.
  Lightstalkers
* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

Staged Shots from Lebanon? Please comment...

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html

This link was provided in another post but I thought it deserved a thread of its own. It shows an unidentified man apparently staging for the cameras a photo which essentially uses dead children as props……first of all I am appauled by the behaviour on both sides of this conflict—my father was Jewish and I find the actions of the Israeli/USA especially hard to stomach. But having said that, this kind of staged events, if it has happened, is not acceptable and it calls into account many of the pictures I have already seen from Lebanon. Can we assume that the photographers know this is going on? What do you think of this?
The photos looked like pretty compelling evidence to me. The same man is in every situation, right upfront…..and the situations are all completely different.

by [a former member] at 2006-08-07 23:09:18 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) new orleans , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

I’ve been wondering too – Reuters and AP certainly haven’t be too vehement in denying or accepting anything. They’ve been rather silent, and now with the Adnan Hajj case it looks like the good work of photographers is coming under assault from those weirdo blog folks, and yet nobody out there has offered any comments as to what is happening. As for photographers, we all know the realities of what’s happening when you’re in the field and are the only ones who can comment.

I don’t know if some of these pics are staged or not, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. Propaganda is nothing new, I’m a little concerned over the silence from fellow photographers. Granted, I’m sure the last thing they want to do is justify their actions to some crazy blog, but what about the editors or agency heads or anybody representing the work of the photographer’s?

It also seems that with over saturation of our brains from words and pictures, that the rush to be the first is jeopardizing factual and well reported journalism. Being on a constant and ever demanding deadline has to create stress and tension in trying to get something, anything, and breaking news has a mentality to follow the leader, to go where everyone else lest you don’t get the picture, or are second to hit the wire. It seems with more coverage comes less standards, we aree in a frantic race to beat each other out, regardless of what we’re actually taking a picture of.

However, I’m skeptical of the conspiracy theorist bloggers, who just seem completely out of whack, and are almost McCarthy-ite in their witch hunting of so-called media bias. Trutrh gets distorted, heresy, innuendo, speculation and gossip are what carry the stories, slanted with racist taunting from their Neanderthal readership, slinging mud at each other is a race and battle to point out that the OTHER side is evil. Reading some of these stupid blogs made me sick – no wonder I never read them, absolutely mind-numbing, reckless, stupid trashing of wehatever is the opposite of what they believe. Which is why somebody who represents the photographers being slashed about should make a stand and either own up to the fact that Hezbollah tells us where to go or the Israeli’s or whomever, and that well, you know, a missle was flying by my head and i didn’t have time to ask myself if the green helmeted guy was here yesterday or not.

But what about embedding, is this not the same instance in trying to control what is seen and heard through the media distilled to those larger masses, namely us, the reader? And really, where could you roam around freely during a war and expect to get good coverage and be ablle to tell the story you thought was the story, and not someone else’s agenda? Maybe Vietnam.

Anyways, it’s almost like Princess Di all over again! Our reputations are being soiled! It almost feels dirty to say “I’m a Photojournalist”, I’m worried some crazed blogger may run me down on his scooter or something.

I pulled this off of the Don McCullin story that someone else posted on LS. It’s a fascinating read, "…. So when I operate alone I try to approach them with dignity. But there is no way of being dignified with dozens of newsmen around, pushing and shoving and punching each other over one injured soldier, shouting to another : “you spoilt my picture”, while almost depriving the man from the oxygen around him. I look at them and think : “Who are these people ?” At night, in Beirut, they used to meet at the bar, talking about day-rates. Or someone would say to another one : “If you get the cover, you buy us champagne”……."

Here’s a link to the story: http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/06-mccullin-en_en.htm

by [former member] | 07 Aug 2006 23:08 | Toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
Andy said “Can we assume the photographers know this is going on?”

I’ve seen some interesting articles about how Israel and Lebanon are trying to use and manipulate journalists during this conflict. Der Spiegel has a couple of articles on the two sides’ relationship with the media; seems like a difficult place to really get at the story. News on a Platter for Israel, and the Letting the Images Speak for Themselves for Lebanon. I don’t like the title of that last one. On both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border, it seems that there are some journalists who, probably for safety, are complicit in state-sponsored and lazy journalism. Though I know there are people over there such as Bruno Stevens here on lightstalkers who are doing some great coverage over there. Hopefully the Der Spiegel pieces just describe a few bad eggs. But, as CJR reports and we all know, journalists are fast becoming targets and tools of war Guess you’ve gotta be certain you’re employing the fixer and it’s not the fixer employing you.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen photojournalism in the news qua news as much as now, though I’m pretty new to the whole game.

by M. Scott Brauer | 08 Aug 2006 02:08 (ed. Aug 8 2006) | Chicagoland, United States | | Report spam→
Let’s not forget all the good photojournalists out there doing a great job.

There’s a huge problem it seems and lots of journalists seem to be manipulated and used in this horrific conflict. But sadly that’s not new, thinking of Iraq, Afghanistan, …
But people like Stephanie Sinclair, Bruno Stevens, Tyler Hicks, Paul Taggert, Jason P. Howe, Tanya Habjouqa, … are doing a great job over there and are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

by Wendy Marijnissen | 08 Aug 2006 07:08 | Antwerp, Belgium | | Report spam→
I’ve been saying this since I came across that blog. If the time stamp is wrong in the picture then you don’t get a consisten time line in the sequence of photos. All the photographers most probably arrive there at the same time. Due to the nature of the area, there might not be enough people to get the injured out of the building. In order to get a different picture the photographers would have positioned themselves as they saw fit. from the destruction seen in the photos, the ambulance/truck certainly wasn’t parked on the curb. Under pressure to get the pictures out – it was a huge story amidst the destruction – I reckon they turned and filed asap. If this guy had a hundred feet or so to travel with a dead body it’s entirely reasonable for him to change the position of the body, as his arms tired. If these guys hammed it up for the cameras a little, weren’t they entitled? Their kids had just been blown to bits. The guy on euroreferendum is critisizing the picture like it was an attempt at winning an Oscar. Similiar shots with this man with another child, can be explained, I mean, wouldn’t you go back to retrieve a second body. Because of his attire,, maybe he was Hizbolla, he might have been the most photogenic subject. The photographers there see the carnage, they are moved by it, and they wan t to illustrate it as best they can. That they went for the same guy is no suprise to me. Their Ed’s would have had their asses if only one guy had got that shot while the rest were getting something else. As far as I’m concerned, there is no argument, with these pics untill somebody shows me some conclusive proof. I was in a roit situation a few months ago, 400 rioters, 30 cops and 5 photographers, we all doubled up in our coverage of the riot.

by Sean Dwyer | 08 Aug 2006 08:08 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
I’m very sure that nobody is setting up shots. All the major events in question, I was there, and I saw first hand how the reality of each situation unfolded. Not a single photographer intruded or created an event.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 10:08 (ed. Apr 22 2008) | Tyre, Lebanon | | Report spam→
Timothy I like your pictures and you are doing a great job. The article is not accusing the photographers of staging an event or intruding, but in Qana the suggestion is that Hezbollah agents might have created a bit of a “presser” for the cameras, and that that the pictures and captions were a bit missleading.

Perhaps you can clear it all up if you were in Qana…

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 12:08 | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
How does the time stamp work? Is it only from within the camera — which could be off or is the stamp seen on the website a stamp from when it was filed, when it was posted etc…. not when it was shot?

by Christopher Wise | 08 Aug 2006 13:08 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
That’s a good point. If the EU Referendum site is going on when the pics were filed, then that has nothing to do with when the pics were actually taken. From looking at the photos shown on that website, I can see nothing wrong, there were a number of photographers taking pictures from different angles…so what? The blog suggests that a pocket radio worn by the rescuer suddenly disapears in some of the pics, but it doesn’t, you can still see the tip of the antenna behind the dead child. Also if the blog IS referring to the time when the images were put on the wire, then this whole conspiracy theory falls flat on its face. Tim, if you have time, could you expand on your earlier post to sort this out?

