PDN article by Tyler Hicks

Very well said, Tyler.

When I first saw the shot I was struck by it, and I remember thinking that it would be an extremely important image if the fallen man had been a victim of the blast, and simply a great shot if not.

As far as the Christan symbolism of the picture, it is the kind of image that we can talk about for awhile and that debate I suspect, will never be resolved because it addresses both the power and one of the difficulties of photography, which is that the best photos are often ambiguous or symbolic and open to interpretation.

I have made and will continue to make enough mistakes of my own to fill more than a few embarressing posts. In this case you did absolutely nothing wrong and its a sorry thing that you continued to be crucified over nothing……cheers.

Andy I am assuming that “crucified” is a slip of the tongue? Ha! Yes, I remember Andy posting about this picture and saying what a classic shot it was, and i readily agreed with him. It has it all. Marvelous image.

I was looking for a larger version of the image and googled ‘Tyler Hicks Lebanon’ I came across this: http://www.npr.org/templates/gallery/index.php?gallery=5591698&slide=3

Thank you Tyler. :))

Tyler’s statement is all, all that in truth is ever needed from a reporter: the foundation of the testament of his/her words/photographs as it occurred. I trust this will finally put this issue to rest, burried (so to speak) at last.

cheers,
Bob

Tyler: first of all welcome to LS. Thid controbersy Tyler: first of all welcome to LS.
This controversy was put to rest thanks to good captioning . I think this is a good example we can learn from. Protection of our “Integrity and honesty”.

A very important post, Thank you Tyler.

It goes to show how quickly and thoroughly an untruth, repeated and rehashed often enough can enter the realm of perceived reality. Kudos for tackling this one head on and trying to clear things up.

Thanks, Tyler, for writing this explanation and for bringing the PDN article to the attention of the LS community. I hope it will bring the issue to a close once and for all.

I am not sure what Brandon’s point is above, but the caption on the photo as it appears in the slide show on the NPR Web site (the URL of which he cites) is the same as the one which Tyler said ran with the photo in the NY Times’ print edition, not the problematic one from its Web site. According to Tyler above that newspaper caption was “correctly published…”

I hope every photojournalist and student here reads this entire post by
Tyler Hicks and takes it consequences to heart.

Now I am going to stick my neck out and make a statement.

I realize that Tyler is not asking for any help here from the photojournalist
community and his colleagues, and I am sure with his talents that he doesn’t
need any. However, I believe that one has a responsibility to their
professional community to set the facts straight particularly when you come
across this type of mob rule.

This type of public false accusation can keep reverberating and the exact same
thing could happen to anyone of us here who makes their whole, or any part of
their livelihood through the media, even and sometimes especially in a free press.

I am not saying that bloggers shouldn’t exist or suggesting that they should
be banned, boycotted or anything of that nature. They can be their own social
nightmare, and they also are an integral part of free speech. However, in a
free society one still does not have the right to slander or libel without
expecting legal recourse from the innocent whose name has been dragged through
the mud. Also, I don’t speak for anyone and don’t know Tyler, but after reading
his essay, it doesn’t look like that is what he is after, he just wants to set
the record straight and let the truth be known.

My point again is that one owes it to one’s professional community to help
establish ethical standards and to protest or correct falsehoods that are
claimed to be true regarding anyone of its members regardless of diversity
in our personal and political base.

Case in point, I came across a customer review last night on Amazon.com
for the book, “Histories Are Mirrors: The Path of Conflict through Iraq
and Afghanistan (Hardcover)” by Tyler Hicks.

I quote here the October 3, 2006 Customer Review entitled:
*“Great photography – are they faked?”

“This book obviously has some outstanding photographic work. Just be
aware that the author was recently caught faking a well-publicized
photo of rescue workers recovering a body in Beirut. It definitely
calls into question some of his work.”* It is not my point to
expose this reviewer’s identity and so I won’t give out the author’s
name.

Now, this has been a proved falsehood for quite some time now, at least publicly ever
since the NYTimes put out their correction on August 9, 2006. See following link;
you will have to copy and paste the url:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/pageoneplus/corrections.html?ex=1160193600&en=2de6b480b0451700&ei=5070

but apparently someone didn’t get the memo and/or doesn’t seem to care that
they ever even got it right in the first place. This person is stating in a
public marketplace something that was never true as a fact to begin with.
That could have a real negative consequence in influencing an honest and gifted
photojournalist’s future business, and their present and potential customers
and clients through no fault of their own.

