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.

Eyal, my friend,
please stop this, it really stinks.
Israel bombed civilian areas for 34 days, so did Hezbollah on the other side. War crimes, on both sides. The only difference is that Israel is supposed to be a democracy, yet it killed 8 or 10 times more civilians than ennemy fighters during this war. Hezbollah killed 3 times more IDF soldiers than Israeli civilians, with weapons far less precise.
Don’t misunderstand me, ONE innocent casualty is too many, but you should devote your time and energy to question why Israel with all its might has to kill so many civilians to achieve so little, rather than talking for 2 months about something that is totally clear and has been explained satisfactorily by Tyler.
And please, please, stop thinking that the whole world is conspirating against your country.

ok Eyal you win!!!! iit’s clear now that the entire media staged the israeli bombing on civilians, and that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, had support from journalist from all over the world!!! the global media made a secret agreement and did not report about their vicitms. you do believe in this don’t you?

Dear Eyal,
you are going to use the freedom of speech for your own beliefs here and not going to show respect for Tyler. And I can see same things like in holy blogs.
It is legitimate to ask questions, of course you have a right to do, but which doesn’t mean you can ask same question countless times. If you keep pushing to ask questions and say similar things as you said before, I will have concern about your “far left” ideology, whatever that means to you.
-—————————————————————————————-
Take this suggestion from a useless guy or a person who studied and worked a lot about human rights.
-——————————————————————————————
bests…

Bruno, Miguel,

Let me the first to admit that Israel have been very wrong in the way it conducted this war.

I have stated here (on LS) several times that The Israeli army acted in a criminal way in Lebanon

I am not at all doing this in any attempt to “defend Israel”. Israel action indeed killed civilians in Lebanon and like you say, every killing is wrong. I never get into measuring justice with body counts. This thread here is not about politics at all so Bruno, Miguel : PLease don’t make it such. (if you want to discuss politics I will do it in a diffrenet thread where I will have no problem condeming both Israsel and Hizbulla and many others who violate human rights. If you want to discuss politics with me let me suggest you read this and opne a thread about it: http://tinyurl.com/r85fr )

Now, can we get back to deal with the journalistic / photographic / editorial issues ?

I have been asking a very simple questions about a photo and so far no answers have been forthcoming from Tyler.

This is not at all about Israel. This is about photojournalism and the fact that many people now (take for example those who put the comment on Tyler photos in Amazon) doubt what we do.

Now, can we get back to deal with the journalistic / photographic / editorial issues ?

PS It is also not my intent to show any disrepect to Tyler. I am not accusaing in him in any thing
I am, howver, still mystified by a photo that seems out of place with the rest of the scene (my only source is the NYT slide show) and want to understand the scene better. That is all I requested here: To get more information and facts on the scene.

This is not an issue of bloggs or politics, it is an issue that I see this way:

• There is a NYT slide show
• There is an article by Tyler
• Tyler is a respectable and honest journalist (based on many who know him and I have no doubt that this is indeed so)

Based on these 3 facts I still have questions.

It is legitimate to ask questions. This is the essence of the profession we are in.

Ocean,

You will be surprised but I agree with your last post 100%.

I have posted the questions. Tyler can answer them and he also can ignore them – This is his right.
I have responded here again and again not to Tyler himself but to those who tried to de-legitimize the right to ask the question.

Now back to Tyler’s photo: If you think that the issue is going to go away I have news for you: It is not.
We have already seen how people make comments on his other work. (Like the comments made in Amazon on his Afghanistan work)

Before asking my question I made an extensive search of Tyler work on the web (look up my first post) I saw some amazing photos from Afghanistan (the execution photos) – Only a brave photographer could take such photos (much braver than me at least) and a person so committed to his work has all the marking of being an honest person.

All the comments (including PMs) from people who know Tyler or know people who know him have all said the same thing: He is an honest person and I have no reason to doubt that. This is one of the 3 issues I take as facts. (Note: On some editorial issues such as “what should or should not be included in a caption” I may have a different view but this is a minor point).

So my basic base to starting this discussion is that there is a puzzling situation (based on photos in the NYT slideshow) and that the person who took these photos is an honest professional. This is why I have question and a desire to understand better.

I hope we will here from Tyler.

Ocean, Bruno , Miguel and anyone else: If you want to discuss politics I will be glad to join you on another thread or PM.
let’s keep this one for photographic issues (beyond the question of “who’s fault was the faulty caption?”)
Best,
Eyal

Dear Gayle,

The big issue for me is not the caption.

The problem I have is that to see beyond the caption issue and into the ways a photo itself can be manipulative.
(Clarification: I wrote “the photo” not “the photographer” – please see why below)

For instance, if this was an empty building (and I am sure it was – but want to hear about it from Tyler), and no one was, in fact, killed,
then isn’t this photo itself a distortion of that specific scene – while it be may a good illustration to the war in general ?

This is a serious editorial issue we should deal with after we know the facts.

Because even if the caption is technically correct, and the scene not staged by the photographer, somewhere in the quest
to frame an artful photograph, reality may fall through the cracks.
(Maybe as a result of someone manipulating the scene or may out of non manipulation at all –
yet the photos does not show the reality of this specific situation)

I hope you realize that politics has nothing to do with my concerns here.
In fact I have raised similar questions to an Israeli photographer who works for a right wing paper who
published a photo that I thought was not representing correctly an event that took place between settlers and police.

We live in a media reach world and everyone will try to manipulate us: The Right, the left, the Israelis, the Palestinians,
the settlers, Hezbollah, the Police, The army etc.. – still in all this mess we have to present the reality, knowing there
is no one truth is not a reason to avoid discussion or full disclosure of all relevant facts.

Eyal, i’m sorry, but i think we had all enough of this.at least i did. if you want to discuss ethics i think you should start a new post. i don’t think it’s fair to Tyler to keep on with this. although i also think that Tyler as nothing to worry about, because the wrong caption wasn’t his fault. for me this issue is closed. i will be glad to discuss ethics in a new post. best to all.

Miguel,

New post, same post – I don’t see any difference.

The issue was not discussed at all. Most of this thread is about the right to ask questions.

Now that we have established this right I hope there will be some answers.

Gayle,

Tyler started this thread and I think we should here from him.
The question and issues are clear.

If he want to answer he can. If he choose not to answer he could let us know.
The issue itself will not go away if we close this thread and open a new one.

Eyal, i see a difference in a new post. sadlly you don’t.

this thread isn’t about the right to ask questions, is about exploring a caption mistake on a photo, attacking the credability of the photographer who tooked it (even if inderectly) and using that mistake to cover up a much bigger mistake, the killing of innocent people by a democracy.

the right to ask questions wasn’t established in this thread. it existes at least since i joined lighstalkers, and i believe since the beggining of it.

but i fear your hope will just be hope, because i had the answer i needed, as i think everyone but you.

so, again, if you want to discuss journalism ethics, i suggest you start a new post. i’ll be glad to participate.

if you want to pursue this thread, i think you will do harm to freedom of speech. you will serve the ones that try to manipulate us.

it’s up to you, i have nothing more to say about this. and will not continue to post on this thread.

best all, Miguel

Miguel,

Tyler started this thread and I think we should here from him. The question and issues are clear.
Those questions are not general ethics question they are about a specific scene in Tyler’s photo.

If he want to answer he can. If he choose not to answer he could let us know. The issue itself will not go away if we close this thread and open a new one.

Eyal’s taken a bit of an unfair beating in this thread. He has legitimate questions which are difficult to answer because the job we do is so difficult. It is all about selective choices which inherently and simultaneously lead to both distortion and illumination. The best tool for understanding is context.

thorne, that’s a cheap shot and you know it. you know tyler for seven years and you have worked alongside him. this guy eyal may still have questions, despite the best efforts of tyler and the rest of us to answer them, but he’s really being unreasonable at this point. there’s no reason why any of us needs to talk or write about our work until the apocalypse. our job may be difficult, but as i said above, it ain’t rocket science. and you, thorne, know this full well. and i know that you like to be contrarian and rock the boat sometimes — so do I as you know — but what we’ve seen here is a public interrogation and cross examination all out of bounds to the original incident.

our professional ethics and conduct speak for themselves. if the photographer in question were you, or bruno, or jake, you KNOW that I would be fully satisfied with the explanation. Tyler should receive that same consideration.

Alan,

Not so much a cheap shot as a lazy one.
Maybe I didn’t read the thread well enough. I didn’t see your first post (with which I agree), for example.

I think that Tyler has, in fact, adressed the attacks on his credibility fully.
Knowing Tyler, I myself never had any doubt that he was just doing what he always does – pushing the limits of his own personal safety to document a news event as eloquently and honestly as possible. I think that question was fully addressed and settled, especially in light of what you and Gayle have written here in this thread.

When I wrote that context is important I was thinking in part about viewing any one of Tyler’s photographs in the context of the other work he has done – and that is a context which lends his work an extra weight of honesty and eloquence.

Still I don’t mind hearing more about the situational context of any photo. These days I’m doing a lot of traveling and speaking with the Unembedded exhibit and I know audiences are going to throw me specific questions related to photography from Lebanon. The more I know, the better I can move those questions in useful directions.

Alan,

Excuse me but there was no “best efforts of tyler and the rest of us to answer”

I don’t know Tyler. You do. You trust him and I accept that.
Everyone say he is an honest guy and I accept that.

But the facts. Sorry to bring the facts.

There are issues with this photo that still need clarification. Serious clarification.

Ever since I posted my questions the only answers here have been from people other than Tyler. They were divided between:

• people who praise him (and he indeed deserve that praise based on his work that I have seen)
• People who repeated his words (which I read and understood)
• People who attacked me, accuse me of all sorts of political ideas including “If you persist asking question we will doubt you are lefty”
• People who de-legitimize the right to ask more questions.

No serious attempt of dealing with the facts.

As I stated the facts are just part one. Part two is to deal with editorial issues (which I have also described above my concerns) but first we should get the fact and we should get it from people who have been there and can provide more photographic evidence how this person ended up the way he was. The NYT slide show (the only evidence we have so far) is very confusing as this guy is first running around (in a building in which there was clearly no one to rescue) and suddenly he is under this rubble entangled in this metal structure and wiremeash with each of his legs on different side of the structure. Everytime I look at this photo this problem screams to my face and I want to understand how it came to be. ???

My question has nothing to do with Tyler himslef or with the fact that you have worked with him for 7 years. My question is about what we see in these set of photos.

Best,
Eyal

This thread has all the markings of the McMartin DayCare Center Trial (Christ, am i dating myself ;)) )…..it has become akin to a public accusation of pedophile or molestation: once the stain of contamination is upon your shoulders, nothing, nothing you do to remedy or clarify or contextualize or defenstrate yourself for that matter will fully remedy the doubts and accusations of those who’ve mistrusted you, called you into question, or even those whove been poked by a sliver-shard of doubt (and no, i didnt work for the McMartin’s ;))) )…

Tyler owes ABSOLUTELY NO ONE an explantion or contextualization or rationalization of the thread or stream of images. Let me tell you why. In this environment, under these circumstances, there is no way for a reasoned, careful and thoughtful conversation regarding the circumstantions. A photographer owes no one an explanation of how she works, shoots, decides on imagery or the mechanics of their photography. No one. If a photographer has falsified an image, then yes, a reasoned explanation is necessary. However, there IS NOT falsification here, none, period! Would it be interesting to listen to Tyler discuss the image in the context of the others: yes, of course, just as it is interesting (as Thorne and Alan mention) when photographers speak about their work, the in situ environment, the rationale for choice of images (we select much fewer images for display than those we shoot) and their experiential decisions. However, this can and should only take place in the environment of education and sharing. In an environment such as this, or circumstances such as these where Tyler’s ethics and decision making has been called into question, he has absolutely no obligation to anyone to explain. He very carefully and precisely explained to the world the error of the NYTimes slideshow.