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 14:08 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
When I was in Qana, I was inside the building after it was hit and saw rescuers digging out bodies with their bare hands. First they would find a hand, a foot, then carve away the dirt until the body was free from the rubble. The rescuers had no time to display the bodies to the press. Twice I remember, a rescuer raised a dead child to a photographer, and in anger and distress, shouted something in Arabic which I didn’t understand. But his message was clear, that he was very angry and vented his anger to the media (the world). They carried the bodies to stretchers, covered them with blankets if they had them, then brought them to waiting ambulances at the bottom of the hill. Photographers had plenty of time to take pictures along the way, from the building to waiting ambulance was a good 4 minute walk. On the yahoo.com newswire, the time associated with photos is not a time stamp from the camera, it’s when desk photo editors put them on the wire, usually soon after the photographers file their images.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 14:08 | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
I really feel for the gentleman who has been fired by Reuters. He’s at the coal face and cooler heads are supposed to be editing what he’s sending. To be honest, it looks to me like the GV of Beruit which has been altered was a copy he was tooling around with and sent inadvertently. My be he overwrot the original by mistake and didn’t realise what had happened during FTP. He’s only one link in the chain.

The time stamp can be created in the camera and altered by, Photomechanic or an of the usual photo viewers. So plenty of room for error there. I know plenty of snappers who have the time wrong on their cameras so they aren’t caught out by their newspapers.

by Sean Dwyer | 08 Aug 2006 15:08 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Hear, hear, Wendy. There’s some great work being done over there right now. And Timothy, thanks for posting a link to your shots. More intriguing than most of the photos I’ve seen from the conflict. Like I said before, there might be a few bad eggs around, but the vast majority of the work being done is good and important.

by M. Scott Brauer | 08 Aug 2006 15:08 | Chicagoland, United States | | Report spam→
Conflict usually has two sides, one use images to prove their effectiveness, the other to prove their oppression.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 15:08 | Austin, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
Conflict also has a third side. The side of unbiased photographers who prove the truth.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 15:08 | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
Thanks Tim, so EU Referendum’s conspiracy theory bites the dust. Andy, I don’t know how you can say the photos are ‘compelling evidence’ of some sort of staging of the event. There were lots of photographers taking pictures of the same person over a long period of time…that’s it, nothing more.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 16:08 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Andrew I started the thread to get a discussion, and with an open mind. I still have one. In the US every newspaper photographer must get a name, title, and so on, its required that the photographers act as reporters. This is the case with AP, Reuters, Getty, etc. Caption and name are required. That information should accompany the picture— if it possibly can. Since this man was photographer over a long period of time, and by so many, it should have been easy to get his name and title if any, and provide a bit of a caption as to what was happening. Its not enough just to take pictures, context is everything, and the more information the better. As for unbiased photographers who prove the truth I am all for that but I will settle for good solid and basic reporting, providing the most information possible so that the public can decide for themselves. Stay safe and keep taking pictures.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 17:08 | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Mr. Fadek, I totally agree with the third side. Andy I could not agree more, context is everything.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 17:08 (ed. Aug 8 2006) | Austin, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
It would seem that there is a big difference between staging a photo (where the photographer dictates the action like a movie a director) and photographing someone who is “acting” or otherwise taking advantage of the fact that he is being photographed by the international press.

Every shot of a Palentinian or Pakistani protestor burning an American flag, for example, would qualify as the latter. Is that image representative of Palestinian or Pakistani sentiment? Perhaps, but only a portion of it. Is it what Americans would like to believe about those folks, all dangerous wild-eyed men bent on jihad? You get my drift . . .

What about all the “hero” shots of police and firemen after 9/11? Were those “staged”? Perhaps not, but they were published to reinforce a set of ideas deemed helpful or restorative to the American psyche. Is it the photographer’s fault? No, of course not.

In the case of photos in the link at the top of this page, it’s weird that there’s one guy doing all the rescuing and posing. But it’s up to the editors to decide whether or not these images represent some journalistically verfiable truth. Maybe they don’t, but it is hardly the photographer’s fault.

Add this to the fact that the image of a rescuer holding up a dead child is just about as big a cliche as they come. The media can certainly do better than cheap emotionalism.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 18:08 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
“pictures and captions were a bit missleading. "

How are the pictures misleading? The child is dead and the subject was showing this to the cameras—that’s how any intelligent reader would view these images. The man in the image has every right to show this dead child to the world—this happens all the time in terrible situations.

What this is all about, is an attempt by right wing blogs to muddy the waters and somehow claim, like Michele Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have, that Qana and all the other civilians deaths in Lebanon are staged. Sadly, given the general ignorance of my fellow Americans, they will no doubt succeed. 50% still think Saddam had WMDs.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 18:08 | Seattle, United States | | Report spam→
“Every shot of a Palentinian or Pakistani protestor burning an American flag, for example, would qualify as the latter.”

Or every image of the President of the United States ever taken, including all those ‘candid b/w behind the scenes’ images we see in Time and Newsweek. Every one is ‘staged’ in an attempt to put out a slanted view of the president. But you don’t see people filling up blogs with accusations that it’s all fake.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 18:08 (ed. Aug 8 2006) | Seattle, United States | | Report spam→
I have never photographed war and I am just starting out, but these are my two cents:

If there are photographers in places like that and if people are aware that they are being photographed, there is always a certain amount of influence on the scene. The degree to which they influence the scene varies. Sometimes it is only that due to the photographers physical presence the way of movement of the people in that place changes. In most cases this doesn’t change the actual happenings. But sometimes people act for the camera (the rescue worker holding up the baby). In most cases, I wouldn’t even call that staged. It is more like a natural interaction between photographer and the ones they photograph. If it is clear on the photo that people act in a certain way because of the presence of the media, I don’t see a big problem (although I think those photos should be avoided), because viewers can judge for themselves. It becomes a problem if you don’t see it on the photo and viewers are misled.

In the case of the photos of dead children in Qana or Beirut, the real question is why do the IDF fire rockets on civilians? They are well aware that it is bad PR for them – and I am sure they would have tried to avoid it. But while Israel has a big PR apparatus and is providing ready made stories for the media, the Hezbollah – which has its positions in residential areas – simply has to wait for the IDF to attack and show the media civilian casualties. The real staging happens before the rescue worker shows the dead children to photographers. It happens when the Hezbollah builds Kindergarten right next to their positions, it happens when PR agencies fly to Kuwait just before the American troops arive to distribute small American flags…. and there are thousands of examples.

Good photojournalism (and journalism in general) reveals the “real” stories behind all this. But this is getting harder and harder. In Der Spiegel there was an article about the about the growing PR industry. Already today a lot of the articles you read in newspapers were written by PR people and not journalists. With the economic difficulties that many magazines and newspapers face nowadays this will increase.

Too many thoughts for one post…..

by Daniel Etter | 08 Aug 2006 18:08 | Krakow, Poland | | Report spam→
Stuart, you hot the proverbial nail fairly and squarely.
what was the name of the chap who ‘documented’ the American civil was? Sullivan? Didn’t he move some cannon balls here and there? And Edward S. Curtis
and his’documentation’ of American Indians from different tribes who happened to be wearing some of the same jewellery/headwear/feathers? Doisenaus “Kiss”
(and the others – the couples looking at the nude painting through the window, for example), Capas’ dying Spainish civil-war fighter, and W. Eugene Smiths’ `
‘Gaurdia’ – see the cropping and the contact sheets. Some were pure fakes, some, representations of events so large they could not be captured in a
single image.
How can a single image convey all the information of an event? It cannot. And then the image becomes a metaphor for all that is happening. That napalmed
girl was a metaphor for all the napalmed victims in Vietnam.
A valid metaphor.
Expression of death and grief is a cutural issue as well; why no images of dead Isrealis being carried through the streets? Too insensitive for Western eyes?
Too hard for the western heart where bodies are turned to ashes in sterile crematoriums, where death ends with the last breathe and not with the mourning
relatives?
And is it propoganda? Probably. Though I would guess the photographers were just doing their jobs – making photographs – and the editors were doing their
jobs – selling ideas and selling copies. And the ‘aid workers’ were just doing their jobs – cleaning up the corpses.
There’s no faking the last breath.