Again, I repeat, what happened to Tyler could happen to anyone of us,
so I suggest we all in the free press take the liberty of setting anyone
straight who has their facts wrong and is as they use to say in the old days
“bearing false witness against their neighbor”.

Many bloggers and their followers have their own personal agendas and
some actually have vendettas so I don’t suggest taking them on but when
it overspills onto a public forum like Amazon.com then it is all of our
business to say something about it. This is not just Tyler’s situation;
this could be all of ours.

Speak out but be aware of your facts.

“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends.” Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

To: Gayle Hegland — Your words are very true, and important for people to read. I appreciate the effort that you and all the other people on this site have put into this issue. Thank you for pointing out the comment on Amazon, and for your response there as well. Its comforting to know that people are out there helping to protect the integrity of those of us who come under this kind of attack.

Gayle! :))))…beautifully expressed and thanks for the link to the review. I too have contributed something at Amazon to combat this shit. We are nothing without human contact and we are nothing, as a community, if we cannot stand up together and express our outrage.

As King understood, it is silence that we must fear above all else.

thanks
bob

Hi,

I have avoided this thread so far.

No doubt, the moment I’ll write anything here, there will be an attack on me personally, my alleged political views, on various bloggers agendas etc.. etc.. anything to avoid the real issue. (we went this route before)

So far no one asked about Tylor political views and I think this is CORRECT. The issue here is photographic, editorial and not political. I could not care less about Tylor’s political views. (seriously: I don’t want to know)

The fact that only bloggers with a specific political agenda raised questions about this case is unfortunate. In all honesty I have expected that since Tylor posted here some other photographer would ask critical questions- as journalists we surly do have “more questions” about the scene, about working in Hizbulla controlled areas, about the person in the photo and about other casualties (were there any ?) in that attack on the house in Tyre. Yet no one have raised even a single question – makes you go: mmm….The only suggestion we got was to attack those who criticize us “fight fire with fire” was the quote.

So I refuse to fight fire with fire. I will gladly discuss my political views (far left, btw) in a different thread (in case someone is interested) and I would like to keep this thread to the photographic scene and editorial decisions made by Tylor (thanks for joining us here in LS) and other photographers/editors.

I would add that I looked on the web for other Tylor’s work (in Varanasi, Afganistan, Iraq) and no doubt in my mind that he is top notch professional with exceptional work – This photo from Tyre is one of his personal best (if not “the best” from what I could find) – excellent catch.

Best,
Eyal

Bravo Tyler!

Dear Gayle,

I was not referring to you. I know you have never attacked me. Others did and they know who they are.
Also I was not talking about you when I refered to those who suggested to attack the bloggers (see post by anonymous poster called http://www.lightstalkers.org/mikethehack who suggested that in the thread about the AP photographer)

I agree with everything you wrote above (including bloggers being old enough to handle criticism)

Please read my post again knowing that it is not about you.
The points raised there (about the need to ask questions in a critical way) apply to us all.

Best,
Eyal

PS I have my share of criticism about bloggers. (from both sides of the political spectrum)

However, I look at some of the data they provide as a pointer to information I can look up by myself on the web.
I usually ignore the blogger opinion but find the links to other sources interesting.
This is an important service bloggers do for me: collate information and provide pointers/links to other source of information.
Many times I find my self reading something in a blog and as a result make my own google search on a name or event I have never heard before.

Dear Gayle,

No appology needed. I was not offended.

Best,
Eyal

Hi,

Since Tylor had first posted here not a single photographer had asked a critical question. As journalists we surly do have “more questions” about the scene, about working in Hizbulla controlled areas, about the person in the photo and about other casualties (were there any ?) in that attack on the house in Tyre. Yet no one have raised even a single question – makes you go: mmm….

I would like to keep this thread to the photographic scene and editorial decisions made by Tylor (thanks for joining us here in LS) and other photographers/editors.

I looked on the web for other Tylor’s work (in Varanasi, Afganistan, Iraq) and no doubt in my mind that he is top notch professional with exceptional work – This photo from Tyre is one of his personal best (if not “the best” from what I could find) – excellent catch.

Best, Eyal

Eyal, correct me if I’m mistaken, but it appears to me that you want to continue insinuating something to defend your position.