A photographer’s experience and explanation can indeed add eloquent and visceral bands to the life of the image and is a necessary part of our profession. Contextualizing an image also helps to elucidate (for colleagues and the public) the work of a photographer: it deepens, of course, but is not necessary. Tyler’s work speaks for itself.

It proves again the point: once you’re condemned, no matter what, the fight proves more mudding than the original sabre scratch. In the context of this situation, there is nearly nothing that Tyler can do, other than what he has done already, to raze the doubts or the judgments of those who already have not made their assessment.

If I were Tyler, I would not return to this thread: words cannot, most often, undo the damage or the ideas that other’s carry in their baskets. His work will stand. Though it is a natural mechanism to want to fight, in this situation the remedy is not unearthed by words or explanations.

As a photographer, I think the original statement more than clarifies or surpasses the threashold of documentation that his doubters requiring. If they cant survey them, igore them. Contextualizing questions is just as important as contextualizing photographs. In an environmental of accusatory doubt, the defended has a sisyphusian challenged. If I were Tyler, I’d let the ball roll down the hill and away.

He has done enough.

b

Bob,

Tyler can answer and can provide more information.
His focus was on the caption issue.
My questions are on the scene and what took place:

An empty building is bombed (was it indeed empty ? I think so but want to hear from Tyler)
A man jumps around (rescuing what exactly?) fall and ends up in a totally strange position while he is being carried away as a corpse (but he is in fact alive).

Does this makes sense to you ? to me it does not

I don’t doubt Tyler. I trust every word he wrote In fact, one of the clues (for me) is in his words about this building being the only bombing site that the media could get to. This says a lot, surly someone wanted the media there and wanted them to take photos. There are documented cases (CNN and more) of Hizbulla staging scenes for the media. We all deserve to see more (as much as possible) from this scene to get to the bottom of what took place there.

PS Before everyone jumps at me again – let be the first to say that the fact that some staging attempts have been done does not mean that Israel is home free. There are enough evidence that Israel acted in a criminal way in it’s bombing campaign in Lebanon. Let’s keep our focus not on how many years we know Tyler or what israel has done and try to find out about this specific scene.

Gayle,

This is a speculation.
The best is that we Hear from Tyler and that he provide more photographic evidence (including timestamps)
This is how we can start to get a better understanding.

Tyler and his cameras were there – We were not.
All we can do is ask questions (or speculate) not provide answers.

Gayle,

My questions are my own and they are based on 3 facts only:

• The NYT slide show (including “the” photo + 5 more)
• The article by Tyler
• The word of many LS members that Tyler is a respectable and honest journalist (This is also my observation from seeing his work)

Based only on these 3 set of facts I have questions that have not yet been answered.

This is not a “trial” and not “reiteration of bloggers” – to the best of my knowledge the question I have raised (about the scene) were not raised anywhere else.

The best now is that we hear from Tyler.

If he does not want to answer the issues raised above he could also let us know that.

In any case these issues:

• facts about the scene (questions above)
• editorial issues (some raised above)
• Last but not least: The subject of “is it possible for Journalism to function in an area controlled by a militia intent on creating a story for the media”

are all issues that are not going away. They are here to stay even if this LS thread is over.

Best,
Eyal

I have received this private message which I can post but can not say where it is from:

“at some level, some photos are “newsworthy” because they illustrate events, and others, though they may be tempting to purvey, really belong in the photographer’s back pocket for display in an art exhibit at a much later date because what they say about real events may be so misleading”

Intresting idea: Art Vs. News – This indeed is worth a new thread.

PS I am still looking up in the dictionary what “purvey” means….

So let’s start a new thread, leave Tyler alone, and get on with a different discussion.

OK. It is over for me.

I am sad that Tyler, who started this thread and responded here (when everyone were congratulating him on the article “It wasn’t my fault”) have decided – for whatever reason – not to respond here any more.

The questions remain. This story is as dead as the man in the photo.

Although this incident appears to have been readily explainable, let’s not lose sight of the fact that phony photographs are being used almost daily for destructively political purposes.

Hi all,

I’m not sure if anyone is still following these comments, but I too would like to see all the photos. The main reason is, I would like to see how the guy’s cap moved from his head to under his elbow in the process of his becoming unconscious.

Perhaps I’m too cynical.

regards

Duncan

Gayle,
I believe you mean John Kerry, not Bob KerrEy. And I do stand by my statement.
FP

For those of you who thought that only right-wing blogs criticize the main stream media, here is the leading left-wing blog (yes I read those as well:-)):

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/11/175829/67

To ‘purvey’ something is to furnish or provide something.

Not to be confused with ‘Pervy’ which is a slang term for something considered sexually inappropriate, which is where the Foly reference would come in I suppose…perhaps the blogs are gonna argue those fresh-faced pages were planted by Hizbollah to corrupt the noble Senator?

As for the cap…its called gravity mate. When ya fall over and knock yourself out, your cap tends to fall off. Blow your house up then throw yourself off the rubble pile, you’ll see.

Gayle said, “we have to weigh the decision if throwing propaganda speculation around freely about an honest photojournalist is worth the price of another Danny Pearl.”

Indeed we do, although most of us on this thread were trying to quash the nonsense, not ‘purvey it’…some Afghan scumbags have just kidnapped Kash Gabrielle Torsello, an Italian photographer – so we’ll see if the blogs start accusing him of setting that up, eh?

Or if their irresponsible, badly researched bullshit makes his situation worse.

Sorry but I fail to see what the connection between blogs, Daniel Pearl, The scene that Hicks photographed and the kidnapping in Afghanistan – can someone explain ?

Sion, about “Gravity”:

One of the reasons I have asked Hicks to provide more photos from the scene is because I looked at as many of the photos from that day that i could find what is the place of “considerable height” that this person fell from. To be clear: I am not saying he did not fell from “considerable height” I am saying that I could not understand where this place is (given the photos I have which cover large parts of this scene from multiple angles).

In fact, it looks to me (from the angle pf the photo) like the photographer is standing slightly higher than the place where the person is after he fell.

I am bothered by Hicks refusal to answer questions here and provide more photos from that scene that could explain the mystery. Blogs or not blogs: It could have been possible to provide more information and to answer question raised about the scene – it is unfortunate that Hicks chose not to do it. Initially, he did respond here to all those who congratulated him on the article.

I would not have bothered Hicks if he did not choose to write the article and comment on it here in LS but in the moment he did – answering questions is a fair and natural part publishing his article.

Eyal,
Your obsession with Tyler Hicks borders on the….erotic. I am not,or ever have been a journalist or even a photographer (except for as a pastime), but your continuous attention to Hicks makes me wonder if you have her/ his pictures plastered all over your bedroom wall. I’m not trying to be funny here, but I fail to see what your obsession with her/ him is. Maybe s/he has a fanclub you can join. Is Tyler Hicks a man or a woman or a member of whatever the third sex is called?

Jeff,

The issue is not the person.

I am deeply bothered by one of the photos from Tyre, July 26 (actually two photos but let’s not get to this now)

Please stop attacking me or my “obsession” – all I tried was to get few answers on questions and get more data on the scene.

It is the scene that I am interested in not the photographer, all the innuendoes about sex or about the connection between my questions to the death of Danile Pearl (how did this came about?) will not change the basic fact of what took place in this thread:

• Tyler published his explanation titles “It was not my fault”

• Tyler focused on the caption

• Everyone congratulated him. No one made any question

• Tyler did respond to these congratulations here in this thread

• After few days I asked for more data/information – focusing on the scene not the caption

• For days, my right to ask the questions was attacked

• For days, my personality/politics was attacked (just like you did in your post – what does my sexual prefrences have to do with the issue ?)

• I never responded to any of those attacks just kept asking the questions

• No answer is forthcoming

• If Tyler wants all he can do is lock this thread. He started it he should finish it.

I hope that Tyler will choose to answer the questions and be open in discussing his own editorial decision regarding this photo.

My first question: Is it true that the building that was bombed was empty ?

Some very good points Eyal and well made at that. Are you a photographer/ journalist?

Gayle,

What is your point ? I fail to see what the connection between blogs, Daniel Pearl, The scene that Hicks photographed and the kidnapping in Afghanistan – can someone explain ?

Sion: See notes about Gravity above.

Gayle,

read your own posts. Just above you thanked me:

“Thank you again, my good friend, for understanding my comments and for correcting any wrong interpretation or perception that it seems I may have had.

Best, Gayle"

I have always treated you or your answers with respect yet you somehow interjected Daniel Peral in to this thread – why ?

What does Daniel pearl murder has to do with Tyler Hicks refusal to answer questions? Please explain yourself. I have always listened and responded here with outmost respect even to wildest accusations.

PS – if sending you a PM “without an invitation” (oh me, oh my – what a notty boy I was PMing You ) is “ beyond Rudness” I appologize . I will never make this misatke again.

Gayle,

You wrote: “speculation around freely about an honest photojournalist is worth the price of another Danny Pearl”

What does Daniel pearl murder has to do with Tyler Hicks refusal to answer questions? Please explain yourself.

Are you hinting that presenting questions to Tyler (questions he so far did not answer) will lead to an honest journalist being murdered? (Which one: The one asking the questions or the one not answering them?)

I hope I am wrong and that is not what you meant.

Gayle,

First you call me “my Friend”

(Why ? We only exchanged here few posts)

Next you thank me for “my understanding”

Next you inject that questions may lead to murder (questions I wrote) and you accuse that “you stubbornly refuse to exchange thoughts”

and that it was rude of me to send you a PM (when did I do that ? a week or more ago)

I just hope you understand yourself because I don’t.

May I make a suggestion? (I hope it is not too rude):

Interjecting Daniel Pearl into this thread was irrelevant to the discussion here and you should just admit it and move on.

This thread was Tyler’s article and communication with him (congratulating him on the article) until……someone dare to ask more questions.

Tyler, if you are reading this:

You should not be afraid to answer questions. From your photos you seem a very brave person. You may know better than us how this scene came to be and we should all together attempts to understand it. This is not an accusation. This is an attempt to understand.

On a side note I will say openly what I have said many times:

We should first understand the facts. After the facts we may have editorial disagreements (it is legitimate to have more than one view on such matters) but first let’s try to understand the complete facts as much as possible. Your outtakes, your detailed description of the scene, your understanding if the building was empty when bombed – all those are relevant photographical and editorial issues. Gayle interjecting Daniel Pearl into this discussion is not serving you (or the photographic community) . I again appeal to an honest open discussion without all those strawman that are thrown in here: let’s focus on the issue and do it with F1.2 nothing but the real issue.

Gayle,

Manners are first not to make false accusations. Especially about people you call friends.
My behavior on this thread was to remain polite to everyone despite continued attacks. I suggest to you again: Admit that it was wrong to interject Daniel Pearl tragic death into this thread – it has nothing to do with the issue – and let’s move on.

The real issue in this thread (various questions I presented to Tyler) was never dealt with. This is the problem not your manners (or mine).

Tyler, if you are reading this:

You should not be afraid to answer questions. From your photos you seem a very brave person. You may know better than us how this scene came to be and we should all together attempts to understand it. This is not an accusation. This is an attempt to understand.

On a side note I will say openly what I have said many times:

We should first understand the facts. After the facts we may have editorial disagreements (it is legitimate to have more than one view on such matters) but first let’s try to understand the complete facts as much as possible. Your outtakes, your detailed description of the scene, your understanding if the building was empty when bombed – all those are relevant photographical and editorial issues. Gayle interjecting Daniel Pearl into this discussion is not serving you (or the photographic community) . I again appeal to an honest open discussion without all those strawman that are thrown in here: let’s focus on the issue and do it with F1.2 nothing but the real issue.