by Simon Anstey | 08 Aug 2006 19:08 | Copenhagen, Denmark | | Report spam→
could not be set up let’s be realistic here…it was a massacre. there were bodies dead laying in ambulances uncoverred…they were there for hours.
shocked or not shcoked…what is a rescue worker meant to carry a look of schok on their face then entirity of such a rescue?
does anyone know how long it lasted?
this is a sad and what i find to be untrue hypothesis. i believe that these bloggers have nothing better to do with their time
it’s war! it cannot get to be much more horrifying than it already is in reality…i hope it will be exagerated…maybe then
someone somehwere in the world will do something about this disaster.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 19:08 | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
You can caught a liar first than a thief.

by [former member] | 08 Aug 2006 19:08 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
This post by LS Bryan Denton now confirms some of the questions about the staging of photos. While I personally have come to the conclusion that all of this is secondary to the horror of this war, the idea that this is going on in Lebanon is unsavory and undercuts the work of all photographers, including those who I am certain find this distasteful and do not want to participate in it. I am glad that someome had the courage to come foward and speak openly about this— and its understandable why anyone still in the field wouldn’t. Here is the post:

i have been working in lebanon since all this started, and seeing the behavior of many of the lebanese wire service photographers has been a bit unsettling. while hajj has garnered a lot of attention for his doctoring of images digitally, whether guilty or not, i have been witness to the daily practice of directed shots, one case where a group of wire photogs were coreographing the unearthing of bodies, directing emergency workers here and there, asking them to position bodies just so, even remove bodies that have already been put in graves so that they can photograph them in peoples arms. these photographers have come away with powerful shots, that required no manipulation digitally, but instead, manipulation on a human level, and this itself is a bigger ethical problem.

whatever the case is—lack of training, a personal drive as a photographer to show what is happening to your country in as powerful a way as possible, or all out competitiveness, i think that the onus is on the wire services themselves, because they act as the employer/filter of their photogs work. standards should be in place or else the rest of us end up paying the price. and i’m not against the idea of local wire photographers, but after seeing it over and over for the past month, i think it is something that is worth addressing. while i walk away from a situation like that, one wire shooter sets up a situation, and the rest of them follow…….

by Bryan Denton Fri Aug 11 07:36:08 UTC 2006 | Beirut, Lebanon

by [former member] | 11 Aug 2006 09:08 (ed. Aug 11 2006) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Raises questions indeed.
I know Bryan personally, so know that what he’s telling will be truthful and from experiences there.
Hate the fact that now the integrety of some very good journalists and photographers is on the line, because there’s certain individuals out there staging shots, manipulating,… to get the pictures they like.
And while we don’t want to participate in practices like this, find it awful and distastefull, it still puts a bad cast on the whole community.

by Wendy Marijnissen | 11 Aug 2006 10:08 | Antwerp, Belgium | | Report spam→
Now I’m angry. I want to put a stop to these incendiary rumors right now. I would like Bryan to specify where and when this alleged choreography had occurred, instead of making broad, generalized statements which damages the reputation of all photographers in general and defames Lebanese photographers in particular. My personal experience of photographing shoulder to shoulder to many Lebanese photographers has taught me that some can be aggressive and competitive in making pictures, and that’s it. I have no problem with a little pushing and shoving. They are honest and also are very brave, risking their lives by working in a war zone. For the last 3 weeks, I have photographed news events in Beirut, Saidon, Tyre, Qana, Bent Jbail, Rmaich, Tibnin, and Nabatye. Not once did I see any photographers direct any events. Any and all armchair quarterbacks sitting in the comfort of their cozy homes can do the profession a favor and stop the speculation and rumor building on this forum.

by [former member] | 11 Aug 2006 11:08 (ed. Aug 11 2006) | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
“the behavior of many of the lebanese wire service photographers has been a bit unsettling…i have been witness to the daily practice of directed shots, one case where a group of wire photogs were coreographing the unearthing of bodies, directing emergency workers here and there, asking them to position bodies just so, even remove bodies that have already been put in graves so that they can photograph them in peoples arms…after seeing it over and over for the past month, i think it is something that is worth addressing”

This is an astounding allegation. It’s also an allegation that will undoubtedly be picked up by the blogs and add a huge amount of fuel to the anti-media propaganda war. I’m not disputing your claims – you were there and I wasn’t – but did you document their actions? If not, then why not? Did you challenge them? It’s not exactly a routine occurrence, even in conflict areas to see photographers disinterring bodies in order to stage photo opportunities. It feels irresponsible to make a claim as incendiary as this without providing a great deal more substance.

by Andrew Moore | 11 Aug 2006 12:08 | Hong Kong, Afghanistan | | Report spam→
oooooooooFFFFF!!!!!….im with Tim and Andrew: Bryan’s allogations are staggering (and frankly, ring of a certain amount of polemnical choreography themselves, however, if he witnessed these events, I trust that he will come forth and further elucidate his experience)….

If true, those comments (and they are blanket statements) should be backed-up and more thoroughly documented. I also think, in truth, LightStalkers, is not
the forum for this kind of blind siding or willy/nilly statements. If his experience (and it is only his) is valid, it is a serious breach (though, who is surprised, for in war all involved are weened by the madness of destruction and suffering and sorrow, that we are often rendered incapable of insight or judgement or trigger-twink’d truth…) Hower, I agree with Tim that it is IRRESPONSIBLE to (in country or not) to mark such damning accusations, particularly in such a forceful and all-encompassing
categorization as “behavior of many of the lebanese wire service photographers…” AS A quick dispatch….these kinds of accusations should thoroughly (and never in such a general swatch) be documented, described and made accountable….

there is much more to write about later, as im off to teach, but, the spin upon which this
thread and the escalation of the accusations (strike/counter-strike) gross increasingly ignominous and ferral with time and frustration. With witnessing comes responsibility, and anger, indeed,
needs to be the focusing channel through which behavior needs to be carved. I expect and hope that a more thorough accounting (on all sides) be forthcoming and that
all of this be better and more accurately conducted. The madness of this war as diseased all of our sensibilities, all around. I have been “sitting comfortably in my armchair” uneasily, and
I would like to know also, but I also understand that i cannot know and things are murky than all this…Bryan, I hope and trust, that you will more specifically
document what you have accused an entire group of people of. Moreover, this sluggish “staging/choreographing” is also frankly a slippy call, as photographers we are also
part of the choreography and if you do not understand than, i am not of the reason for your role as a photographer. I trust (though doubt) that all of this will
see clarity eventually, but as with all wars, smoke billows and burns our collective eyes and memories forever and longer than the actual truth of what had occurred to begin with……
awaiting explanations….

by [former member] | 11 Aug 2006 12:08 (ed. Aug 11 2006) | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
Qana video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc&eurl=

by Eyal Dor Ofer | 11 Aug 2006 12:08 | Israel, Israel | | Report spam→
“Incendiary rumors”, “nobody is setting up the shots” – despite the reality of civiian deaths, there is, I am afraid, a media war coinciding with the military war. Why is it so difficult to accept that this is no simple black and white situation, and that Hizbollah, their Iranian backers, and jihadist accomplices are waging a war against Israel and the US (the West), that goes beyond issues of nationalism? Shocking to think that people want to just rule out deception by jihadists because they hold the moral high ground against Israel and the US.

by Damon Lee Perry | 11 Aug 2006 13:08 | Matara, Sri Lanka | | Report spam→
Who’s ruling out deception? People are merely asking for some substance to back the claims.

by Andrew Moore | 11 Aug 2006 13:08 | Hong Kong, Afghanistan | | Report spam→
Seems many don’t wish to even entertain the thought that Hizbollah and their jihadi friends would dare commit fraud / media manipulation. What kind of ‘substance’ will suffice to convince people that just see Israel and the US as to blame? Denton (quoted above) is just one source. Its well documented outside the mainstream apologist media, for example at http://counterterrorismblog.org/.

by Damon Lee Perry | 11 Aug 2006 13:08 | Matara, Sri Lanka | | Report spam→
now we’re getting things like this…

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

<sigh>

by [former member] | 11 Aug 2006 13:08 | lausanne, Switzerland | | Report spam→
Wow..things are getting ridiculous. Now Slate prints Why you can’t trust news photography I haven’t had access to any of the major newspapers recently; have there been any letters to the editor by, say, the head of the NPPA to bolster credibility of the good work done by photojournalists in this conflict. Seems like this is exactly what the NPPA is for, advocating on behalf of photojournalists and their work. How can we best respond to the outrageous line of reasoning in the above article (that because Kodachrome’s colors differ from Fuji’s, we can’t trust news photographs, for instance)? Letters to Slate and other widely-read publications? Pulling our photos from organizations that apparently don’t trust the photographs we submit? Seems like something needs to be done to protect our craft. I wonder why photography is on the receiving end of such a firestorm; I don’t remember anyone calling for the end of news writing after Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass.

by M. Scott Brauer | 11 Aug 2006 14:08 | Chicagoland, United States | | Report spam→
Much of the debate about “staging” in Qana can be deflated a good deal by an appreciation of cultural differences. Among many Middle Eastern Muslims the display of the dead is very much a ritual part of dealing with death. Palestinian funeral parades, with or without media present, are a demonstration of this. While the display of the dead may appear callous and disrespectful to many western eyes, it is likely interpreted as a form of honor among those who actually display the dead – an attempt to give meaning to something senseless.