You see that was my point exactly: The moment someone just suggests that questions should be asked (I did not even ask one) the personal attacks starts.

I would like to keep this thread to the photographic scene and editorial decisions made by Tylor and other photographers/editors. If you want to discuss me start another thread I’ll join you there.

Ocean,

I am very glad that you “checked up my photographic work” and can not understand from it what my ideology is.

My work tries to capture the multiple confusing aspects of the area I now and live and work: Israel/Palestine. While many other think it is a clear case of “Good Vs. Evil” (and they decide who is who based on their political beliefs) I just try to present all aspects of reality and let other take their decisions. I bring more of the complex reality in front of their eyes – let the viwer see what I see that they can not see otherwise.

It does not mean I don’t have a political view: I do and this view influence the subjects the topics I choose to cover but once I choose a topic I cover it from all angles even those which do not fit my views.

I am still waiting for questions to be asked about Tylor excellent photographic work. Clearly there are questions to be asked. These questions or viwes about his work should come from people who willing to stand up behind what they say, so yes your identity is important to have this discussion in an honest way.

Best,
Eyal

eyal,

what are your further questions for tyler? i think he has explained himself pretty clearly in his PDN article and post here. what we do as photographers usually isn’t rocket science. it can be confusing, hard to get access, hard to make photos that acurately show not just what is front of you but also the mood, the underlying circumstanes, etc. but when it comes right down to it, most experienced photographers in a conflict/catastrophe/crisis do pretty much the same thing. we drive and walk around. we rely on translators, drivers, fixers, local residents, or our own knowledge and friends and family if it is an area we already know. maybe we “embed” with a police or military or medical unit for five minutes or five weeks. then, we take pictures.

and each of us does this differently, of course. but the mechanics are the same. i haven’t seen your work Eyal but I assume you do all this just like the rest of us, and you know how to navigate your particular situations. what would I ask you, for instance, about how you work? i would, in the absence of something truly unusual, assume that i already know, in a general sense.

and of course each of us may have political opinions. but usually that doesn’t affect how you work unless you’re a total propagandist or fool. which Tyler is not, as you’d see in about 2 seconds if you review his work over his career.

frankly most photographers are too inured to the rights-and-wrongs of all sides to get too worked up about any specific group. Again, that is not to say that you don’t have an opinion: for example, in Afghanistan after 9/11, i broadly agreed with the US intervention and the war against the Taliban and the Arab Al-Qaeda volunteers. I was fundamentally sympathetic to the goals of the US and the Northern Alliance at the time. But the photographs of mine which turned out to be my most important contribution to the coverage of that war were of Taliban prisoners, the terrible conditions under which they were held, and the container trucks in which many died from deliberate over-crowding and lack of air and water. That certainly did not make me an apologist for the Taliban nor change my opinion about the justice of the war. But obviously, as a professional, i had no problem or issue whatsoever with documenting abuses by US and Northern Alliance forces against the Taliban prisoners. And i think that most of my colleagues would agree with me.

if you ask anyone who knows or has worked with Tyler, (and there are many, many such people), including myself, i can tell you that over the last eight years, during which we have often photographed together, in places and situations as disparate as the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and New Orleans, I have never seen him do anything even remotely unethical or questionable in his conduct as a photojournalist. Quite the contrary: as he says, he has always worked hard to make sure that he’s getting it right.

finally, as he points out himself, you don’t have to take his word or my word or anybody else’s on this issue. The original caption as published in the newspaper is there for the world to see. The website’s subsequent mistake and how that spread across the Internet is easily checked against the print edition of the newspaper. The fact that few people bothered to do this, and rushed to judgement, says more about cynicism and politial bias on the part of the blogger critics than it does about ethical problems in photojournalism.

readers or viewers, distant from the events in question, and not understanding how reporters and photographers work, may think that there’s always a secret story, a conspiracy, a hidden agenda. all very entertaining. and when over-ambitious or propagandistic practitioners go too far with photoshop or setting things up, it becomes fodder for the shame of our profession. but in this case, when the photographer steps forward with a verifiable and coherent explanation of what happened and how, that should be the end of the discussion.

Dear Alan,

1. You focus on the caption. I don’t.

2. I try to take pictures which do not require caption, but that is not the issue.

3. My first question to Tylor would be exactly what I would ask my self:

Sometimes in the heat of the situation, we take many photos and later when we have time I like to organize them based on time stamp (I keep all my cameras within less than 1 second difference on their internal clocks) and look at the sequence, maybe there are things I can see in what took place that I did not realize while taking the photos.

