including only those cuts recommended by the Pentagon itself. In fact, he criticizes President Obama from cutting too much in military spending in his 2015 budget. While all of this may sound like a Republican, or at least Tea Party, dream, Ryan is expected to have a tough time getting his bill through the House. The measure assumes a 2015 spending baseline as prescribed in the deal he made with Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray earlier this year. That baseline mitigates the sequester cuts and assumes a higher level of spending than House Republicans like. Sixty-two Republicans voted against that deal, which passed on Democratic support. There will be no Democratic votes for the Ryan budget as it includes drastic cuts to programs Democrats seek to protect, which means Ryan must convince those 62 nay votes to support his budget despite the short-term increase in spending. Of course, this budget is going nowhere in the Democratically-controlled Senate, which has already announced it would not pass a budget this year citing the two-year deal Murray and Ryan forged earlier this year. Democrats, meanwhile, were gleefully anticipating the Ryan budget, hoping to use some of its more extreme positions against GOP candidates in a midterm election where they are portraying Republicans as unsympathetic to the working class. "The Ryan budget wouldn’t do a thing to help the middle class, and simply attacking Obamacare won’t get them the political victory they seek," Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in response to Ryan's budget on Tuesday. "We’ll put our agenda to give everyone a fair shot by creating jobs and raising wages, against a plan that guts the middle class and replaces Medicare’s guaranteed benefits any day of the week.” The plan eliminates USAID, moving international aid to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. It also cuts international education exchanges and programs like the East-West Center. In a nod to Benghazi, it maintains increased spending on diplomatic security—8% over 2013 levels. The budget drastically cuts clean energy and technology funds and funding to fight climate change, while expanding oil and gas drilling on and offshore. It also recommends approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. It cuts $23 billion in agriculture subsidies and turns the food stamp program into a block grant program for the states. It trims funding to Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which Ryan says is being abused by the states. It would also slash federal pensions by $125 billion over 10 years. It would eliminate a program to repay federal employees’ student loans, and would encourage attrition in the federal workforce. It would cut welfare programs by $5 billion over 10 years. And it would bar people from receiving both unemployment and disability benefits at the same time, saving $5.4 billion over 10 years. It also eliminates printing costs by switching most records to electronic copies. And it would end election assistance. The budget would cut funding to the Securities and Exchange Commission, restrict the FDIC’s authority to bail out bank creditors. It would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and slashes $19 billion from the struggling U.S. Postal Service. It ends support for Amtrak, cuts some funding for the Transportation Security Administration, eliminates the Community Development Program, cuts funding to the Federal Emergency Management Program, noting that in the last three years 2,400 emergencies have been declared many of those decisions were “not made judiciously.” Ryan recommends reducing FEMA expenses by instilling per capita thresholds. The budget would streamline job training by getting rid of nearly 50 duplicate and overlapping programs. It would cut funding to Pell Grants by imposing a maximum income eligibility cap, ending funding for less than half-time students and capping the maximum award to $5,730. It would streamline Education Department programs, particularly the 82 programs focusing on teacher quality and calls for major reform to elementary and secondary programs. It would end all federal funding to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In a nod to Ryan’s anticipated move to become House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Congress’s top tax writing committee, Ryan included the bones of a tax reform plan he’s likely to push in the next session. That plan repeals the alternative minimum tax, cuts corporate tax rates to 25% and consolidates the seven personal income brackets to just three with a top rate of 25% and a bottom rate of 10%.
Larry Burrows—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

The late, British-born Larry Burrows distinguished himself covering Southeast Asia from 1962 until his death in 1971. His work, from the searing single image, “Reaching Out” (featuring a wounded Marine desperately trying to comfort a stricken comrade after a fierce 1966 firefight in a landscape that might have given Hieronymus Bosch nightmares) to his great photo essay, “One Ride With Yankee Papa 13,” not only captured the war in Vietnam. For millions of people around the world, Burrows’ pictures encompassed and defined the long, divisive catastrophe.

He and three fellow photojournalists died when their helicopter was shot down during operations in Laos. Larry Burrows was 44.

Fast food companies have long been criticized for catering to children in advertisements, and studies have shown that kids are vulnerable to forming emotional connections to brands, especially when toys and Happy Meals are used.
                        