Are you implying that asking questions about a scene photographed by a photographer puts that person in risk of being killed like Daniel Pearl was murdered?

Are you trying to imply that asking critical questions is not allowed?

What type of questions are allowed than ?

I think that everyone of us who is brave enough to go to all those places Tyler Hicks have went is brave enough to answer few questions and don’t need your help in fending off these questions with the type of accusations you are making.

Gayle,

You wrote "It is up to individuals … to determine what types of questions are appropriate "

Fair enough maybe you can help me:

Is it OK to ask where exactly this person fell from?

Can I ask for photos of this place and of the scene in general (I already have a large collection) ?

Is it OK to ask how come his left leg is one side of a metal structure and the right leg is on the other side ?
(keeping in mind that his fall is described from above and from “considerable hight”)

Is is OK to ask how come while falling from “considerable height” his leg got into a location closed from all sides (including from above) by the structure and wire mesh ?

If it is not OK to ask these questions I will not ask them.

Is it OK to ask why a different photo of that person the dark side appear too dark and when the photo is lighten there is something that appear as a notebook case that he may be carrying? (note: I am not sure what is going on in that photo but I think it is fair to ask for clarifications)

Is it OK to ask for more photographic evidence from that scene ? Especially photos of a person that appear dead but turned out to be very much alive ?

S it OK to ask if a photo of a victim carried out of a bombed building is the correct news reporting photo to attach to a building that was empty when bombed ? (Was the building indeed empty. I think so but want to hear from Tyler)

Is it OK to ask if the bombed building was empty?

Is it OK to ask for more information so that we, as photographers discuss the editorial issues raised by transmitting this photo?

Is it OK to ask how is it to work in Hizbulla controlled territory ? Was there any attempt in scene manipulation that was detected (not that scene on which the facts are not yet clear but other scenes)

If it is not OK to ask these questions than you are right I should not be asking them at all.

PS surly you notice I already know not to ask about the hat.

Gayle was right and perceptive to bring up Daniel Pearl in the light of your trolling.

Eyal, you’ve been on this subject for WEEKS and you’re just creeping people out now – just because you’re pursuing Tyler Hicks like Mark Chapman pursued Jodie Foster, doesn’t mean Hicks or anyone else should feel under ANY obligation to answer you.

Stop playing the ignorant innocent and go and look into the Kennedy assasination, or the Moon landing footage or something. With a bit of luck and digging around, I’m sure you can link Sheikh Nasrullah to the grassy knoll.

If the final word of the photographer himself isn’t enough for you (which it is for everybody else), then at least have the decency to agree to differ and go your own way, instead of this incessant baiting.

It isn’t only the photographers word, but the evidence that already exists which killed the blogs slideshow conspiro-rubbish, but that’s not enough for you. You’re ploughing an increasingly shallow and infertile furrow…the latest being ‘CSI Tel Aviv’ photo-analysis of a baseball cap.

As for the connection between the blogs, Daniel Pearl and the current kidnapping? I kinda figured it was obvious, but let me spell it out for you, so you don’t have to come back and ask me incessant Rain Man questions about it.

Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered because he was a journalist. Film-maker James Miller was shot in the neck and killed by an IDF sniper while waving a white flag and announcing himself as a journalist, and some Londoners often tell me that as a photographer, I am of course personally responsible for killing The Blessed Saint Diana with my own blood-soaked hands…shortly before they repeatedly punch me in the face.

And some people – like you – keep falsely tarring photographer Tyler Hicks as a liar, by repeatedly calling his integrity into question over this issue.

Hopefully Kash Gabrielle Torsello will be released unharmed, but if he is, it will be no thanks to bloggers, or any other asshole who continues to peddle lies about journalists – because anyone who spins up rubbish about journos being liars and purveyors of falsehood should look themselves in the mirror when people like Daniel Pearl, Anna Politkovskaya, Kurt Schork, Martin Adler and James Miller get murdered and people like Kash G-T, Jill Carroll, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig get kidnapped.

Because the hatred and pig-ignorance which leads to their kidnap and murder, is fuelled every time people like you drag a journalists good name through the dirt, by peddling bullshit.

THAT’S the connection. Your trolling is helping to dig the grave for another journalist.

And God help me, now I’m responsible too! By keeping this rubbish alive by replying! But it’s like rubber-necking a car crash…

How does whether the building was empty have any bearing on the photographs Tyler took? Are you saying the people rushing to the newly bombed building knew it was empty?

Or was their panic simply because they had every right to assume the building was occupied because it was in a residential area which had been repeatedly bombed and many people had already died?

Which sounds more reasonable to you?

Are you also saying now that to fall and knock yourself out, you need to fall from some great height? or some specific height? Or a height higher than where the photographer is standing?

Eyal, you don’t need to answer (please don’t..sob..I’m beggin’ ya) any of those questions.

Why?

Because they’re all RIDICULOUS that’s why, theyre all Alice in Wonderland, Salvador Dali NONSENSE.

Unless you go back in a time-machine and see it yourself, there’s no way you’re ever going to know what happened, except to make a reasonable assumption from the evidence placed in front of you.

The guy fell, Tyler photographed it. It was a great pic. The building was one of many getting pulverised by bunker-busters in a built up residential area. The caption was correct. The slideshow people fucked up. The NYT apologised and clarified the matter. The bloggers spouted shit about the slideshow anyway. People countered with the evidence. Tyler gave his account which was in complete accord with the known facts…

END OF FUCKIN’ STORY, YEAH?

What do ya want? A polygraph? DNA? A pound of flesh? Judgement at Nuremberg?

There’s just nothing there, mate. Nothing.

“…but maybe they had anti-gravity belts, maybe, just maybe, the baseball cap was a Hizbollah spin doctor, maybe the guy who fell was Tylers twin brother – ooh, I’ve got it, maybe it was all a DREAM like when Bobby Ewing stepped out of the shower in that episode of Dallas…”

…and on and on and on.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz……..

Troll somewhere else, mate.

Sion,

I don’t dig graves and don’t say anyone is a liar.

Your attempt to make me responsible for killing journalists is a cheapshot not worthy of reply.

Calling me a troll or trying to argue that the issue is the caption fuckup will not fly either:

My questions are about the scene – not about the caption problem

Daniel Pearl (who is btw Jewish, his father is Israeli) was killed because he was lured and came to asked questions. There is no connection between his death to any question about journalistic integrity. (btw, he may have been killed because he was Jewish and I did not understand your comment about Nurnberg)

I have never questioned Hicks integrity. (I have editorial differences with him but that is fine: He can think one way and I can think a different way – it is a free world and it is OK to have more than one view)

I do have questions about the scene : factual questions.

My questions are based on 3 sources of info:

• NYT slide show
• Tyler’s own article.
• Other photos from that scene and other news reports

Your attempt (together with Gayle) to de-legitimize the right to ask questions will not work and already backfired.

I have politely answered your attempts to derail this discussion and we are back at square one:

My request is for Tyler Hicks to give us more information about the scene, answer questions and provide more photographic material on the scene.

Gayle, I fail to see how the Quran quote about killing is relevant to the discussion about Tyler photo and that scene.

Btw, this is a great “photographic editorial” that shows also on a great sense of humor:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/061013/481/fb650bcf2b004dde84baae4327bca618

Yup, its a free world, which is why your repeated questions don’t require a response from Tyler or anyone else – they’re free not to reply, and not replying doesn’t constitute any error on their part at all, or any attempt to de-legitimise you.

You’ve managed to do that that quite adequately yourself with your increasingly obsessional attitude to a matter a vast overwhelming number considers resolved.

From my perspective, and that of most people, they’ve replied enough, and the matter is closed. For you, not.

Oh well. Get over it.

The question is what effect your opinion has. The listing for Tyler Hick’s book on Amazon .com now has a review which basically says “Don’t trust this guy, he’s a liar”.

So the smear has already gained purchase, and Hicks’s public reputation is being unfairly damaged.

Now, where do ya think the Amazon Asshole got his opinion from, eh?

They got it from people like you peddling untruths and nasty McCarthyite innuendo, so don’t give me all this ‘free speech’ crap alright? Actions have consequences, and so do words.

People like you keeping this dead rubbish alive, leads to other people putting journalists in shallow graves, so keep digging mate, keep digging, you’re doing a great job.

And don’t patronise me about Daniel Pearl either. I know damn well he was Jewish. But it has no relevance to this ‘discussion’.

However, his status as a journalist – and a climate of anti-journalist hatred whipped up by propagandists, liars, peddlers of innuendo, spurio-blogs and other assorted bottom-feeding political shills, has plenty of relevance.

Eyal, you’ve probably done about as much as can be expected to get your colleagues to re-examine some of what it is they do. Ironically, it’s we, the great unwashed bloggers, who are apparently more willing to look at “the story behind the story” than the professionals are. Eyal, your trouble is that you’re trying to argue from the consumer’s perspective to a group of the purveyors…the merchants. It’s a tough sell.

Leaving aside issues of neatly tucked hats, falling from heights, staged or not staged, legalistic or sincere disputes over captions…the point is that the man in the picture who appears dead is not dead, was not hurt in a bombing (in fact it’s quite possible that no one was killed in this particular building), was neither targeted nor collateral damage…This is undoubtedly a wonderful, interesting and artistic photograph that deserves to be hung on a wall someplace — but it is not a news photograph, because it does not represent the reality, it misleads. It might be a small issue to you salesmen and artists, but it’s a big deal to us consumers.

(Edit: wonder => wonderful)

BTW, I find it bizarre that people who question and examine the practices of the various journalistic professions are somehow to be blamed for what Islamist mad men did to Daniel Pearl.

If Hicks is getting some negative fallout, blame that on a profession that’s suffering some ill-repute. A little more introspection probably wouldn’t hurt, circling the wagons an imposing Guild silence certainly won’t help.

Solomon – Then the consumer would have read the caption which appeared in the NYT, which quite adequately explained the context of the photograph:

" After an Israeli airstrike destroyed a building in Tyre, Lebanon, yesterday, one man helped another who had fallen and was hurt. Cars packed with refugees snaked away from the town."

The caption doesn’t say the man is dead. It doesnt say he was hurt by bombing. It doesnt say the building had anyone in it. The caption explains the content of the photograph, which as you say, is great – and does NOT mislead.

What reality are you referring to which the photo doesn’t convey? That there were Hezbollah spin doctors just outside the frame, with pocketfuls of dynamite from blowing up the building, and knapsacks full of dead kids to scatter about?

You mean THAT reality perhaps?

I’m just checking, you understand – that we’re all talking like, real reality here, and not some bizarre baseball cap wearing, anti-gravity, bloggo-reality.

My objection to this crap being bandied about has nothing to do with bloggers personal hygiene. It has everything to do with how they simply don’t check their facts, play fast and loose with the facts they do have, and confuse facts with opinion.

For example, any self-respecting journalist if suspecting Tyler Hicks had stunted up the pic, would have attempted to interview Hicks himself before even publishing. That’s Basic Nursery School Journalism Lesson 1.0

If they hadn’t corroborated their assertions either with witnesses or Tyler himself, most editors would have canned the story, for fear of a libel suit – apart from the fact that it simply doesn’t stand up.

So maybe if more bloggers actually got up and did something, instead of leeching off, or pissing on, the efforts of journalists in the first place, they’d garner more respect and could maybe afford some soap.

But they’re quite happy to hide behind the skirts of the First Amendment and libel others without the comebacks which journalists have to risk…apart from the physical risks as well.

For most of them, it’s so easy pontificating about war photography, when the nearest you’ve been to war is playing ‘Halo’ on your X-Box.

Suffering some ill-repute?