Photographing the display is not necessarily deceiptful, but rather an honest record of the extraordinary ways people react in these terrible circumstances. And a rescue worker displaying a body does not a Media Mogul the rescue worker make. He/She is still a rescue worker. Though the caption for pictures from that portion of the event should read “Rescue workers display the body of…” rather than “Rescue workers remove the body of…”


Furthermore, the sporadic display of bodies at a scene like that shouldn’t allow us to dismiss the event as merely a salvo in the “media war” being waged by “Hizbollah and their jihadi friends” in the “mainstream apologist media.” And none of this changes the essential, and most important fact that a group of photographers put themselves at great risk to show the result of an Israeli air strike on an apartment building that left 28 people – among them 16 children – dead.


I took a gut wrenching tour of LGF and a couple of other blogs that are super-hyping the “staging” issue to an audience of hundreds of thousands in what is a transparent and in some cases explicit attempt to deny the simple fact that an Israeli airstrike killed 16 children in Qana. That assault on the essential truth is a far more reprehensible act of overt media warfare (if there is such a thing) than any angry display of a dead body in the immediate aftermath of an airstrike. Reminds me of those who deny the Holocaust for political purposes.

by Thorne Anderson | 11 Aug 2006 15:08 (ed. Aug 11 2006) | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Damon Lee Perry says: " Seems many don’t wish to even entertain the thought that Hizbollah and their jihadi friends would dare commit fraud / media manipulation."

Of course they would attempt to have us see things their way. But this goes for all parties. There are many ways of manipulating the truth. Anyone who has worked in areas controlled by IDF know how they put restrictions on reporting, and enforce it to the point of shooting at journalists. How’s that for faking the news, supressing the truth, fraud / media manipulation?

http://www.cpj.org/news/2006/mideast/israel06apr06na.html

or try a google search for these keywords for some perspective: israeli soldier shot photographer

by [former member] | 11 Aug 2006 15:08 | Oslo, Norway | | Report spam→
hi all,

sorry to have not been specific. just to make this clear. i was not in qana and am not referring to the massacre that took place there. i have been covering beirut, and it was at numerous protest, evacuations as well as the israeli strikes in chiyeh, which unfortunately did not get that much coverage in the media—where i saw this behavior occur. i have also heard from friends of mine in lebanon, respected photographers, that this was not an isolated incident.

unfortunately in each of these cases, it was the lebanese wire photographers that started these situations. that said, i am not trying to make generalizations. i know that there are a number of dedicated and brilliant lebanese photographers here who are putting themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to document what is happening here in their country, and in hindsight, i realize it was irresponsible for me to post the previous statement because it was not specific enough. however, this has been something i’ve noticed happening here, more than any other place i’ve worked previously.

i agree that there is a lot of pressure, particularly on stringers (i myself am a freelancer), due to cost cutting and how the big image banks pay their non-staff photographers, and while unfortunate events like qana and chiyeh require the utmost responsiblity, seeing it happen for things like protests and evacuations is equally as disturbing and doesn’t bode well.

again, i am terribly sorry for rattling the saber so hard….re-reading my words I too should have been a bit more responsible.

by [former member] | 11 Aug 2006 16:08 | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
also, regarding bob’s clarification of choreography, i am aware that people will often times show you what they feel you should document. this is a reality that we become a part of. however, what i am talking about, specifically at the site of the bombing in chiyeh the day after, is the repeated attempt, with a few successes at directing the team of relief workers who were unearthing bodies from the rubble. i also have second hand from ghaziye yesterday, that’s outside saida, that the funeral there was heavily influenced by the photographers direction, to the point where the photographer i’ve been working with, walked away and left all together.

by [former member] | 11 Aug 2006 16:08 | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
Brian, did you take any pics of staged scenes?

by Sean Dwyer | 11 Aug 2006 19:08 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
“i have been covering beirut, and it was at numerous protest, evacuations as well as the israeli strikes in chiyeh, which unfortunately did not get that much coverage in the media—where i saw this behavior occur. i have also heard from friends of mine in lebanon, respected photographers, that this was not an isolated incident.”

Sorry to push you on this Bryan, but did you or your friends either document these actions or challenge the protagonists?

“i am terribly sorry for rattling the saber so hard….re-reading my words I too should have been a bit more responsible.”

If your description of photographers disinterring bodies from graves and placing them in the arms of people to stage images is accurate then you have no need to apologize, but I think you do have an obligation to provide more substance. Maybe the other “respected photographers” can put their names to these allegations.

by Andrew Moore | 12 Aug 2006 03:08 | Hong Kong, Afghanistan | | Report spam→
Staging photographs is something I observed in few occasions on my daily work.I think its generally bad tendency no matter in which situation:peace or war.If any person do “photojournalism” -shots should not be staged unless its clearly a portrait or people in situations / cases described above by Thorne Anderson.

I photographed numerous demonstrations-and usually it was wire photographers who would stage pictures according to the recipe for “best selling shot”:picture a local man preferably wearing some traditional hat, plus they ask him to move or wave flag he is carrying into the frame, if some children were around photographers asked them to move into the frame and wave the flags.Many times I had walked out from such scene -pissed / disgusted-because other photographers started to staging scene which was there happening naturally-they explored it to the point of killing it.Moreover people start “cooperating” with photographer and acting their roles.Those photographer one day might get to photograph world news , conflicts and wars-they probably will carry on with that behaving learned from daily work.

I think its luck of training with many local photojournalist and luck of control from editors (especially )in wire agencies where deadlines are deadly-today anybody can take pictures so many do. For local photographer working for wire is often only decent money they can make-local papers simply pay something close to “nothing” for picture.
So temptation to stage shots is high.

It might sound like some wired KGB practice but its just suggestion: if we see things like this happen we should document it-so discussions like that will go beyond words-

I see that “staging tendency” as something happening around us and worth /or even necessary to document -as a photojournalist.(thou I never did so far ) I mean here not to spy on every move other photographers do while shooting local kindergarden or so but keep eye on coverage in places where major human tragedies occurs.

I never asked other photographer to stop staging photos ,maybe it could be good thing to do in our daily work -instead of walking away pissed.
Sometimes I think that symply nobody ever told photographer ”you just do not do that!”