                        A new study, published in <em>JAMA Pediatrics,</em> now shows just how powerful that advertising and branding can be. Researchers showed children stills from fast food commercials and asked them to name the various foods in the frame. Only 10% of the kids correctly identified Burger King's apple slices, packaged liked french fries, while the majority confused them for french fries. Around one-half to one-third of the kids in the study couldn't correctly identify milk in McDonald's and Burger King children ads.
                        
                        Watch the confusion here:
                        
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9uHUeWztY&amp;feature=youtu.be
                        
                        "Burger King's depiction of apple slices as 'Fresh Apple Fries' was misleading to children in the target age range," said study author Dr. James Sargent, the co-director Cancer Control Research Program at Norris Cotton Cancer Center <a title="in a statement" href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/tgso-ffg033114.php" target="_blank">in a statement</a>. "The advertisement would be deceptive by industry standards, yet their self-regulation bodies took no action to address the misleading depiction."
                        
                        That the children identified what they had come to expect from these fast food brand makes apparent the power of their advertising to young, impressionable minds; Burger King only started to advertise healthier options like apple slices and milk in 2010.
                        
                        Earlier research from the study authors showed that brands increase awareness among children by using giveaways. <a title="Critics" href="http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/29/forget-the-food-fast-food-ads-aimed-at-kids-feature-lots-of-giveaways/" target="_blank">Critics</a> of these methods say targeting kids with brand-oriented messaging develops a deep-seated loyalty, which can be harmful to their health. Some companies, like Walt Disney Co., <a title="have taken pledges" href="http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/06/disneys-diet-no-more-junk-food-ads-on-kids-channels/" target="_blank">have taken pledges</a> to cut down on the amount of unhealthy advertising aimed at children. Disney says it plans to ban all junk food advertising from its TV channels, websites and radio programs catering to children by 2015. (James Nachtwey for TIME)
Fast food companies have long been criticized for catering to children in advertisements, and studies have shown that kids are vulnerable to forming emotional connections to brands, especially when toys and Happy Meals are used. A new study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, now shows just how powerful that advertising and branding can be. Researchers showed children stills from fast food commercials and asked them to name the various foods in the frame. Only 10% of the kids correctly identified Burger King's apple slices, packaged liked french fries, while the majority confused them for french fries. Around one-half to one-third of the kids in the study couldn't correctly identify milk in McDonald's and Burger King children ads. Watch the confusion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9uHUeWztY&feature=youtu.be "Burger King's depiction of apple slices as 'Fresh Apple Fries' was misleading to children in the target age range," said study author Dr. James Sargent, the co-director Cancer Control Research Program at Norris Cotton Cancer Center in a statement. "The advertisement would be deceptive by industry standards, yet their self-regulation bodies took no action to address the misleading depiction." That the children identified what they had come to expect from these fast food brand makes apparent the power of their advertising to young, impressionable minds; Burger King only started to advertise healthier options like apple slices and milk in 2010. Earlier research from the study authors showed that brands increase awareness among children by using giveaways. Critics of these methods say targeting kids with brand-oriented messaging develops a deep-seated loyalty, which can be harmful to their health. Some companies, like Walt Disney Co., have taken pledges to cut down on the amount of unhealthy advertising aimed at children. Disney says it plans to ban all junk food advertising from its TV channels, websites and radio programs catering to children by 2015.
James Nachtwey for TIME

Finally, there’s James Nachtwey, who has covered civil strife, natural disasters and armed conflicts around the globe for more than three decades. He has seen fellow photographers and friends injured and killed while doing their jobs. He has been wounded himself (in Iraq in 2003, when an insurgent tossed a grenade into a Humvee that he and TIME’s Michael Weisskopf were riding in). He was the subject of the 2001 Oscar-nominated documentary, War Photographer, and is widely regarded as the greatest living photojournalist.

“To see life,” Henry Luce wrote in his now-famous 1936 mission statement for LIFE magazine, delineating what he envisioned as his new venture’s workmanlike method and its lofty aims. “To see the world; to eyewitness great events … to see strange things — machines, armies, multitudes … to see and be amazed; to see and be instructed.”

Across decades, Morse, Burrows and Nachtwey have seen, and have helped us see, the very best and the absolute worst that humanity can offer.

When other people ran from danger, they ran toward it. They went into battle armed with nothing but courage. They experienced fear — and they kept going. These are war photographers.

Ben Cosgrove is the editor of LIFE.com.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

You May Also Like
EDIT POST