Apart from the fact that journalists have ALWAYS suffered ill-repute, it wasnt until relatively recently that people decided to kill them in such large numbers. FSB assassins, IDF soldiers, Islamist nutcases…everybody’s having a go, form a queue – more journalists have died this year, than in the previous decade, apparently.

And most of the time, apart from particularly notable events like Pearls murder, nobody gives much of a fuck, because a lot of people think we’re lying scum anyway.

So, if you don’t mind, it would be nice if people could check their facts a little before peddling rubbish which showers journalists with even more shit than theyre in already.

Because that’s the kind of talk which leads to a mentality that puts journalists in pine boxes.

I’m sure the Russian military ‘questioned and examined’ Anna Politkovskaya’s journalism many times. But I’m quite sure they were horrified and shocked when someone put a bullet in her.

Yeah, I bet they wept buckets.

“So maybe if more bloggers actually got up and did something, instead of leeching off, or pissing on, the efforts of journalists in the first place, they’d garner more respect and could maybe afford some soap.”

The problem is that journalists have, in the past, got it so very wrong that many people don’t trust them any more. i.e. Jenin massacre.

The ambulances shot up by missiles is another example that looks quite suspicious to me.

Why on earth do you expect the public to automatically belive in jounalistic integrity, when there are so many examples of why they shouldn’t.

I wish that, rather than getting defensive, hard evidence was used to refute the arguments.

BTW I think this whole thread is pretty pointless, the only way it can get resolved is for all the photos to be shown, and that certainly in not going to happen. For me there is not enough evidence to resolve the issue one way or the other.

Now is any of this any way to talk to your customers? For shame. Here I am taking a few minutes off from my X-Box and I’m getting labeled a blogger extremist and a person who wants to see journalists offed. Serves me right for trying to help.

Duncan: “the only way it can get resolved is for all the photos to be shown” Yes, that would certainly be interesting, wouldn’t it?

As far as captions go, I thought you folks were photographers, not writers. Aren’t the photos themselves supposed to carry the weight of the explanation? That is part of the point I believe Eyal was trying to make.

Most of the blogs that have picked up on this thread have been pretty generous to Hicks if you bothered to check it out (in fact, all of them have that I’ve seen): “Photographer Hicks explains…it was the NYT that screwed up the caption…take a look…” OK. But there are other interesting issues in play here.

Personally, I find sequences like this one illuminating:
http://www.tampabayprimer.org/index.cfm?action=articles&drill=viewArt&art=1443

Well, back to my video games. Cheerio!

Gayle,

“So I guess now, LS is being monitored by blogger extremists.”

in one word: yes.

this thread and some others has shed the light on who’s who…and exposed motives and bias to all to see.

First off…Sion, amen brother…

Solomon: Who took these photos? Did you and your video game buddies set this up in your backyard, took some happy snaps and posted them on the web? Please dude, this is a discussion where you’re berating a widely respected journalist who provided complete captions and was vetted by numerous editors at one of the oldest and largest news publications…and you bring this weak crap to the table?

Eyal, Duncan, Solomon: I’m tired of this. If you think events happened differently than what Tyler has already stated..then YOU bring some real FACTS to back up YOUR side of the story. Tyler has, where are yours?

Who’s being defensive? There’s no need, The evidence is in the image and the caption. It simply doesnt lie and anyone who thinks it does, is living in anti-gravity baseball cap land.

Nobody has ever said there havent been cases to answer in the Lebanon. There clearly have.

But the Tyler case ain’t one of em.

We all took enough shit over the Hajj debacle, so now its the blog-boosters turn to eat crow. Dig in while its still hot and squawkin’.

Solomon, its not photography. It’s photojournalism. A subtle distinction, but useful in this context, because the earliest pioneers of photojournalism and the new illustrated magazines in Weimar Germany talked about what was called the ‘Third Effect’…that is, the combination of image and caption, and the fact that both were required to produce this composite meaning in the viewer. What’s now normal for us was considered revolutionary at the time.

Photographs have no Third Effect. Some photographs deliberately seek ambiguity. Photojournalism tends not to.

Even if the image is visually ambiguous, or consciously or unconsciously references say (in Tylers pic), Renaissance images of the Deposition of Christ, the caption is there to provide journalistic context and clarity.

“Aren’t the photos themselves supposed to carry the weight of the explanation?”

Nope. Not neccesarily. Unless you wanna be a human passport booth and not a photographer. The explanation is sometimes the captions job, sometimes the picture, and sometimes neither – that’s when the Third Effect comes in.

Wanna see the Third Effect in action? Look at this weeks cover of Time, with the elephants ass on it. Is that an ‘accurate representation’ of the story? Nope. Without a caption, its meaningless. With a caption, it’s inspired, and bang on the money.

It’s photo-journal-ism, mate.

Like I said, Tylers photo and caption are correct. He did nothing wrong. End of story.

Here’s some CSI photo analysis for ya. The guy’s even wearing a (gasp!) green helmet:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2TYRYDMMWP0S&Pass=&Total=38&Pic=33&SubE=2TYRYDMEPGXV

Funny, I havent seen too many warmonger-blogs pissing and moaning about the guy in that picture, (hmm…I wonder why? ) who of course, like the clusterbomb-blogs, is performing a calculated act designed to drop journalists further in the toilet.

Cool! More room for the bullet-blogs! All of us journos can just die like Terry Lloyd or the 11 Iraqi TV station employees executed four days ago, or get thrown into jail like Sami Al-Haj (a cameraman rotting in Guantanamo Bay for nearly 5 years without charge), because we are of course all lying, unpatriotic, Photoshop abusing scum who deserve everything we get, and have got everything so, SO wrong…

…unlike murder-bloggers like Malkin, who have only been around five minutes, but have consistently trumpeted and cheered for a kill-fest which has so far, put up to 600,000 civilians through a meatgrinder.

25,907
Number of words so far.
time for a break?
I don’t trust words. I trust pictures. -Gilles Peress, New York September 11 by Magnum Photographers (page 46)
Time for a break…please?

Max,

Amen to what exactly? To Sion intejecting everything (from Nurnberg trial to Daniel Pearl tragic death) in order to stop the questions.
(Actually I think it was mot smart of him to reopen this with such accusations)

You have a very important point: Tyler was there and we were not.

But that should not cause to think that we accuse him of anything.

We have questions and questions are legitimate.

Tyler Hicks was there. Tyler Hicks made a photo of what looks like a dead man that is actually alive – this is a fact not an accusation.

All the “proofs” we have are Tyler’s own photos and Tyler own words (+ some photos and words of other journalists)

Please understand this Max: This is not a trial, we make no claim and make no accusation – we are just asking to see more.

Exactly because this is not a trial it is not an issue of “Who has the burden of proof” – this has started as a thread on a photographer forum, a thread called “It was not my fault” – Now some photographers congratulated Hicks on his article and two had few more questions.

What could be simpler: to answer the questuions or to have all this discussion on the right to ask questions

Hicks responded to the congratulation but never bothered to answer the questions. So why be angry at those that ask questions ? To end it, talk to Hicks and ask him to provide more proof: Hicks has it. Hicks can post all the photos from that scene. Hicks can tell us: Was the building indeed empty ? . Hicks should do it exactly from the reason you listed: Tyler Hicks was there.

Hicks has the responsibility as a journalist to provide the information he has. Hicks first of all has this duty to himself (if someone manipulated him he should be the first to want to know it) and to his fellow photographers (in part because it is our profession that now cast in doubts) and to the readers who consume his work.

It is of course Hicks right to block this thread (he started it, he can end it). It his right to say nothing (I guess since this is not a trill his silence should not be seen as “taking the 5th”) – it is right to also explain and I wish he would do that instead of having all those people defend him with him providing the information he surly has more than any one of us.

PS Max, if you still don’t understand that on top of real people dying and suffesring Lebanon was also a place where the press was manipulated please take a good look at that: http://tinyurl.com/gmyza (no photoshop involve and no proof that the Reuters photographer knew he was being manipulated.

best, hopefully still your friend,
Eyal

Eyal, wondering if when you read a story that documents a slice of time in a larger event and might raise additional questions, as many do, do you badger the reporter to see all of his/her notes and rough drafts of copy?

Allen,

As a photographer I am paying attention to photographs.

I am glad you joined the fray to find one more argument why I can not ask questions.

I think we all have a right to ask questions about photography in this photographers forum.

• Tyler Hicks came to LS

• Tyler Hicks posted his article here about "It wasn’t my fault "

• Tyler Hicks responded back to all that congratulated him

At this point I asked few questions and ever since this whole thread is about one single issue:

Is there a right to ask questions ?

Well. I think there such right. This is a photographers forum and I ask relevanct questions to the scene and Hicks article. I see nothing wrong in asking these questions. I do think the effort to de-legitimize this right is reminiscent of places less democratic, less open from the society we pride ourselfs of living in.

PS Allen: Do you really think that reporter draft are similar to my requests to see more photos of that scene ?

Are you suggesting that there is a “draft” photo of the same person falling? I truly hope not. I don’t think there was a director calling “action” in that scene and I don’t think there are “draft photos”.

What I asked is normal to how I work when I want to gain better understanding: I look at all my photos from a scene, including timestamp (from all camera bodies sync to same clock) and look at them one by one to gain better understanding of a fast moving event. I can tell you that I have done just that after events such as this: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/amona or this: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/idf_vs_settlers , http://www.pbase.com/yalop/one_week to check what may took place and was caught by my camera but not by my eye.

Eyal, ask all the questions you want, but when we ask you questions you say it’s an attack on you. For you it does not go both ways. You have deleted and edited your remarks after the fact to alter the context you make statments in. You do not stand by your words and are manipulative. You also have a record of making inaccurate statements. You also profess to being someone with extreme views and active in political organizations. All these things tell me you are not a journalist. Are you an advocate of some cause? Over and out.

wikipedia defines a troll as:

“a troll is usually someone who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory,…., repetitive,…..and otherwise disruptive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members….”

quod erat demonstrandum. :o)

Jack,

Everything you wrote about me is incorrect.

I am a journalist. I use my own name (not something like “Jack”). My journalistic work is available to you on my web site and in publication section in LS.

I have answered any question I have been asked (just look above).

The part that bothers me is that I am not the issue here. You are trying to make me the issue in order to avoid getting to the facts of the scene. I had to repeat and repeat and repeat the exact same thing (which I will repeat one more time for you)

My sources are:

• NYT Slide show
• Tyler own words in his article
• Photos and news reports of that scene I have collected from other journalists

Based on these 3 sources I have some questions. (listed above)

What in all that strike you as dishonest ?

PS: Do you want me to list the accusations? Just look at your own post and Tewfic post: I am called a troll, an activist, an advocate – I am none of those.
I have not “changed context” as you argue (what kind of BS argument is that) – in fact I have changed nothing since I have joined this thread : All I have done is to repeat the exact same thing here over and over:

Asked the same questions (and mostly had to defended my right to ask them)

If you claim I altered facts and made wrong statments show me. I’ll be the first to appologize if I made a mistake.
I am not afraid to answer questions or to put my work (including all my journalistic and photojournalistic work) under a microscope – by all meansbe my guest and go ahead in presenting facts to your accusations that I am not what I say I am.

“…it would be a giant photoshopping no-no to collage either John Kerry or Bob Kerrey next to “Hanoi Jane” and publish it for destructive political purposes.”

Gayle: Agree wholeheartedly with that statement. I’d also add “destructive personal purposes” to the list. I’m sure you agree that no reputable organization should continue to run such photos once they have been “outed”.

FOR the record – here is my first post on this thread:

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

and this was Gayle answer:

“Eyal, I would like to hear these questions that you refer to and I would be thrilled to hear Tyler answers. "

“No one should expect to be able to attack you personally here without also expecting that some judgment for their motives for attack will be harshly questioned”

These are two direct quotes from Gayle’s own words above. Jack: I am waiting for a shred of proof that I have changed “The context” since I got into this thread or that I am not a journalist. I am a journalist and the context of this thread had always been the scene in Tyre on July 26.
I ask that you appologize for these making false accusation on me.