by Justyna Mielnikiewicz | 12 Aug 2006 09:08 | tbilisi, Georgia | | Report spam→
Here you can see how fotos and clips were staged in Qana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc

by Guggi Heinz | 12 Aug 2006 13:08 | Salzburg, Austria | | Report spam→
all destroys me……………….words pile upon pile, like scattered rubble…..the video from Guggi opens wide the wound which is our miserable lives…born, im afraid, by the misery that we continue to inflict upon one another….i am glad that Bryan has described and elucidated his comments (as I thought he would as an honorable photographer and person) and then, in truth, as this post continues to pile up, ash upon rubbled ash, it becomes to become senseless….in the midst of that child being taken out of the ambulance, re-photographed/video, i felt not anger or rage, but profound disorientation and loss….sadness for that which we have become, all of us, the good and the bad, the damning and the damnable….in the morass of bodies and dying children and flag-coughed lives, it becomes an impossibility to speak of the just, we fucking should, as photographers, know this by now; we should know that we are a calmaitous species and are set upon each other like fang-broken hunger-mad wolves…we escalate into oblivious death, we escalate into a wilding we have no longer recognized as forlorn, we escalate ourselves into our denutered exhalted annhilations, breath-by-pebble-breath…..atrocity abound, and at this point, the waving of banner of just simply refuses to underscore what is so clear, once again, we are ignoble and the old way we can hope to challenge this ignominous wave of banter (our flag waving, our carving up of selves and gods and borders and lines), is to once and for all understand that the cutting away of the disease may not rid us of our feverish selves….im sick of how we behave….as a father, a cannot understand the inflicting of grief, the causality of grief to children and then, because i cannot fathom it, there, a prick of light, may be that: that that grief which strickens enables us to behave in the most horrendous manner…again, waving flags, ideology, language, gods, armies, righteousness, damnation, silly, idiotic, fucking bastards we have become on all sides…..the death of a child is the death of us all, how we continue to refuse to understand in our wilding, frightened grief of loss……no more from me about this, lebanese child, israeli child, palistian child, afghani child, iraqi child, spanish child, pakistani child, indian child, egyptian child, russian child, kazak child, chetnian child, neworleans child, european child, asian child, s.american child, grief, grief, grief, what, in our feverish madness, have we excavated but more periodesic amber-strewn rivers of grief………we are dead to ourselves, we have become dead to our children, ….scatter, scattered, scattering, how wide the grief, we are deaf……..ghosts we have become, our poor children, forigve us……….gone….

by [former member] | 12 Aug 2006 14:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
I have seen the photographs of Adhan Hajj, and until the most recent report of full blown photoshop I liked them, it’s a shame that he choose this path, but what has the outside world done to offer hope. Honestly if any country, be it Israel or The United States was destroying my country,my people, my home, my future – I would do the same. Photography is a weapon, and if it’s all I can do to save my people, then I would do it. Israel is no different than Saudia Arabia or Egypt when it comes to oppressing people, the only way out of this is to have an frank dialogue with your neighbors, or at best treat them with some respect. Below, I have included an essay which was published in both Israel and Iowa, it’s a little long much like the nature of this war. As of this posting, the United States is fitting 5,000 lb. lazer guided missiles for Israels F16, which is an American plane, follow the money, follow the rage.

Letter to the Editor / The Never Ending War

As well as taking photographs, I collect them; photography has been a life long passion. Some of you may know my photo credit for the photographs I took on September the 11th and the months that followed. Very few people have seen my personal collection of photographs, only a few are on the wall. Photography Schools and Schools for the Visual Arts don’t teach classes on how to read a photograph, even though we are a visual society, constantly stimulated by movie stars, pornography and war, and at times they appear together in a film. Right now I’m looking at two different images, one: a Black & White photograph of a bombed building, the building appears to have seven floors, however it’s hard to tell due to the amount of damage, the right façade is ruined. This is a hotel, The King David Hotel where in June of 1946 a little known terrorist by the name of Menachem Begin would begin his career. Over ninety people would die in that June day; many had families, or at least Mothers. Not too different than the average mortality rate in Iraq today, the photographs are now digital instead of film so that we can see these images faster, makes you wonder about the speed of our priorities. Menachem Begin would later become Prime Minister; it seems in the Middle East, being a terrorist is a prerequisite for being Prime Minister; you need look only to Israel, Iraq, Iran or Palestine for role models. But, a photograph does not give you the why or how, it’s just an image followed by text, credits and footnotes – you must do the rest. Photography is more democratic than the democracy it promotes or illustrates. As for the second photograph, one that appeared on the The New York Times; July the 14th, 2006 by Adnan Hajj – it looks like the 4th of July in New York Harbor, bright sensuous colors which made me buy the paper, lights flickering in the background, very beautiful and sensual, only it’s not New York, it’s Lebanon and the fireworks are laser guided missiles. It will be several months until families can recover their loved ones, if at that point they can recognize them, photography can be very abstract – and also an ultimate truth. Truth, is a funny thing, it is a perception within a photograph, within someone’s dearest memory of love and loss.

War is costly, much like acclaimed photographs of it, but where do these Governments get this money to help produce a photograph? At this point you might wonder why photography is a passion of mine, it is fraught with intrigue and disillusionment instead of enlightment, it’s main purpose. We Americans supply the cash, right now as I type this, an aid package of laser-guided bombs is going to Israel and another package of Band-Aids is going to Lebanon, they are going to need them. The journalist Lou Dobbs wrote earlier this week that The United States gives 2.5 billion a year to the Israel Government ( which I think is a little low, a lot more) and to Lebanon we give 40 million, but no laser guided bombs. All for a photograph that ends up on a newspaper, that your cat uses, or for an exhibit at your local museum. This is not a FIMA Operation, though the same administration is in charge, the ship is not going to New Orleans where it is needed. Money, the billions of it we throw into the wind, is the circle of violence. One side always has more and why, what did they ever do to deserve it.

There are calls for more bloodshed, more photographs, more bloodshed, more photographs will be taken until we are sick of it, or have we become so numb that we don’t feel. We enjoy this lust, as long as we don’t have to dirty our hands, but our hands aren’t dirty – there bloody. The death of U.N. Observers, which mirrors an deliberate act of the sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967 in international waters is a war crime, but who are the criminals, those that pull the trigger or those that supply the means. Their families are lost in anger, and no government agency can replace such a loss.

Whether you live in Northern Israel or Lebanon, after the dust settles your most important remain will be a photograph or the family album, a memory of a gentler time when a family was united, the photograph will also torment you, remind you of your loss, remind you of your own idleness as you are helpless, without any control. Now a refugee, like so many others standing in line, hoping to feed your children, maybe have your photograph taken.

John Patrick Naughton 100 Stuyvesant Place Staten Island, New York 10301 718-816-8591

by John Patrick Naughton | 12 Aug 2006 14:08 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
I have seen the photographs of Adhan Hajj, and until the most recent report of full blown photoshop I liked them, it’s a shame that he choose this path, but what has the outside world done to offer hope. Honestly if any country, be it Israel or The United States was destroying my country,my people, my home, my future – I would do the same. Photography is a weapon, and if it’s all I can do to save my people, then I would do it. Israel is no different than Saudia Arabia or Egypt when it comes to oppressing people, the only way out of this is to have an frank dialogue with your neighbors, or at best treat them with some respect. Below, I have included an essay which was published in both Israel and Iowa, it’s a little long much like the nature of this war. As of this posting, the United States is fitting 5,000 lb. lazer guided missiles for Israels F16, which is an American plane, follow the money, follow the rage.

Letter to the Editor / The Never Ending War

As well as taking photographs, I collect them; photography has been a life long passion. Some of you may know my photo credit for the photographs I took on September the 11th and the months that followed. Very few people have seen my personal collection of photographs, only a few are on the wall. Photography Schools and Schools for the Visual Arts don’t teach classes on how to read a photograph, even though we are a visual society, constantly stimulated by movie stars, pornography and war, and at times they appear together in a film. Right now I’m looking at two different images, one: a Black & White photograph of a bombed building, the building appears to have seven floors, however it’s hard to tell due to the amount of damage, the right façade is ruined. This is a hotel, The King David Hotel where in June of 1946 a little known terrorist by the name of Menachem Begin would begin his career. Over ninety people would die in that June day; many had families, or at least Mothers. Not too different than the average mortality rate in Iraq today, the photographs are now digital instead of film so that we can see these images faster, makes you wonder about the speed of our priorities. Menachem Begin would later become Prime Minister; it seems in the Middle East, being a terrorist is a prerequisite for being Prime Minister; you need look only to Israel, Iraq, Iran or Palestine for role models. But, a photograph does not give you the why or how, it’s just an image followed by text, credits and footnotes – you must do the rest. Photography is more democratic than the democracy it promotes or illustrates. As for the second photograph, one that appeared on the The New York Times; July the 14th, 2006 by Adnan Hajj – it looks like the 4th of July in New York Harbor, bright sensuous colors which made me buy the paper, lights flickering in the background, very beautiful and sensual, only it’s not New York, it’s Lebanon and the fireworks are laser guided missiles. It will be several months until families can recover their loved ones, if at that point they can recognize them, photography can be very abstract – and also an ultimate truth. Truth, is a funny thing, it is a perception within a photograph, within someone’s dearest memory of love and loss.