So my request from Tylor would be first to present the sequence of photos taken before this shot (say in the 2-3 minutes before) maybe a sequence of 15-20 photos. I am sure this will help understand what took place there.

4. I will tell you upfront the part what mystified me in this photo (and it has nothing to do with the caption): In the photo there is a person that looks very dead yet he is alive.

5. Hope you understand what my question is and why I want to understand better the scene and how this person ended up the way he does in this photo.

Best,
Eyal

Alan: forgive me for jumping in here, but let me have a wack at this (by the way, your post is EXACTLY the only words which are needed at this point, as they’re concise, cogent and definitive, though I thought Tyler had accomplished already)….:)))

Eyal: it seems what troubles you fundamentally is this “crucifixition” image of the man being rescued from the rubble. It is a powerful image, not only because it precisely attends our senses to the physically and the crush of the moment of the leveling of the buildings but it has profound metaphoric resonance: conjuring for the viewer associative meanings (jon anderson, andy levin and others have written extensively about these as they pertain to this one image). I think that you have made a fundamental error in “seeing” or rather in “reflection” about this photograph. I believe you wrongly attribute to this photographs your own aesehtic/philosophic point of view. It appears that you are troubled by the metaphoric resonance of this image (a living man appears to be dead and is carried away) and somehow you consider this “untruthful” or “political.” of which the photograph is none of those. You are troubled because the injured man looks dead and you are troubled because prior to the collapse of the building the man looked very much alive and there remains some splinter of doubt that you feel that the image was “created” as a way of showing the slaying of man who in fact hadnt been killed. You (I believe) wrongly sentimentalize this. You seem to be implying that Tyler’s is unskirting the truth by “stating” a living man is dead when in actuality he is really alive. From this, you have conjectured that Tyler somehow (from some political point of view) wanted to show a man who’d been killed. Well, let me tell you that one of the MOST profound images that I have ever seen from war comes from tyler’s Triptych of a Taliban man being killed and drug through a dusty road. We (we has witnesses looking at the photograph) watch through the series of images this man being beaten, shot and then drug: we too become culpable participants. I can assure you that Tyler does not, not ever, proport to show a living person as dead to agendize a photograph.

I think (forgive me) but you are being terribly naive, or rather, very unsophisticated when it comes to photography, imagery, which is surprising since you are a photojournalist. We photograph for many reasons, and one of the principles of photography is this: a photograph can have resonnance, power and a radiant life outside of the moment of the image. Most of the great images in photojournalism had a sustained power not because they were “untruthful” but because the “truth” of the image radiant wider than only the moment. Yes, the man in Tyler’s photograph appears dead, appears to have been taken from the rubble as if a christ-figure removed from the cross about to be held (pieta), but this photograph is powerful because of these associative connections and visual connotations. If WE SEE A DEAD MAN (yes, Eyal, you have a responsiblity in the viewing and thinking of a photograph, and you as a viewer have an equal responsiblity in the what you interpret from an image), than it is because of the connective visual qualities that this photograph empowers. I saw a doll in the muddy water of the swollen-tongue of the Mississippi river after Katrina in Andy Levin’s photographs and I was stunned, as I’d thought it was a floating baby and it made the image for me more stark for me.

The power and demand of photography lay in just that ability: to redress what we have experienced singularly and to announced it toward universality. The face that we saw this injured man as a dead one is in fact the potency of photography and is IN NO WAY a slam against the extraordinary work of Hicks. I defy you to explain to me that you have never seen photographs of injured people in war or conflict that didnt evoke profound grief for you because they’re dust and blood-bereft bodies appeared dead. The moment we reduce the discussion to this level of unsophisticated discussion, the entire apparatus of photography (and our experiential and sensorious selves) will be reduced to a scaled measure of emptiness. Is laughter the sound of merriment or the sound of the body sobbing? This is the ambiguity of life and death and this is the ambiguity of that magnificent photograph.