Eyal, your tenacity is truly amazing.. but this is a quintessential case of ‘beating a dead horse’. You’re barking up the wrong tree, man. Clearly Tyler would have answered you by now, instead you’ve gotten just about all 11,000 LS members to see how much of an inquisitive, yet ridiculous pest you are.

Unfortunately I keep looking at this post like a bad haircut… I don’t want to look, but then I do, and I’m just more amazed every time.

Please, pm Tyler directly and if he chooses to answer you then you will be in luck. Just pm Tyler and let this post fall away and OTHERS to rotate at the top spot. It’s time, man. Just send Tyler a message and you never know, he might just respond. But clearly this isn’t the place for that to happen. None of us can answer your question and I can’t believe this isn’t obvious to you by now. You’re getting absolutely nowhere except under a lot of people’s skin. People who are supposed to be your colleagues. It’s embarrassing to watch. Really, you’re getting nowhere on this post. Let this madness stop.

Lance,

I have PMed Tyler yesterday.

I truly don’t care you call me a pest or anything else.
It has bothered me greatly that no one (of the 11,000 LS members) bothered to ask for more information about a scene and editorial decisions.

I was invited to ask my question by Gayle (after I said I have questions) and posted them.
Since that time I am busy defending my right to ask these questions.

I have a suggestion for you – maybe you can PM Tyler, ask him to provide more information (such as more photos from the scene) . Maybe he can answer few questions (such as : Was the building empty when bombed) discuss his editorial decision (such as : Was his famous photo the correct portrayal of a bombing of an empty building ?)

Why is it so hard to look into the specific issues that surround a really exceptional photo that has already raised controversy (because of wrong caption). – I just don’t understand what was wrong in presenting my questions.

To revise a movie quote: “Resistance is NOT futile.”

As Lance said, the horse is dead, and the tree being barked upon isn’t the right one. Perhaps there never was the right tree in the first place. Resist, resist. Don’t look at this thread. Don’t post. (I promise I won’t again :) )

To the admin, how about an “ignore thread” feature?

OK OK OK.

If you look carefully above (please do) you will see that on Oct 12 I have left this thread with intention to indeed let it die.

On Oct 15 Sion resurected this thread with all sorts of vauge accuastions about Daniel Pearl.

Without getting into this I expected that out of 11,000 LS members someone will say to him:

Sion/Gayle: This is exactly the kind of accusations one should not make – people have a right to ask questions without being accused that their questions leading either the one who ask or the one being asked to be murdered. We are journalists, we are in the biz of asking questions.

If you go further up this thread you will see that I was reluctant to post my questions here knowing that I will be attacked. And indeed I was.

But , as I explained in PMs I am not afraid of being attacked.

Anyone is welcome to open any thread in which I will answer any question (about my journalistic work or any other subject)

All I hoped was for one (1) single member of LS to say that yes, it is OK to ask questions, that indeed there are editorial issues (and factual issues) that Tyler has not addressed in his article about the caption.

All I wanted is for one LS member to come out and say what I have always hoped for:

“Tyler – answer him so this would have ended long ago”

I will leave you (on this thread) with one parting thought:

Journalists are used to question what they are told. They may repeat what was told to them and they may look for verification that indeed what they are being told are the facts. (or not exactly the facts)

Photogrphers don’t have that luxury. They need to take the photo now before the scene changes.

But we (yes I am a photographer as well) still have time and duty to go back, ask ourselfs: Is what was presented in front of my lens the reality? Is it (editorially speaking) the correct representation of the reality – or was it just a good artistic frame that belong in an art show but not in the news ?

Tyler, hopefully you understand this is not about you. It is about choices you made which I think you were wrong in making them. This is the first time in this thread that I did not ask a question. I said what I think but now people may say that I don’t have a proof for that and you know what: you are right. I never got more information from Tyler but I still think this building was completely empty when bombed.

bonkers

Eyal,
you’re a nice guy…but the horse is dead, the building bombed, the caption accurate, there was no more manipulation press on one side than on the other, but no less either…you see, when after about ONE week of war, the Israeli spokesman says there are about 1500 wounded in Israel, THAT is an attempted manipulation of the press; when a guy falls on the rubble of a bombed building in south Lebanon and hurts himself (a little, a lot, who knows?) that is an accident. It happens; those bombs on civilian buildings on both sides, but so much more on one side, were NOT accidents, it SHOULDN’T have happened.
Let the horse rest in peace now, PLEASE.
B

Everyone just stop indulging him. His prejudice has rendered him insane.

Interesting discussion…. for about half the posts…. Hopefully this isn’t something that will tarnish Tyler’s career for the next few years and give him the reputation as the “guy who faked the Lebanon photo.”

I did a search for more info and came up with this on a blog titled Bela’s Thoughts and Rambles:

“As someone who really believes in the power and responsibility of photojournalism, this makes me sick. Tyler Hicks especially pisses me off. I used to look up to him, I’ve heard him speak at photojournalism confrences. If I heard him speak again I would have to confront him about that sequence of pictures. It’s not even believable, it’s so faked it’s ridiculous. It hurts because 98% of the journalists out there have integrity and honor. But because of these —-holes who are greedy for that award winning picture and too lazy to do the work to make it honestly; people generalize and label all journalists as frauds.”

Despite silly talk like this, it seems as if the politics behind the photo play a lot into the discussion as to whether it’s been faked or not.

“I do believe, however, that politics are usually behind those who insist a series of photos that show someone who has become injured in a rescue effort in a warzone to be faked”

I, however, believe that politics are behind the act of faking the photos. You appear to be saying that those victimized by fakes should not defend themselves.

“I do believe, however, that politics are usually behind those who insist a series of photos that show someone who has become injured in a rescue effort in a warzone to be faked”

I, however, believe that politics are behind the act of faking the photos. You appear to be saying that those victimized by fakes should not defend themselves.

My pleasure.

Ayal, your courage and courtesy in continually posing questions that kept this horse alive are praiseworthy indeed! Few who read this whole thread could but marvel at your clarity and integrity in asking about the photo, and continually separating it from the photographer, his politics, his hair-color or shoe-polish (NONE of which are germane to the issues YOU raise)!

As much as posters here might WANT this to be a dead horse, Tyler has in fact NOT addressed any of the issues you raise about height (introduced BY Tyler), about building emptiness, about non-panicked bystanders… or the OTHER VALID QUESTIONS raised by others (how did The Poor Victim’s hat get under his elbow?).

This thread has been saved (and savored) in its entirety, so even if it is deleted here, the insights and benchmarking elicited by your principled, courteous and courageous asking of legitimate questions about the PHOTO, cannot be de-legitimized by non-responding posters.

And Ayer, I’m not a troll, I’m a writer, reporter and Baha’i.

“The Best-Beloved of all things in My sight is Justice. Turn not away therefrom if thou desirest (the Love of God).”

Franklin,
Sir, you seem here “…those victimized by fakes should not defend themselves…” to be asserting that all humans have a DUTY to DEFEND themselves from misinformation, disinformation, distortion and outright lying. (Ayer, let me be clear, NEVER asserted that such was happening in The Pieta picture, and repeatedly asked questions which COULD HAVE been answered quickly, concisely and accurately by Tyler; questions which WERE NOT about correct captioning.)

Well, Sir, I concur your analysis. We humans, “…victimized by fakes…”, have a personal duty, a personal responsibility, to Investigate Truth for ourselves.

Yes, we do Karridine, but not at the expense or slur of others innocence, and that innocence we also have
a personal responsibility to defend.

Gayle, I do NOT support slurring others, smearing or use of innuendo. As you point out, Eyal continually defended Tyler’s innocence, and was at pains to separate the PHOTO from the PHOTOgrapher. His continued refusal to attack Tyler, even after personal attacks on his integrity, his professionalism, his judgement and his right to ask those legitimate and as-yet-unanswered questions was commendable, even when posters here sought to turn them into ad hominem attack on Tyler.

Karridine, Sir/Madam? David?

‘We humans, ”…victimized by fakes…”, have a personal duty, a personal responsibility, to Investigate Truth for ourselves.’

Now I have just done a little bit of investigating and found that you have been a member of Lightstalkers since the 23rd Oct, 2006. The date of your first post in this thread in fact. You have no contact details and nothing to show in your gallery. May I presume this information will be added post haste?

It is very difficult to read any of your comments without knowing something about you. All journalists, photo or otherwise will tell you that it is necessary to always research the sources of their information. You have not provided any information as yet so can we believe that you are a credible source to make comments and hold an informed opinion on this topic, since it brings into question the veracity and reputation of a very well respected and visible photo-journalist?

Comments and opinion that are not backed up with some form of expert knowledge from people that are willing to give full disclosure of themselves and their interests and that are prepared to go ‘on the record’ are seen merely as ‘innuendo’ and as such can be found in a court as libellous insinuations.

Now I am sure this is not the case, but when will you be adding more information about yourself? Or could I infer from the lack of information that the writing and reporting you do is actually associated with the more spurious phenomenom of blogging?

I had to point this out as you can see what my comment (as I have no information about you) could possibly do to your reputation and credibility. We await full disclosure.

and while you’re at it…(adding background info on yourself, galleries, links of your writings, etc), take a deep breath and tell us what does being of Baha’i faith (as you describe yourself) have to do with this conversation….

lisa,
It is true that I have been here only a short time. In that time, therefore, I have read the POSTS of people posting above, and assumed ALL of them to be posted by concerned humans.

I then examined the assertions and the logic of the posts themselves. THAT IS ALL I can do, not having authentic access to the posting humans themselves.

“It is very difficult to read any of your comments without knowing something about you.” Actually, most of the observations of reality posted here stand on their own. They are more-or-less accessible to the rest of us, and do not rely on anyone’s reputation. Nor do they imply, by their posting, any impugning of a person’s reputation. Observations like, “He appeared dead, but he’s very much alive.”

“All journalists, photo or otherwise will tell you that it is necessary to always research the sources of their information. You have not provided any information as yet so can we believe that you are a credible source to make comments and hold an informed opinion on this topic,…” What information would YOU require of me to prove that I am able to READ THESE POSTS and FOLLOW THE LOGIC THEREIN? If I asserted that I hold a PhD in logic, would that make right some illogical assertion of mine, Ma’am?

“…since it brings into question the veracity and reputation of a very well respected and visible photo-journalist?” This is strange. Several people ASK QUESTIONS about the PHOTO, legitimate questions that Tyler Hicks COULD SHED LIGHT ON by choosing to address them, but has yet only addressed the issue of Inappropriate Captions. To quote a poster upthread, “The person is NOT the issue.”

And yet, because they ask questions, even while conscientiously taking steps to state clearly, at face value, such questions do NOT in and of themselves ‘question the veracity and reputation of a very well respected and visible photo-journalist’, you choose to perceive their questioning as personal attack.

“Comments and opinion that are not backed up with some form of expert knowledge from people that are willing to give full disclosure of themselves and their interests and that are prepared to go ‘on the record’ are seen merely as ‘innuendo’ and as such can be found in a court as libellous insinuations.” Ma’am, like the whole tenor of your reply/post, this is an ‘Appeal to Authority’ argument. It rests on the assumption that (in this case) ONLY photo-journalists are capable of rational thought, critical evaluation and reasoned argument WHEN READING and EVALUATING the posts on this thread.

Surely, some of the rest of us, whether disclosed or not yet, are capable of rational assessment of WHAT IS POSTED HERE?