War is costly, much like acclaimed photographs of it, but where do these Governments get this money to help produce a photograph? At this point you might wonder why photography is a passion of mine, it is fraught with intrigue and disillusionment instead of enlightment, it’s main purpose. We Americans supply the cash, right now as I type this, an aid package of laser-guided bombs is going to Israel and another package of Band-Aids is going to Lebanon, they are going to need them. The journalist Lou Dobbs wrote earlier this week that The United States gives 2.5 billion a year to the Israel Government ( which I think is a little low, a lot more) and to Lebanon we give 40 million, but no laser guided bombs. All for a photograph that ends up on a newspaper, that your cat uses, or for an exhibit at your local museum. This is not a FIMA Operation, though the same administration is in charge, the ship is not going to New Orleans where it is needed. Money, the billions of it we throw into the wind, is the circle of violence. One side always has more and why, what did they ever do to deserve it.

There are calls for more bloodshed, more photographs, more bloodshed, more photographs will be taken until we are sick of it, or have we become so numb that we don’t feel. We enjoy this lust, as long as we don’t have to dirty our hands, but our hands aren’t dirty – there bloody. The death of U.N. Observers, which mirrors an deliberate act of the sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967 in international waters is a war crime, but who are the criminals, those that pull the trigger or those that supply the means. Their families are lost in anger, and no government agency can replace such a loss.

Whether you live in Northern Israel or Lebanon, after the dust settles your most important remain will be a photograph or the family album, a memory of a gentler time when a family was united, the photograph will also torment you, remind you of your loss, remind you of your own idleness as you are helpless, without any control. Now a refugee, like so many others standing in line, hoping to feed your children, maybe have your photograph taken.

John Patrick Naughton 100 Stuyvesant Place Staten Island, New York 10301 718-816-8591

by John Patrick Naughton | 12 Aug 2006 14:08 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
M. Scott, thanks for providinng the link to the Slate


But dont be so quick to dismiss the writer’s argument. It is actually a very good one. Read the conclusion carefully:


Realism is a special effect like any other, and the sooner we realize as much, the better off we’ll be; the decrees of photo editors—no post-processing!—only serve to shore up a faith in photographic evidence that was never justified to begin with. Someday we will approach each photograph we look at with the condign skepticism we bring to each story we read. In the meantime, these useful scandals remind us that we’re complacent and credulous, and that photography is rife with paradoxes, which can’t be solved with hand-waving and apologies.


He is not saying that photos cannot or ought not to be used in information gathering endeavors such as news reportage or that we should not heed what they say. He is just saying that we tend to forget that a photo is not a self-evident representation, that it is an artifice, a construct, a fiction, and as such needs to be “read” with the same amount of rational skepticism that one brings to bear on any text — including some of the outrageous texts written by these bloggers whose fingerpointing is often more emotional and rhetorical than logical. This is not only a sound argument, it is in my view an ethical responsibility, which the complacent wire editors failed miserably to undertake. That one photo by Hajj with the smoke altered is so badly done, so obviously shopped, that they should have caught it immediately. Moreover, the alteration was entirely unnecessary! The original is perfectly adequate. Stupidity, laziness, confused priorities (putting the conventional idea of the “Shot” ahead of the need for truth telling), etc led to all this hoopla, and as the editor of Slate points out, it might not be such a bad thing after all. A naive faith in the objectivity of the “stories” (be they visual or textual) that come to us in the printed pages of magazines, papers and webzines, is a very dangerous thing. Everyone forgets what Joan Foncuberta pointed out long ago and remains absolutely the most sensible thing said on the matter:


“Every photograph is a fiction shown as if it were true . . . What counts is the control of the photographer to impose an ethical direction to this lie. The good photographer is the one who deceives the truth well.”



by Jon Anderson | 12 Aug 2006 15:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
None of the photographs capture truly the entirety of the horror of the ongoing situation or convey its magnitude with any degree of accuracy. Why are we dissecting timecodes, angles and details as if the event had not occurred. Editors consistently put spins on articles and stories. Whether this sequence proves to have been entirely staged and erroneously captioned and timecoded, it will not prove to have been staged on a designed set, with a fake corpse and method actors. I wonder if there is no other coverage of this and similar events to satisfy the real-time-real-blood-craving in some of us… in short, do these picture tell us the truth about the matter? – not as well as they could have or should have.

by Eric Don-Arthur | 12 Aug 2006 17:08 | Accra, Ghana | | Report spam→
JPN: thank your for youf powerful and (for me) profoundly valued letter. I hope it ripples throughout as the Times goes to press!……bob

by [former member] | 12 Aug 2006 20:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
That napalmed girl was a metaphor for all the napalmed victims in Vietnam. A valid metaphor.

Funny you should mention it…

The current controversy which now includes not only photoedited images, but also inaccurate and misleading captions, the same building alleged to have been destroyed on three different dates, the same woman complaining about her wrecked apartment on different dates with different buildings, toys in the wreckage that another photographer shot being taken, clean, from a duffel bag, a child hurt in a playground accident described as a victim of an Israeli attack, not to mention Green Helmet Guy who the same reporter (Kathy Gannon of the AP) has identified as both civil defense worker Salam Daher, and Tyre mortician Abu Shadi Jradi – and these are just off the top of my head.

So I started researching some iconic war photographs including Nick Ut’s famous shot of Kim Phuc running naked from a napalm attack and Eddie Adams’ “Saigon Execution”.

You say the shot was a “valid metaphor” for “all” napalm victims in Vietnam. Valid? The photograph galavanized opposition in the US to the war when it was published in June 1972. Do you know how many Americans were involved in the incident? Zero. By June of 1972 there were hardly any US ground troops doing the fighting, ARVN having taken most of that load. The napalm in that incident was the result of an ARVN unit calling for air support by South Vietnamese pilots flying South Vietnamese planes. Nick Ut defends the photograph as accurate, always getting his left-of-center credentials out by repeating the story of how Richard Nixon said Ut’s photo was faked. The photo wasn’t faked, but the way the image was used, to question US military involvement in southeast Asia, was at the least dissembling.

The other iconic image I researched was Eddie Adams’ famous “Saigon Execution”, of ARVN Gen. Loan’s summary execution of a Vietcong officer with a revolver in a Saigon street. Adams deeply regretted how the photo slurred Gen. Loan.

From Wikipedia:
_ “The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths…What the photograph didn’t say was, ‘What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?’”_

“How do you know you wouldn’t have pulled the trigger yourself?” Adams asked.

Eddie Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyen and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Nguyen died, Adams praised him as a hero of a just cause:

“The guy was a hero. America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him.”

Eddie Adams, whose photojournalism credentials probably exceed that of all you shutterbugs combined, knew that his own images could mislead. The fact that so many of you refuse to admit how journalists and photographers are complicit in Hezb-allah propaganda and continue to make excuses shows that you have learned nothing from Adams.

In Michigan there is a unit pricing law. Retail stores must tag items accurately in accordance with the price posted on the shelf and the UPC bar code must trigger the same price. The Attorney General’s office sometimes takes action against stores that mismark prices. How do they know when to take action? When there is a consistent pattern of the “mistakes” favoring the store. True mistakes would be random, sometimes overpricing an item, sometimes underpricing it. Likewise with the images from Lebanon. All of these “mistakes” seem to be on the side of making Israel look bad.

As for why you don’t see photos of dead Israelis, and the carnage from suicide bombs containing anti-personnel shrapnel and missiles loaded with ball bearings is truly horific. In accordance with Jewish traditions regarding respecting the dead as well as consideration for the privacy of victims, Israeli media companies do not generally show victims of bombings and missile attacks, and when they do, they avoid gore.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 12 Aug 2006 23:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Staged or not,I don’t find photos of dead babies news. It’s sick. Anyone with half a brain knows that with war comes civilian deaths. Photos like these don’t have the “shock value” they would have had 20 yrs ago.I can’t see why an editor would even bother with them.

by jaradana | 12 Aug 2006 23:08 | USA, United States | | Report spam→
The King David Hotel was the Military Headquarters of the British occupation forces – not exactly a civilian target (and no, I don’t consider the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut to be terrorism, it was an act of war by a non-state party). The woman who phoned in warnings to the hotel is still alive. Comparing this to walking into a pizza shop and killing non-combatants with a suicide bomb belt is simply not valid.