Nothing more needs to be added. tyler’s political points of view are NOT germane to this discussion just as the color of his hair or eyes….

the “story” of photojournalism is about the the ability to excavate for us who were not there, in the widest possible way, the story of what occurred…

bob

when i was a child i had one of those Dansette record players.unfortunately i only had one record so i put it on auto-repeat,again and again and again.it was very exciting for my childish mind to hear ‘puff the magic dragon" repeated for hours on end.the other members of my family did not share my enthusiasm however,and after a few days of my childish version of ’psi-ops’ the fuse disappeared!i imagine that tyler and the other photographers who were recently in the lebanon,and all their mates and colleagues who understand the situation there feel much the same as my parents did.unfortunately this is real life and problems can’t be solved by dismantling a plug.

Bob,

You are going a long way into my thinking process and attribute to me things I never thought.
So instead of saying what I think is wrong in what you wrote about me (and I know you have not done this with any bad intention – it is just a open honest discussion and I treat it as such) I will just say where you seem to be correct:

“I believe you wrongly attribute to this photographs your own aesehtic/philosophic point of view”

This is off course true and we all do this. Show the same photo to different people and they will interpret it differently – each based on their background.

This however, does not mean that we should not be asking questions about any photo (i.e. our different background should not be the cause to prevent us from seeking more information)

I divided my question to two parts:

1. I asked for more information
2. I described what bother me in the photo.

2 (i.e. what bothred me) is indeed completely subjective (up to a point) so let’s avoid it now and first get more information what exactly took place there.

For now we have the NYT slideshow and I am asking to fill in the missing parts.

Bob, In all honesty much of what you attribute to me or my thinking has never crossed my mind. In some you may be closer and other further from my thoughts but all together you go in the wrong direction and entering into my head (deeper than I myself go) is no way to deal with editorial and photographic issues which is what I am interested in. I know you do it from good intentions. I 100% agree with you that “tyler’s political point of view are as germane as the color of his hair or eyes….” – I don’t suspect any political motive in his work. I want to focus on photographic and editorial decisions and I think it is fair to ask questions and also fair to disagree. I am bothered that so far no one had any other question.

eyal, you never cease to astound me. perhaps the reason why you’ve been asking the same question for the past, what is it, 8 weeks now, is that you simply do not read or amazingly fail to comprehend what’s posted here.

regarding your “and first get more information what exactly took place there,” comment….you might want to read what tyler posted and at long last put the issue to rest. (that is if you can ever trust a first hand account and stop kicking around little green footballs)….as far as asking questions go, yes, it is essential that they are asked. however, they have been asked (and asked and asked and asked) and they have been and responded to by tyler himself, as well as others in detail so i’m not really sure where you;re going with this. anyway, regarding your “exactly what took place,” querry, here is what happened should you care to finally comprehend it:

Several buildings had been leveled, and smoke poured from beneath the rubble as Lebanese civilians searched the aftermath for casualties. The danger in this situation was that it was common for jets to circle around and strike the same scene a second time. We had witnessed this method deployed elsewhere in Lebanon, sometimes ten, fifteen or even thirty minutes after the initial attack. In this case we had arrived within five minutes of the first bombing.

I did not see any casualties on my arrival. I photographed the search effort, but otherwise there were no injured or dead visible. Soon there was a panic among the people that Israeli jets were coming overhead and would strike again. This sent the gathering crowd running away from the scene, which is a difficult task over the jagged cement and exposed rebar of a collapsed building.

In the commotion, one man fell from a considerable height onto his back and was seriously injured. He was then helped by others who rushed him to an ambulance. A well-known Associated Press photographer also photographed the injured man as he was carried through the street to an ambulance. Given the complexity of the situation, the AP photographer and I discussed our captions that evening.

Jake,

I am not going into discussion with you on my ability to understand.

I made a reasonable request for clarifying the facts using a tool every photographer would understand: To see more photos from the scene.

I do not accept your explanation for two reasons:

You were not there and you presented no additional photos of the scene.

I read Tyler description, he focused on the caption issue and I don’t.

I want to understand more what the exact scene there was prior to this photo being taken. There is nothing wrong in this request.

Tyler came to LS presented his story and now there are more fair questions to be asked. This is how press works.
If you don’t mind I would like to get Tylor’s answer. You and many others had the opportunity to ask questions but you all choose not to do that while I for days stayed away from this thread hoping someone else will come up with a single question.

Best,
Eyal

the scene prior to the photograph:

I did not see any casualties on my arrival. I photographed the search effort, but otherwise there were no injured or dead visible. Soon there was a panic among the people that Israeli jets were coming overhead and would strike again. This sent the gathering crowd running away from the scene, which is a difficult task over the jagged cement and exposed rebar of a collapsed building.