I ask only whether Tyler Hicks will address the issues raised by his ‘clarification’ posted at the top of this thread. We can deligitimize questions and questioners with a simple rhetorical wave of the hand, but THAT DOES NOT ANSWER the questions raised by Eyal and others, about the PHOTOS, does it?

Respectfully,

I noticed the ‘Franklin Pierce’ thing as well, and as for new member ‘Eugene Hasenfus’? That was the CIA guy running guns for the Contras who got nabbed in 1986 – glad to see you got out of the jungle alive mate…

Karridine (if that is indeed your name), you describe yourself (on your blog, natch) as someone with ‘a near rabid believer in the essential goodness of America’. Now, you can believe that if ya like (nobody’s gonna throw ya into Guantanamo for it…yet) but if you think that makes you some kind of impartial judge, you must be living in baseball cap land.

A brief look at your blogs pretty much confirms your ahem, not strictly impartial analysis of contemporary events, so apart from anything else, its a bit rich to be calling for people to stick to editorial standards you don’t even stick to yourself.

As for ad-hominem attacks – people on this thread have only begun scolding Eyal when it became pretty transparent that he was trolling. The photographic and caption evidence was presented ages ago, and theres simply no case to answer.

This thread seems to be spilt into two camps

1/ People who have presented the available evidence (including Tyler himself) and used it to clarify the initial mistaken blog smear.

2/ People (some using pseudonyms) with pre-existing agendas – for example, its obvious Eyal is motivated by a desire to expose alleged Hizbollah press manipulation, you’re motivated by your undying love for the Homeland (despite not living there), as is Franklin Pseudonym.

So the Hardy Boys probing has continued, the only result being not any clarity, but the manufacturing of a miasma of suspicion around a decent photographer. This false suspicion has transferred itself (for example) into someone repeating Eyals smear on Tyler Hicks book review on Amazon.

This is far worse than any ad hominem attack – its libel, and as as self-confessed Libertarian I thought you’d realise it’s a corruption for free speech, but it appears the freedom to speak – or not to – isn’t an intrinsic right, but is determined by who you feel like giving a kicking, and demanding they answer you like you’re some kind of judge and jury.

It’s quite frankly a foul combination of bullying and the most craven kind of cowardice, compounded further when the bullies hide behind nom-de plumes.

Eyal has been completely disingenuous by claiming to act in the name of ‘clarity’ or Tyler Hicks best interest, while continuing to beat him with a stick.

And so are you.

Gayle,

Unlike you, who promised not to post here and did not kept your word I avoided this thread after saying I will not continue.

But you are really something special, you are indeed unique: How dare you say that “Eyal, (Benjamin) Franklin (Hawkeye) Pierce and Soloman could be Alan Alda all rolled into one” – How dare you say that ?

I have posted here under my real name. Only under my real name.

I have posted here questions only question.

I have posted these questions after you invited me to do so, and you wrote (see above) that you also interested in Tyler’s answers to these questions.

Since than you have not stopped accusing me in everything including connecting my questions to Daniel Pearl death.

I have not accused anyone in any thing. I have asked legitimate question which you have organized a campaign to de-legitimize the right to ask these questions.

People like you do a great disservice to Tyler Hicks and to journalism in general. Asking questions it at the heart of any journalistic work. Your false accusations are the exact opposite of what journalist should be doing.

My continued questions may have created here wrong impression. In fact I never was against Tyler I was after information. I wonder about all these people who had impression from my continued questioning what impression they have from your continued throwing false accusation on anyone who dare to ask a question you don’t like ?

I expect an apology from you on your false accusation of me.

---

PS I agree with Lisa: Everyone who want to take part in this discussion should not hide behind a internet nick name. This include “Jake” “Ocean” and other who posted here before.

Sion:

What BS you write. How dare you claim to know “my motives” ?

Have I ever doubt your motives?

This is the problem with you, with Gayle, With Tewfic:

Instead of focusing on the issue you claim to know what goes in other people’s head. Well: You don’t

Don’t put words in my mouth and don’t put thoughts in my head. This thread was an attempt to get some answers on a specific scene. This attempt failed because people turned it into a personal attack on me. I never posted any “smear” (despite your claim that I did) – I have asked questions that is all. Despite the impression that you try to create anyone can read my words and I challenge you to find one word of “smear” there (about Tyler) – there isn’t any. In fact I wrote few times:

*Tyler seems a brave photographer

*Tyler is a great photographer

*His peers describe him as honest

The issue is not Tyler and not me.
The issue is not political (as you try to paint it)

The issue is an attempt to discover facts and discuss editorial decisions derived from these facts.

I wonder if we can open a new thread in which we can focus only on facts (photogrphic issues) and editorial decisions (wrong, right) and conduct it in a civilized way without you and Gayle turning that thread as well into a personall attack on anyone who dare to have a diffrenet opinion ?

Unlike you, I accept your right to have a different opinion than me. You are free to write it.
Unlike you, I am not going into your motives. You can be left or right, you can be Zionist , you can be anti-Zionist – I don’t care as long as you focus on the issues instead of attacking anyone who thinks diffrently then you. I do not accpet such attacks not from settlers and not from Neo-Nazis and I truely don’t care what is your own politics – just stop the personal attacks that you used in an attempt to prevent any meanigfull discussion.

One more problem Sion:

You describe me as a “troll” or “political” as if I came here to cause problems.

But the record is very clear (and different from what you claim):

I am a photojournalist.

I am a member of LS for more than a year.

You have no idea about my politics (at least not from my work)

You are free to look at my work, criticize my work, and ask questions about it. etc…

My right to ask questions is there with or without your attempts to de-legitimize this right. Maybe my English is not great so all I can do is in simple words continued to argue that is a fundamental right to ask questions about facts. This is the essence of journalism. I don’t plan however to continue the questions on this thread.

Tewfic, I posted a hint in my original post: being a Baha’i, (Dedicated to the Glory of God) I am vitally focused on the independent investigation of truth, in the service of justice, to the benefit of all humanity.

THIS thread represents an active, ongoing aspect of the investigation of truth, as you yourself encourage in the questions you ask of me and the suggestions you make to me. The Lord of Hosts, Baha’u’llah, was intimately familiar with Islamic law and Islamic justice, and the record of His treatment at the hands of real, authentic Muslim imams, mullahs and sultans is published in historical reports, from the eyewitnesses interviewed extensively by Nabil in “The Dawnbreakers” to “Baha’u’llah, King of Glory” or “God Passes By”.

No appeal to authority here, just the gentle reminder that we can all investigate the truth for ourselves, regardless of previous experiences. We are all authorities on our own experience, aren’t we Tewfic?

Respectfully,

Eyal, why don’t you go to the source and ask Tyler directly? Perhaps you can release a joint statement?

I am not big on authority, Karridine, just like a properly trained PJ I am asking for full disclosure of your background. There is no rhetoric involved in that, it is merely a question, framed in much the same way as many of the questions on this site. A simple inquiry.

I am not going to bother transcribing all of your paraphrasing of my post and the rather manipulative way you have addressed that paraphrasing, in my very personal opinion. (Full disclosure right!)

I am simply asking you, as you are asking Tyler Hicks, to address my query about your real identity. Otherwise from the information I have read in this post I could only assume that you are indeed a blogger with little or no editorial experience and as such someone whose involvement in this thread means little.

Therefore I can easily dismiss you, your opinion and your blog as gossip mongering heresay. (Not nice when its coming your way is it?)

Nice work Sion, finding Karridines blogs. Will have a look myself if you could provide a link, since the person in question has not provided the information himself to date.

I don’t know, seems like ‘Grasshopper’ would be rolling in his grave.

Gayle,

Go ahead; send me a letter from your Lawyer.

I stand by any quote from you:

You invited me to ask questions here. (in fact you said you want to hear them.
You wanted to hear Tyler’s answers.

Since then you have just made more and more accusations of me (including the ridicules one that others who post here and don’t think like you are also me). I posted here under my name and that is the only way I particiapted in this thread or anywhere else on LS.

What you are making are ridicules accusations and adding in legal threats does not help your lost cause.
I ask again that you appologize about your false accusations.

Go ahead. I await a letter from your Lawyer… Ha ha ha .

Lisa,

I only came back to this thread ONLY to answer Gayle and Sion new false accuastions direct personal attacks on me.

Off course I look forward for direct contact with Tyler. He did not answer my PM.

If I find another way to contact him I will. I know he is in tough position and my desire is to find out the facts not to cause him any inconviniance. As a journalist I expect my work to be under a microscope as well. This is fair part of being a journalist.

Best,
Eyal

PS1 I agree with Lisa about the “real identity” and “full discolusre” issue.

Sion, Lisa…

Although it is very important to you that I have some sort of ‘credentials’, I demonstrated that the credentials necessary HERE are rational assessment, logical thought and patient assessment of reality. The blog you found is focused on parody, satire and unmasking of today’s thugs, fascists and their apologists and enablers. It hardly relates to THIS blog, or the posters here, and certainly does NOT PRETEND to aspire to ‘an editorial standard’, either for myself or others. (for example, Richard North at EU Referendum: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruption-of-media.html)

Here, however, you are again encouraged to show me (for in truth I may have missed it), the part where Tyler shows or verbally describes the promontory or high place from which The Victim fell, or his explanation of HOW The Victim in falling got his legs so entangled, or any of the other questions RAISED BY his valid and (I’ll take it as given) truthful explanation (above) of the MIS-CAPTIONING event.

If, however, any poster here is somehow expected to bow to Tyler Hicks’ REPUTATION to somehow answer civil, courteous questions about ‘how the photo happened’, especially in view of the work posted at Zombietime, EU Referendum and other websites dedicated to rational, feasible examination of SIMILAR photographic ‘phenomena’ (to put it as positively/neutrally as possible), when such reputation in and of itself cannot answer these questions, then I’ll go back to my useless and ill-fitting Belief in America’s goodness.

It FEELS better than tearing America down, in the face of fascist thugs who behead children AND twist the very news we see/hear daily.

Respectfully,

I dont need to put words in your mouth.

Its self evident from this and other posts on this matter that you’re prety much convinced, because of alleged Hezbollah press manipulation, and instances of Photoshop manipulation in the Lebanon which none of us would dispute, that somehow, a simple office error in a photographic slideshow can be placed on the same level of seriousness, and is some kind of underhand pro-Hezbollah stunt.

For example, why ask about the empty buildings? It has nothing to do with the image and everything to do with suggesting that somehow the people running around the building somehow knew the building was empty and were putting on a show. You’ve produced no evidence for this assertion, other than your pre-existing suspicions of Hezbollah actions, or simply being against them altogether.

Most of the people on this thread, including me, have tried to counter your assertions with the facts as they stand. Not having a time machine I cannot teleport myself back to the scene, so the evidence is all I’m going on. That evidence is pretty transparent and resonable, and I’m drawing reasonable conclusions from that.

Im not for example, suggesting any pro or anti-Israei bias to support Tylers case, because there isnt any, and its not applicable to the discussion anyway, which is as you say, the veracity of the image.

I consider the image to be true in fact and in implication.

You obviously don’t – and as well as the evidence, you drew in tangental, subjective opinion which you claim supports you. A lot of that ‘evidence’ was from blogs who were tpretty transparent about where their sympathies lay, and the fact that they held journalism and the ‘MSM’ in pretty low esteem anyway.

The support you’ve received on this thread has come from people acting under false names, one of whom has a blog which again, is pretty open about his view of the world. So it aint exactly inspiring me with confidence, pal.

So bearing all this in mind, I have to ask myself a reasonable question – what possible benefit is this bringing? Tyler Hicks is under no obligation to answer your bullying questions, which as I said, come from a subjective selective view, motivated by biased opinion, not evidence.

I have subjective opinions too – for example, I wouldnt regard the NYT as some kind of lickspittle Liberal pro-Hezbollah paper in the slightest. if anything, it’s the complete opposite.