FWIW, all of the alleged atrocities by Israelis or Zionists can be counted on the fingers of one hand, Deir Yassin, Sabra and Shatilla

As for the USS Liberty, you can always spot the Jew haters, because they are obsessed by the Liberty incident. Accident or not, the ship wasn’t sunk, it was strafed, so the above poster already has a credibility problem. The only people that believe the attack was not an accident comparable to friendly fire are people who have a problem with Jews. Michael Oren, the respected historian who is generally considered to be scholarly and impartial, has reviewed internal IAF documents and interviewed IAF and IDF personnel involved and he concludes it was an accident.

Mr. Naughton, I’m wondering, do you ever look at the image of the US Marine barracks in Beirut where Hezb-allah deliberately killed 241 US servicemen, mostly Marines? Just like the unit pricing laws mentioned in my post above, impartiality would give a random result, since you only attack Jews, your objectivity is questionable, and one must conclude that in the words of the Talmud, you are great lover of Israel.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 13 Aug 2006 00:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
As of this posting, the United States is fitting 5,000 lb. lazer guided missiles for Israels F16, which is an American plane, follow the money, follow the rage.

Pretty sure that an F16 wouldn’t be able to get off the ground with that kind of payload, and there’s no such thing as a 5000 lb. “missile”, or at least not one that can be mounted on a F15 or F16. Typical complement for an Israeli fighter bomber, not counting A2A and A2G missiles are four 500 lb bombs. The two guided bombs that the US sells to Israel are the GBU-32, which weighs 1000 lbs and the GBU-24, a 2000 lb. “bunker buster”.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 13 Aug 2006 00:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Rebbe, I imagine you have joined LS today as a new member simply to get in on the discussion, and that is fine, but if so you might want to know a bit more about the people you are criticizing. Contrary to your opinion regarding Eddie Adams’ credentials, there are indeed many members on here with equal credentials and long experience in the field, and they cannot be said to be “complicit in Hezb-allah propaganda” or unaware of the tricky nature of visual representations. That is why they are upset and concerned and so scrupulous to avoid making these kinds of mistakes. Nor are they are arguing that such things cannot occur, but they are concerned to set the record straight and make sure that the irresponsible blogging type of argumentation doesnt completely dominate the conversation. Moreover the types of gaffes we are seeing are not all a result of the fact that photographers are staging their photos, which in my view is inexcusable; rather, it appears that in some cases they are being duped and, given the nature of the scene, with all its confusion, I am not surprised that some photographers may in fact have fallen for rather suspicious mise-en-scènes set up for their unwitting benefit. On the other hand, it appears that the more experienced photographers have not made these mistakes and there is still plenty of solid reportage coming out of Tyre and other places. That Israel should look bad is not a surprise, regardless of whether there have been staged photos: the deaths of innocent people once photographed are going to make the killers look bad because bombing such people is not generally viewed as a virtuous act, even when justified by the authorities as the casualties of a necessary punitive military action. That there should be a bias in the presentation of the slaughter on both sides is another matter: whether such bias exists, or whether in fact the suffering is grossly unequal is something that requires careful analysis. There are photographers covering things from the Israeli side, and if you are implying that the lack of gory imagery of suffering Israelis is due to Jewish traditions, that only accounts for the imagery produced by Israeli media and not the international press which is there on the scene covering these events as well.


As for your analysis of Ut’s image and the actual circumstances surrounding that particular moment in the war, you are correct to point out that ARVN had largely assumed control of most ground operations, but I dont believe that was true of the air operations (we were carpet bombing Cambodia and napalming Vietnam still at that date), and besides the napalm was ours, the logistical backup was ours, the training and supplies were ours, and the command was still in large part ours. Moreover, the point was that regardless of whether the ARVN was nominally running things at that point, the war was obviously an American war and remained so up till the end. For you to argue otherwise is perverse.

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 00:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
When there is a culture in place of state run oppression on other people or countries, you will always have photographs that describe a certain viewpoint. One day a man is referred to as a freedom fighter, the next day as a terrorist and the next day as a Prime Minister. There is a lack of critical thinking, and the end result is idleness, numbness, and a never ending lust for gore. Perhaps it might be a better route, a different route if all of us demanded an investigation into war crimes, hold oppression accountable. JPN

by John Patrick Naughton | 13 Aug 2006 00:08 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
When there is a culture in place of state run oppression on other people or countries, you will always have photographs that describe a certain viewpoint. One day a man is referred to as a freedom fighter, the next day as a terrorist and the next day as a Prime Minister. There is a lack of critical thinking, and the end result is idleness, numbness, and a never ending lust for gore. Perhaps it might be a better route, a different route if all of us demanded an investigation into war crimes, hold oppression accountable. JPN

by John Patrick Naughton | 13 Aug 2006 00:08 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
I think the reason for this discussion is not to assess blame for the violence, but to clarify what the responsibility of the photojournalist is in the field, and even more importantly, what the responsibility is of the wire services, agencies and publications that ultimately control the conduct of their representitives. We as photographers need to take a stand against setting up pictures and to make certain that we provide in our captions the context in which photos were taken, as far as we can determine it. Agencies and publications must accept that their assignments often involve preconceptions that may be incorrect, and must photographers can not be put in the position of manipulating events to create photographs that fit these preconceptions. I remember an assignment that I got from People in which I flew to Houston to do a story on a baseball player, JR Richard, who had become homeless, a story that was broken by the NY Times. The problem was that the man was not homeless at all. He had slept in a car for a few nights, and both I and the bureau person were steadfast in telling the editors that this story had been erroneously reported. What I refused to do is to in any way create a portrait of this man in a way that would indicate that he was homeless. And to People’s credit, they killed the story entirely. Needless to say, the pressure on stringers to “get a picture” is often much higher and that is something that is the result of exploitation by news agencies and publications who use photographers as cheap labor. What the publications and agencies must understand is that by exploiting photographers they are creating conditions that are sure to result in more abuses and will eventually undercut the public’s confidence in their product to the extent that “news” will be meaningless. This has already been predicted by Fred Ritchin long ago in discussing digital photography, and Fred is being proved prescient. Corporate greed in creating publications like the National Enquirer and the Star, that deal in fake news are also part of this trend. Magazines that routinely run staged photo stories actually sold by movie stars are also culpable. Anyway, more later.

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 01:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Well said Andy

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 01:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Thanks for refocussing us back into our professional forum, Andy.

by Thorne Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 01:08 | Amsterdam, Netherlands | | Report spam→
As for your analysis of Ut’s image and the actual circumstances surrounding that particular moment in the war, you are correct to point out that ARVN had largely assumed control of most ground operations, but I dont believe that was true of the air operations (we were carpet bombing Cambodia and napalming Vietnam still at that date), and besides the napalm was ours, the logistical backup was ours, the training and supplies were ours, and the command was still in large part ours. Moreover, the point was that regardless of whether the ARVN was nominally running things at that point, the war was obviously an American war and remained so up till the end. For you to argue otherwise is perverse.

The incident has been documented, it was an ARVN unit on the ground, calling in for an airstrike by South Vietnamese planes. I said so in my original post.

Tell you what. You show that picture, without the neutral caption of a “girl running from a napalm attack” to 100 Americans between the ages of 45 and 70 and ask them “what kind of troops are those in the picture?”, “who dropped the napalm?” and I bet most will assume that the soldiers are Americans (though a close inspection reveals them to be ARVN) and that it was Americans dropping the napalm. That’s the truth. So is the fact that a point of lefty faith is that the US was EVIL, EVIL, EVIL in Vietnam. Though that’s not what Vietnamese-Americans tell me.

Also, here’s a excerpt from a BBC site about the incident that proves my point about how the photograph was perceived:

At about this time, a Vietnamese photographer, Nick Ut, was on a road near Trang Bang, where the village had just been bombed with napalm. He captured an image that was to disturb Americans who had previously supported US involvement in Vietnam. Five children were running down the road, their mouths open with cries of terror. One girl was completely naked.1 She had torn off her clothing, because it was on fire. Some soldiers appeared to be casually walking down the road behind the children.