Jake,

We are getting no where by you copy and pasting Tylor’s article.
I read it.

After reading it I have legitimate questions.

Eyal

that’s because we know Tyler, have been in countless sketchy situations with him, worked alongside him and have never seen him do anything remotely unethical or questionable. Because, we TRUST him. now maybe you don’t know him. So you don’t have that trust. But you know other photographers. you know yourself. you’ve been in situations like this, or at least situations comparable in one way or another. is there ANYTHING here that makes you think it wasn’t straight-up and honest after Tyler’s explanation?!?

what is it about this whole thing beyond the caption mess, about the scene, that makes you so suspect? do you think the lebanon war was different from any other? do you think photographers like tyler, who have covered lebanon, iraq, afghanistan, israel/palestine, the ex-yugoslavia, etc. etc. etc. would stake their professional reputations and careers to fake or misrepresent a scene from, excuse me, a summer bang-up in the levant? (i don’t mean to insult either israelis or lebanese, simply to point out that their conflict is not the only issue in the world that people care about.)

Tyler was very reluctant to publically speak on this, and I understood why: for precisely this, that it would just encourage more innuendo and doubt. But he wanted to set the record straight and I encouraged him to do so. If he chooses to post some pictures, fine. If not, I TAKE HIS WORD for it. and if you don’t, then call or write the New York Times, rather than continue to harass a photographer who has worked hard, with integrity, to earn his accomplishments.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you just want to get to the truth. But your persistence and your underlying assumption that the israeli/lebanese conflict and this situation in particular was somehow different, more important, or more overwrought, or more whatever, is arrogant and absurd in the extreme.

Hey Eyal,

I’m going to chime in on this one.

What are your questions? State them plainly, it appears no one else has any. Why do you want to see the rest of Tyler’s photos? What information do you hope to gain from them?

I am completely satisfied by Tyler’s explanation, and it appears that everyone else here is. Why aren’t you?

Eyal: let me clarify, for this WAS A TYPING ERROR: “tyler’s political point of view are as germane as the color of his hair or eyes……”

I MEANT THE FOLLOWING :

TYLER’S POLITICAL POINT OF VIEWS ARE NOT GERMANE, JUST AS THE COLOR OF HIS HAIR OR EYES

(for veracity and honestly, please let it be noted that I have amended my original post above to reflect my original intention regarding Eyal’s discussion of Hick’s political points of view (i’m a pretty shitty typists and hell, if that isnt an example of how clarical errors can completely fuck up someone’s intentions, i dont know what is a better example…hmmm, maybe the editor’s mistake with the image? ;))

I am horrified to think that others read my post as if I thought Tyler’s “ideology” merited discussion: IT DOES NOT …(but there are probably a 1,000,000 bloggers not typing that “bob black thinks tyler hicks’ politics are gername”…its the horror of the velocity of the web: speed over thought…
….

For me, I have nothing to add after Alan’s precise and unambiguous rendering. I stand fully behind Tyler’s statement, his photograph and the entirety of his work in Lebanon. I also stand beside Alan’s eloquent statments.

(and michael, damn if that Puff the Magic Dragon metaphor didnt bring it all home for me :)))))))

bob

Bob,

I agreed with what you meant. Hicks political views are simply not relevant to the discussion.

I think we all deserve to see as much of what was the scene.
None of us desrve to know what Tyler political views are.

No one seems to have any question about this puzzling case. That by itself is odd.
Surly, one is entitled to ask for more information to understand first of all everything that has transpired prior to taking this photo.

Once we understand that better there may or may not be questions of editorial nature.

I’ll give an example of one such issue: I was not in Tyre. I can only relay on people I trust that have been there. Such a person told me that many buildings have been vacated because people knew that Hizbulla people live in such buildings and saw that Israel has the information and is taking out those buildings one by one.

I wonder if the building in the photo is such a building? Why was it bombed? Tyler stated that there were no visible bodies or wounded in this bombing. I wonder were there any casualties at all ? If no one was wounded in this attack itself isn’t that something that should be mentioned in the caption (there may be conflicting views about it and that is fair) In any case an honest open debate and real desire to understand what I think all us as journalist should be after. As I have stated several times I am mystified how a person that looks very dead in a photo is indeed alive. So far the only photos I have seen are those of the NYT slide show and my questions remain after seeing those photos, which is why I am asking to see more photos and get more data. I expect the answers to come from Tylor not from people who quote what he already said.