In my opinion. Which I can of course state, but ultimately it counts for nothing, ’cos the NYT has broad shoulders, and good lawyers…

Some actions and opinions however, do have consequences, which is why Holocaust denial is a crime to name just one example. This constant hounding of Tyler Hicks, based on no concrete evidence that I can see, serves to do nothing but smear his good name, and by implication, the good name of all photographers.

This is the Daniel Pearl connection, and the connection which links sloppy biased opinions thrown about on the internet with Kash Gabrielle Torsello, a photographer who is currently being held against his will in Afghanistan.

The guy wouldnt have been kidnapped if the kidnappers didnt think journalists were ‘spies’ and liars. This hatred has killed lots of journalists.

I heard a story once from a journo friend of mine. A French journalist was kidnapped…Gaza, Chechnya, Iraq, I forget where. His captors told him “We’re going to Google your name up, and if we dont like what we see, you’re dead”.

This is the internet chaff which hangs around. Chaff which you and your anonymous bullying friends are laying down on here, on blogs and on Tyler Hicks Amazon book review page. As Gayle perceptively mentioned some time ago, its this kind of chaff which is smeariing journalism with false accusations, and stoking a view which puts bullets in journalists backs.

So I know exactly where my motives are. It’s to refute lies and malicious smears like this.

As for your ‘I await yor lawyers letter’ reply to Gayle…very classy mate, and very reminiscent of another chickenhawk coward and bully who once said “Bring It On”…but I digress.

It raises another point I made earlier though. Bloggers for the most part aren’t subject to the libel laws which compel responsible journalists to check their facts before publishing. It doesnt make journalists any less prone to error, but it does provide a disciplinary infrastructure, which is sorely lacking in the blogo-sphere.

Its not simply a question of free speech. It’s about being accountable for what you say, and having some kind of reasonable evidence before you open your mouth.

fabulous,this is just like being in the school playground on a monday mornig.someone should invent an online version of ‘conkers’.jumpers for goalposts.my brother is bigger than your brother.give me your dinner money.then everyone back to mine to watch m.a.s.h. and ponder the scary and weird themesong.

Sion,

Your post does nothing but repeat the same false accusations. (you also called me a bully for not being afraid of Gayle legal threats… well what can I do I am not responsible for what your mind associate with what)

I must admit:

I am in great disadvantage here – I am simple person with simple English skills.

All I can do is ask honest questions and defend my right to ask them.

You surly know that the building was indeed empty when bombed. I know that several reposrts were made that the building was indeed empty before it was bombed – like many locations known to have Hizbulla connections were abanded).
I was asking Tyler if he also knew that – This is a fair question to ask and you again engaged in nothing but denying the right to ask legitimate questions.

Tyler focused on the caption issue. His words clarified the caption issue but there were questions (he never addressed) about the scene.

LS is a photographer forum and is the right place to ask photographic and editorial questions but Tyler decided not to participate any more (as is his right) so we can not progress on that route.

You choose to turn this thread into accusations (on the person asking the questions) and the only reason I came back to this thread is to tell you felt out: Your false accusations of me, and Gayle threats in legal action will not stop the fundamental right to ask questions. Sorry. I know it is hard for you to accept since unlike me you seem to have all the answers as well. I don’t. I just tried to ask questions. (but I am not planning to ask them here on this thread). I hope to get in touch with Hicks in person.

Lisa,
here is the Karridine link; http://www.brainsurgerywithspoons.blogspot.com/
Tip o’the Karridine Kepi to Solomon and Charles! (And Eyal Dor Ofer, wherever he may be!)http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23066#comments (this from Karridines blog)
a link to a blog called Solomania; http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/009361.shtml

Sion,
“The guy (Daniel Pearl) wouldn’t have been kidnapped if the kidnappers didnt think journalists were ‘spies’ and liars.”

Really, Sir? This makes it sound like the head-hackers were driven by something outside themselves, and have no responsibility for THEIR ACTIONS, kidnapping Pearl, holding him down, videotaping his death while hacking his head off.

Doesn’t your reasoning seem a tad… specious, Sir? Isn’t it POSSIBLE that the IslamoFascists involved were religious zealots motivated by something other than Pearl’s JOB?

Just off the top of my head now, speculating, imagining…. MAYBE it had SOMETHING to do with Pearl’s Jewishness?

Respectfully addressing issues YOU raised, Sir,

Eyal, your english comprehension is HORRIBLE. I said “half a mind”, that is not a threat.

I would never dream of being so arrogant as to argue such an sensitive issue in a language that I don’t fully
understand and to the people of that native tongue. It doesn’t matter what ownership you think that you have to this
situation, you are the one insulting people by misconstruing their statements through your ignorance of their
language.

If you were an American doing this to another culture, you would be called by us an UGLY AMERICAN.

You all really need to watch the Journalist and the Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl. Because you know nothing about
him or that he was only identified as being jewish by his kidnappers after he was kidnapped. The commment made by his documentary was that he was a reporter that happened to be jewish. In fact he was extremely sympathetic to Muslims and
did some excellent investigative reporting regarding the Clinton Bombing of the pharmaceutical factory.

Gayle, so if I understand correctly, Eyal courteously asking questions about the context of The Photo makes him a kidnapper of this thread? An attacker, intent on slurring, demeaning and otherwise besmirching the fair reputation of Tyler Hicks, who HAS addressed the caption issues but has NOT addressed the questions raised here?

We seem so bent on seeing evil intentions on the people who seek to determine the veracity of a photo, The Photo, photos, photo-displays and other aspects of today’s photo-journalism scene, instead of addressing the issues. Would it have hurt, Ma’am, to say "Those might be valid issues’?

Then we could await Tyler’s addressing of those issues instead of claiming (as others have, not you) that Tyler HAS addressed the issues raised by his posted ‘caption explanation’ above.

Just a non-parody, non-satirical suggestion, Ma’am. This is Lightstalkers, NOT Brain Surgery With Spoons!

Karridine, Daniel Pearl was taken out for being jewish? Is that why a few international cricket teams visiting Pakistan
were targeted too?

“MAYBE it had SOMETHING to do with Pearl’s Jewishness?”

Well, duh…probably. I’ve already addressed this earlier. I didnt say they werent anti-semitic scumbags, or that they were Pavlovian robots who bear no responsibility for their crimes.

Kash Gabrielle Torsello however is a Muslim, and Enzo Baldoni, another Italian journalist executed in Iraq was I assume, a Christian. So there’s obviously a motive beyond simply their religious faith.

I’d say MAYBE it has SOMETHING to do with their journalist-ness?

Ya know, its tough enough as it is, without Islamo-fascists kicking us on one side, and conspiro-bloggers kicking us on the other.

I wonder if those Deutsche Welle journalists who were gunned down in Afghanistan were taken out because they were jewish?
Someone did a spray job on them and didn’t steal anything. They were shot for being journalists-pure and simple.

I think it was John Martinkus from SBS Television who was kidnapped in Iraq and they googled him to see if he was a journo.
He was let go.

I have a strange feeling you would have a different opinion of life on the ground if you were out there at street level with people like Tyler and Bruno and some blogger was dragging your name through the gutter in vitriolic blogs. Don’t knock till you’ve tried it mate.

This is getting ridiculous now.

Let’s use another example closer to home. Eyal, you covered the Gaza pullout right? Nice pictures by the way – but there is a constituency of opinion which suggests the whole pullout thing, with settlers being dragged out of their homes etc, was a piece of Israeli Gov’t press spin…

Now, before you start, I have absolutely no idea if that’s true or not, neither do I have any idea if the settlers or soldiers were engaging in some kind of elaborate theatre, in the same way you’d assert the Tyre residents were.

But looking at the pictures of someone who attended the events, (you) and using reasonable logic, I’d say it was ‘real’, or at least where your images are concerned. Whetever was going on, the settlers were obviously upset to be removed…I mean, who wouldnt be, right?

Now the fact that some people think they settled illegally (or not) has NOTHING to do with the veracity of your images. They’re either an accurate portrayal of the scene as you saw it or not. On the balance of probability, it’s safe to say your images are accurate – as are Tylers.

So what I’m NOT going to do is constantly bang on, and call for you to justify your work covering the event, expect you to be an all-seeing eye with the ability to look into peoples heads on the day, or to be accountable for the wider political/religious context, or invoke the name of any deity or prophet of choice (I have none) for some kind of ultimate truth…

…or subject your images to spurious ‘forensic’ nitpicking about anti-gravity headgear, get indignant when you quite sensibly, refuse to answer me…and then consider that silence as further evidence of wrongdoing!

And one of the reasons I’m not gonna do it, is because it fuels a false impression of our job, and so potentially drops other journos in the shit.

I’m soooo out of here.

‘IslamoFascists’ Karridine- ‘Your SLIP is showing’

(Just to provide a translation for those of us whose first language is not English and may not be familiar with the idiom, a slip is an undergarment somewhat like an underdress. To have it showing meant you were revealing something VERY personal about yourself.)

PS Karridine ‘speculating, imagining’ isn’t what journo’s do. They deal in facts as opposed to people that deal out ‘brainsurgerywithspoons’

There is also a journalistic code of ethics which states unequivocally that reporting is about giving even, balanced and unbiased information. Again for those where English is not their first language, this includes taking into account both sides of the story.

Eyal your persistence with this subject makes me believe that you are pursuing it with alternate agendas to FAIR reporting. Tyler Hicks has set out the facts of the original situation and you have by mere repetition attempted to create a situation where the original facts have been obscured. This in turn has invited spurious and unidentified people to add their 2 cents worth therefore adding to the complete nonsense that this thread has become.

Your actions Eyal are not ethical. The press has NO RIGHT what-so-ever to continually hound someone. Guilty, innocent or hermaprohdite we ARE NOT judge and jury. If you find Tyler Hick’s explanation so disputable why don’t you have the courage of your convictions and take the NYT to court? Thats where this agument belongs now.

If I was Tyler or Gayle I’d get an AVO out on you. Stalking is actually an offense in my country and your persistent and obsessive hounding of this thread would put you indeed in that catergory.

Get a new idea mate, or think of a career chasing Prince William.

i think ‘brain surgery with spoons’ is a perfectly apt title.i went there and to ‘miniscule mouldy gonads’.after ingesting most of the ‘opinions’ i found there i certainly feel partially lobotomized.their repeated calls for censorship of the press jives very awkwardly with their purported concerns about journalistic integrity.

Eyal: let me say this publically, THAT I KNOW PERSONALLY YOUR POLITICS (and they are irrelevant to this discussion) and i have only one thing to add.

IF YOU ARE A JOURNALIST AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS ISSUE IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY INTO IT, WHY DONT YOU WRITE TYLER A LETTER (NOT A LS PM) AND FLY TO NEW YORK AND SIT DOWN FACE-TO-FACE AND TALK TO TYLER. COMMIT YOURSELF TO REFRAINING FROM THIS EMPTY AND INCENDIARY BEHAVIOR (WITNESS: THE ADDITON OF YET ANOTHER MYOPIC BLOGGER WITHOUT ANY HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF PHOTOGRAPHY OR THE WORK OF HICKS) AND DESIST FROM CONTINUING THIS THREAD.

I will respect you, at this point, only if you (who tirelessly have continued this campaign) commit to do the investigation yourself. It is quintessentially facile of you to continue this diatribe under the drapery of “questions unanswered” in this thread, for it appears you’re really (as are the bloggers) gunning for a mea culpa from Hicks for a suppostion that may in fact not be true.

In other words, if you really belief in the truth and conviction of your mining, than stop from posting about this and buy a ticket to NY and sit down face-to-face. What is so ostentagiously arrogant about this thread is that this “investigation” has continued without the benefit of Hicks, and as I’ve argued above, given the environment of the thread and the hostility of the blind assassins, Hicks is under no obligation to participate. Your “investigatory” conundrum has only actualized itself into a Gordian knot because it was born from a logic of poor faith to begin with.

Since, continually, you deflect politics as a navigatory marker for your concerns (I dont believe this either, since you know that I am familiar with the political perspective which you allign yourself, and I think this is more born of a concern of nationalism or identity, rather than governmental politics per se), than I suggest that your “investigation” preceed, like all good investigations, to the exploration of the people involved, not through forums such as LS, not through innuendo or campaigns by bloggers who othes who have no operational understanding of what takes place insitu, but directly to the point.

As a person obsessed with questioning everything, I feel at this point that you have a moral obligation to further this away from the internet. This thread has become the another liquid example of the AnimalFarm mentality: Orwellian herds of cast assides, including the now trumpeting of the hero (from this K bloke) ascending amid the rabid fervor of the group trying to smother him/her. Tyler’s statement perfectly satisfies my questions about the incident and I aint no hero worshipper (though, as I stated at Amazon, I believe Tyler to be one of my generation’s finest and most integrity-bound photojournalists) either. If this issue is so profoundly critical to your sense of moral compass, i would suggest that you stop and try to remedy your questions through a personal meeting with Tyler, away from the sturm and drum of the net or LS or the bloggers.

The irony of your persistance is this: you seek to find a solution through a path that shall not reveal one: you seek to understand by posing oppositional questions on the web. Its akin to seeking proof of god by awaiting to hear the voice of god. You questions will never be answer on the web because of the poisonous environment that has been constructed and maybe your questions will never be answered because they are more about you and your obsessions and disbelief that about the actual events or photographs.

I, as a long-time member of this community, ask that you change your tact, downwind. Fill in with sand this swampy morass that has been created, save your money, and fly to NY to meet with Tyler (there are enough LS members who could set up that meeting) and face this issue like an adult instead of a school child hounding via the unedited open stream of the web your concerns and conflicts.

I would have more respect if your desisted from continuing this thread and attempted, off line and away from these ravenous mongers, to rememdy the ache which appears to have bloomed cancerous inside you regarding those images…..

I stand fully behind Tyler’s explanations and photographs.

bob

Am I misunderstanding something, Lisa? I posted HERE, about comments HERE, and questions HERE. If you choose to address OTHER THAN HERE, that’s your choice.

Not answering questions equates to ‘hounding’ in your mind. You assert ‘fair and balanced’, and that’s GREAT! That is ALL that I am doing here. I’m not hounding anyone. Tyler doesn’t HAVE TO respond to the 3 major questions posed in this thread. We can all report ‘fair and balanced’ descriptions of those humans engaged in liberating efforts and truth-seeking efforts AND (for the sake of fair and balanced) those who kill hundreds of women and children, by design, at Beslan, Bali, WTC.

If being a journalist means giving up American ideals of honesty, trustworthiness and courage, I’ll continue to be an American. Post here when the opportunity presents itself, and then, as now, act only as an intelligent, concerned person HERE. Having the courage to ask legitimate questions = ‘continually hounding’ the only journalist who can answer them?

Hmmmm… isn’t it possible to be HERE, Lisa? to address issues HERE, examine articles HERE and refute arguments HERE, instead of avoiding discourse HERE by invoking other works of the poster? IF (big IF) a person’s arguments, insights and experience could ALL be referred to SOME PAGE somewhere, we wouldn’t need threads like this, would we?

We could post ONE DOCUMENT on-line, and then simply Log In, post our name/screen-name/handle and EVERYONE WOULD KNOW to go back to the ONLY POSSIBLE THOUGHTS of which that person is capable. Makes sense to me…

Michael after dealing with this thread I would have to say that rather than a frontal lobotomy, I need a bottle in front of me! Cheers!

Actually Karridine seems to me more than your slip is showing.

I actually referred my ethics comments directly to Eyal, but you have answered them in the first person as if you are Eyal. I suggest then that this whole thread is then rendered fraudulent by your lack of disclosure of yourself.

Sorry I don’t deal with people who are not willing to publicly state their indentities and agendas. Otherwise I would also be perpetuating false information.

I can only assume that since you are unable or unwilling to provide your bona- fides that your 3 questions are really quite irrelevant shit stirring crap from a over-opionated and none too bright blogger who also doesn’t have much grasp on logically following an argument through to its conclusion, as noted by the many contradictions in your statements. And persona.

Where’s your Baha’i politeness now, eh?

To quote Sion

‘I’m soooo out of here’

Wow! I purposely avoided this thing and come back to find the longest thread of insane drivel ever. Tewfic got it right: QED. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Bob,

Good suggestion I need to think about it.
Clearly, this thread is not the way to sort out this issue.

Lisa,

I have just came back from swimming 2 K’m and now have a whole afternoon in which I busy so I’ll just say that: You confuse the real world with an internet forum.

I have stalked non one and everything I did was ethical. The repetition in this thread comes from one reason only: From the attacks on my right to ask the questions.

Until 5 minutes ago, I had no interest to run after Tyler Hicks (I might now after reading Bob) . I have for a long time avoided this thread when it started because I knew that asking questions will result in personal attack on me.

I was waiting to see if one just one LS member will ask Tyler a question about the photo, about the scene, about his own editorial decision of sending this photo as news photo. no one did .

On the other hand they all jumped to say how the issue is closed by “blaming the editor in the office”.

That was problematic. Unlike Bob, this did not cause me to loose respect, I decided to have the full brunt of the attacks that will surly come and dropped here a mote saying : Look guys, I have few questions – Can I ask them ?

The rest (including Gayle invitation to hear those questions and her desire to hear Tyler answers) are history. I have only once PMed Tyler and I will consider now what the best way to sort this issue. Clearly, if people who PMed me and people like Bob would try to prevent the attacks on me we would all be in better environment to sort this issue. It is possible to do if there is good will to do it.

Interesting profile, to say the least…

http://www.blogger.com/profile/18280627

“Interests: Caricature, portraiture, anatomy, dissection, guitar, blues, C&W, satire, commentary”

I agree: blues IS cool.

Peace.

B.

Bruno,

Can you comment on the idea that Gaza pullout was media manipulation ?

Maybe I can avoid this deabte…..intersted to hear what you think.

As a fellow photographer I would ask that you back off of Tyler and let it be. His reputation
has taken a hit, unfairly in my opinion, and I think we as collegues need to let him go out
and do what he does best— take photographs, and get away from this dialog, which is proving nothing,
in my opinion. Even if he made a mistake—and I don’t think he did—everyone makes mistakes from time
to time in the field. None of us are perfect.

I think you have a lot to gain by letting this go right now, and by continuing the questioning,
very little is going to be gained. Just my 2cents Eyal, obviously you are free to write what you wish here
on LS.

38,986

Number of words so far.

I don’t trust words. I trust pictures. -Gilles Peress, New York September 11 by Magnum Photographers (page 46)

bruno,you have made my day.these upholders of all that is decent all include their star signs in their biographies.how touching it is to see they consult mystic meg as part of their critical process.sorry john to add to the word count,but i would hazard a guess that we have written less words than pictures of the latast lebanese war have been published.

I don’t trust words I trust the stars.

Andy,

I have long ago backed off any attempt to get an answer from Tyler. Back in Oct 12 (I think) I left the thread in intention to let it die.

It is only Sion and Gayle continued personal attacks on me that return me to this thread (to defend against false accusations). At times I just listed the issue (to return the discussion back from the personal attacks).

It is very clear to me that nothing is gained (as far as finding the truth or ironing out issues of editorial nature) in this thread: Tyler (who started this thread) does not communicate with us via this thread (or via other means) and this is the end of the discussion here.

Bob suggestion is a good one: I will make an attempt to communicate with Tyler in a different way.

One note: Many people who attack me on this thread send me PM to apologize. Somehow I think it needs to be the other way round. In any case I think we should all put an end to the personal attacks on anyone who dare to ask a question – Those attacks did accomplish two things:

• Real open discussion was indeed prevented

• This thread is kept alive by these attacks (by Sion and Gayle)

Are we up to 40,000 yet? I am just adding a few more at this point purely for the hell of it, do you reckon the Guiness Book of Records might be interested? (Can you tell I’m not working much at the moment?) Andy, my next favorite site after this is the Horoscope Junkie. I’m a Virgo with a Leo ascendant, how ’bout you?

My star sign is Pyrex, ’cos I was a test tube baby…and probably born on the cusp of Uranus or something, knowing my luck.

I am a Taurus with Leo ascendant..; and a Chinese…PIG! hehehe.
(the above is a shameful attempt to brighten up the spirit on this thread…yet accurate.)

Libra. Can’t you tell, Lisa?

Martin Scorcese does a movie about journos having a disagreement over dinner….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twW_riHWz_4

well, we have passed the eos5d-d200 thread(I thought it would be the longest one ever) so far with Eyal’s unbelievable effort.
Eyal, you are really rude guy as far as I am concerned, no I really do believe that. You ignored all good suggestions in the begining and then came acrross with lots of same and unpleasant questions. What do you want from people to tell you? And guys, please stop the ask question like “Why don’t you …..” because Eyal only listens itself.
I didn’’t get you quite well with nicknames or anonymous profile. You are asking same stupid question as you had asked my photographic work. I did answer your first question long time ago but you still didn’t understand and then ask again similar question as you do at all time. ok my real name is eyal sufferer or survivor LOL…..are you ok now??? No, you will ask same question, I know I know sorry. Give me your phone number I will call you and explain you…may that’s a better for ya.
That’s all for your useless comment on nicknames… I really don’t need to add more about rest, if you are blind to see Gayle’s friendly effort, I wonder what would you do for me, holy crap…no imagination….
I hope one day you will learn to listen people without any prejudgement.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hey, btw, I am a LIBRA and had birthday two days ago. shout I am getting old….himmm for Chinese let me ask my chinese guys..

Wikipedia:

“Dysnomia¹ (from the Greek word Δυσνομία meaning “lawlessness”) after the daughter of the Greek goddess Eris."

lawless, indeed.

himmm…
I couldn’t find my name and profile on salmon’s page…so sad.. I am going to be jealous of you guys…what if I call them as bastard, racist,and fascist bloggers.I hope they will put my name in soon time…

---

Ok I found SALMON here
________________________________________________

As for Eyal, he could be either a extremely pinhead jews or a little guy who doesn’t even know what left is.
________________________________________________________________________________
Well, I am not going to hell that I don’t believe in….

I don’t consider myself a “conspiratoralist” but shadows of Karl Rove certainly seem to be lurking around this thread.

you might be right…

Ocean,

In this thread I think Lisa set the right bar for entry when she wrote:

“Sorry I don’t deal with people who are not willing to publicly state their identities and agendas”

So “Ocean” (who ever you are) – you can continue in the futile attempt to destroy my creditability in this thread but no traction my dear. You are hiding behind an internet nick name I don’t.

If you want to debate politics with me (yes, I am left-wing and not afraid to tell it to all the right wing bloggers) I’ll gladly discuss politics with you on a different thread. I’ll be happy to continue the discussion I had on politics with Bruno or open a new discussion with you: Put my left wing beliefs to any test you want but not in this thread this thread is not about politics. try somewhere else.

In this thread the issue is photography and editorial decision and it is intended to be a discussion among photographers who are willing to use they real identity.

And Bob: I ll gladly discuss politics with you as well. I think you are really confuse about me. But such discussion will not be on this thread.

Best,
Eyal

PS To the poster who call him/her self “ocean”: what do you mean by calling me : “a extremely pinhead jews” ?
If it is “jews” with a “S” there should not be an “A”. If there should be an “A” it actually should be “An” and I am actually a Buddhist (and gladly take any test you desire to prove by belief system but again not on this thread)