PS, Alan: I think this is very noble that you trust Tyler . I also have people I trust 100% based on first hand knowledge and I am sure some people trust me this way. Still, in the biz we are in it is fair to ask more questions from anyone including from those we trust . (and please Alan, save from all of us personal attacks – keep the focus on the issue: Tyler posted his article here in LS and it is fair to ask him here for more data. Stop denying anyone’s right to ask a question.)

Eyal, one suggestion. Mr. Hicks seems to have laid it out as well as need be, to me at least. I think he’s probably got much better things to do than to jump in again on this—but maybe you’ll come closer to getting a response from him if you do the small favor of spelling his name correctly like all the other posters have?

i believe Mr Hicks has better things to do than get back into what appears to be a byzantine discussion, and having to repeat what he already has said here and in the PDN article. It would be more efficient if those skeptics who still have questions or issues with it, email or PM Mr Hicks directly. When and if Mr Hicks chooses to respond and provides anything new, we would be happy to read about it.

Eyal,
my friend, this is getting ridiculous, as well as unfortunately insulting to one of the most experienced and reliable photojournalists around; you are going nowhere… Tyler explained the situation in a very clear way and I concurr with Alan on this.

This has got to be one of the longest and most inane threads on LS. Good lord give it a rest. I will say this: you all have lots of patience, which is heartening to say the least.

I don’t how many questions Tyler Hicks must answers. Is quite clear in the article. What is your point, Eyal?

Bruno,

My Friend. I will tell why this is not ridicules.

There are millions of people out there who now think that what Mr. Hicks have done is fraud. I will say it very clearly: I am not one of them .

There is monthly magazine that I read (very left wing in it’s orientation). It deals with press issues. They rarely deal with photography yet they did a large article about the Fauxtography issue. They listed the NYT issue as the most serious one.

If you want here is another publication who uses the word “Fraud” in the connection of this photo:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288887,00.html#n (check aleaxa ranking this is one of the top news web sites)

This is a serious issue. It goes well beyond the error in the caption. I do not doubt Tyler but explanation about this photo are needed for the sake of photojournalism and how people trust it.

I suggest you listen to the audio:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/world/20060727_MIDEAST_FEATURE/blocker.html

read this correction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/pageoneplus/corrections.html?ex=1160539200&en=2f877ae79a01fb7f&ei=5070

and understand that while I am asking questions there are million of people in the world who simply think Tylor created a fraud. As I said, I am not one of them but I think Tyler and others at the scene need to provide a more detailed explanation: How did one foot of the man that fell from above got on one side of the wiremesh structure and the other is on the other side ? Where did he fell from ? Was there anyone hurt in the Israeli attack ? (I don’t think so) Was the building indeed empty when bombed ? (I think it was). What were the people looking for – maybe they just acted the way they did BECAUSE the media was there ? Maybe there was a manipulation attemp (not by the media but on the media ?)

All those are valid questions that need answers. The start can be the photos that were not seen until now.

next, we should ask the editorial questions:

If indeed no one was hurt by the bombing (because the building was empty) – why wasn’t this mentioned in the caption ?
There are more editorial questions but first I think the facts should become more clear.

Bruno, You know too well that it is legitimate to ask questions and request more information.
Tyler posted here in LS and it is only fair that he will provide answers here.

Best,
Eyal

Eyal,

Are you suggesting a photographer has to provide evidence to validate his work when it’s published, just to prove it’s not part of some propaganda exercise ?

Barrie Watts

Barrie,

I am asking what I would ask myself if I was in the same scenario:

More information. Complete photos of the scene and timestamps.

I suggest you read those who accuse Mr. Hicks in outright fraud. I am not one of them . Surly we have a problem here and it should be addressed.

Alternatively, why don’t the NYT sue all those who make those accusations?

Btw, if you ask me to speculate I would say that the top possibly in my mind is that there was a manipulation of the media and not by the media so I don’t accuse Hicks in anything. I just want to understand what until now looks like a mystery to me. I may disagree with Mr. Hicks editorial decisions but that is a whole different set of issues and many times people may disagree about such issues, so for now I want just to focus on the facts.

Do you think it is not legitimate to want to get more facts on a controversial issue? Doesn’t it bother you that no one here asked questions while millions of viewers already made up their mind. Clearly the issue is not closed.