The war was ‘winding down’. Napalm was supposed to be used to clear terrain, not as an anti-personnel weapon. The United States was supposedly trying to save the village. The United States was supposed to be the ‘good guys’. Americans found themselves wondering why the ‘good guys’ dropped napalm on children.

Note how the “soldiers” are not identified as ARVN, and that the writer assumes it was Americans who dropped the napalm.

As for “carpet bombing” Cambodia, the photograph was taken in mid June of 1972. Your use of the emotionally charged phrase “carpet bombing” makes clear to me that if I see your byline on a photo, I’ll take the caption with a large grain of salt. Any country would “carpet bomb” if it had B-52s.

irresponsible blogging type of argumentation

How dare those mere news consumers use the internet to compare photo archives and captions to come to their own conclusions based on raw data? Why, why, they aren’t even journalists! How dare they?! Don’t they know that journalists are a special class of people, with special rights, with special insight? Why, why, they have press passes and credentials.

FWIW, I’m a credentialled “journalist”. Frankly, the Hezb-allah photo ops in Lebanon, with Green Helmet Guy proferring dead babies to photograph (any of you photojournalists notice that the baby was dusty but the pacifier was brand spanking new clean? – tip o’ the hat to Robt. Hunter) are probably not very different from Hyundai rolling out a new model. Though unlike Hezb’allah, Hyundai isn’t going to kill you if you say their cars suck. Just like automotive reporters don’t like talking (in public) about the shrimp and imported beer at the auto pressers, photojournalists working in Lebanon don’t like to talk about what they have to do, and who they have to cooperate with, to get the shot.

[You can insert the obligatory slam on Israeli soldiers shooting journalists here, but everyone knows Israel has military censorship and nobody sane would say that shooting reporters is IDF policy. Here’s what one of your colleagues, Chris Allbritton, a Times Magazine contributor, has to say about press intimidation: “To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.”]

by Bozoer Rebbe | 13 Aug 2006 01:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Rebbe, if you are a credentialed journalist as you claim, then why the rhetorical devices setting you apart from us? Why write things like “one of your colleagues”? If we are all journalists then we are all in this together and that is exactly Andy’s original point. But you are using this forum in order to push your own ridiculous inflammatory propaganda, which is irrelevant to the theme here. Your attitude is not surprising. Here is something you wrote on another internet site:


“Frankly, I think it’d be hilarious if some bunch of jokers was able to get its hands on a Russian or Chinese cruise missile on the black market and program the coordinates for the reviewing stand at Castro’s state funeral. Think of all the bad out of towners like Chavez and Ortega as well as the dregs of the Cuban Commie power structure.

But then, I also think this it’d be interesting if some right wing crazies in Israel got ahold of some captured katyushas and made sure that Umm Al Fahm and other towns in the “Arab triangle” in the Galilee got hit while the next Hezb-allah barrage is flying."


This is not the writing of a journalist, and when i refer to “irresponsible blogging” that is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. It has nothing to do with whether the blogger is credentialed or not; it has to do with whether there is in fact an argument being presented or merely inflammatory opinion. But rational argumentation is irrelevant to you isnt it? that is why you insist on discussing the same point ad nauseam without considering the arguments made against you. You are not a journalist, nor are you much of a rebbe, either, if all you do is ask for blood or seek to justify acts of aggression; you are just another cheap ideologue with a veneer of seemingly rational argument. Really I dont know why I bother to answer you; I should know better.

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 03:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
You’re a prize dickhead Rebbe masquerading as a Bozo ere maitie,,,,,,,ahhh sigh you must be a sad little item as well
.
.
.
It seems that a soft underbelly is exposed once again and now exploited by some for political gain

by Imants | 13 Aug 2006 05:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | goannamanor, Australia | | Report spam→
I think in the world we have good jornalists and bad ones. Rebbe, in your case you are neither one of those, you are just an oportunist. Basically if you had the knowledge to be one, it could be possible, but the nature of your coments, what comes out of your poor fingers and mouth, yes, because I am sure you have no brain on that empty head, that is why you are not a jornalist neither a human bein you are just an functional illiterate. Shame on you!. If you are not able to respect others, do your own a favour: respect yourself poor creature.

by Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo | 13 Aug 2006 05:08 | São Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→

Rebbe, if you are a credentialed journalist as you claim, then why the rhetorical
devices setting you apart from us? Why write things like “one of your
colleagues”? If we are all journalists then we are all in this together and that is
exactly Andy’s original point.

Actually, I put "journalist" in quotes. I fail to see where the First
Amendment creates a special class of Americans, but then you are posting from outside the
US so you may not be an American. Where I come from, journalists don’t have special
rights, they are just an example of a right held by all. The only difference between a
blogger and a journalist or, for the matter, a photographer and a photojournalist, is that
journalists’ work is never seen before an editor goes over it. Not one of my colleagues in
the media has disputed this when I’ve raised the issue. The basic difference between
bloggers and journalists is that journalists get paid for writing and shooting – though
some of the blogs, like LGF, actually generate a fair amount of revenue. If you bother to
read some of the blogs involved in this story, you’ll see that a number of images
suggested to have been "staged" have been shown, to the contrary, to be accurate
news by other bloggers. Instead of just one editor who relies on your word that the story
is accurate, bloggers get fact-checked by thousands of readers and other bloggers. By its
nature blogging is interactive and letters to the editor aren’t edited. Charles Johnson’s
LGF has way more credibility than the editors of the NYT, and when he gets something
wrong, he puts the correction on the front page, not buried.

Your words reflect the guild mentality of the MSM. The way you have closed ranks
against "weirdo" bloggers rather than consider that you might possibly be
(witting or unwitting) parties to propaganda makes that clear. The almost intimidated,
plaintive please-don’t-kick-me-out second post by Bryan Denton affirms that perception.
I’m quite happy to not be a member of your self-affirming club. I write, I publish, I get
paid for it, and the institutions in my field of coverage are quite happy to provide
credentials to me for that coverage. Sure sounds like a credentialed journalist to me.

which is irrelevant to the theme here.

And your posting of an admittedly over the top comment of mine is relevant to
this discussion? Did I try to present a falsehood as fact? Did I misrepresent something?
It was a comment, not news. But then some of you "journalists" can’t seem to
tell the difference. Is it worse than suggesting as Thom Ricks did (though giving himself
wiggle room by attributing the comments to unidentified "military analysts")
that Israel is deliberately not destroying Hezb’allah launchers, and deliberately letting
Israeli civilians get killed?

But rational argumentation is irrelevant to you isnt it? that is why you insist on
discussing the same point ad nauseam without considering the arguments made against you.

Excuse me, but I considered the arguments and replied to them substantively. Just
because you didn’t like my answer doesn’t mean that it isn’t substantive.

You are not a journalist, nor are you much of a rebbe, either,

Do you question the religious credentials of Imams, Sheikhs and Qadis who call for the
extermination of Jews?

if all you do is ask for blood or seek to justify acts of aggression

Please show where I "all" I have done is "ask for blood". Please
show me where I have justified acts of aggression. Just which acts of aggression have I
sought to justify?

BTW, is this what you call "rational argumentation" from your fellow
"journalists"?

You’re a prize dickhead Rebbe masquerading as aBozo ere maitie,,,,,,, but you must
be a sad little item as well —Imants

or this?

I think in the world we have good jornalists and bad ones. Rebbe, in your case you are
neither one of those, you are just an oportunist. Basically if you had the knowledge to be
one, it could be possible, but the nature of your coments, what comes out of your poor
fingers and mouth, yes, because I am sure you have no brain on that empty head, that is
why you are not a jornalist neither a human bein you are just an functional illiterate.
Shame on you!. If you are not able to respect others, do your own a favour: respect
yourself poor creature. —Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo

Hey George, so I suppose that calling someone a "functional illiterate" with
"no brain" is a form of respect where you come from? BTW, if you are going to
call someone a functional illiterate, at least use an online Spanish/English dictionary or
learn how to spell – and pick up some English grammar too. Being called an opportunist by
someone who makes their living showing photos of tragedies brings to mind pots, kettles
and the color black.

jornalists – journalists
oportunist – opportunist
coments – comments
on that empty head – in that empty head
human bein – human being

by Bozoer Rebbe | 13 Aug 2006 06:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
First of all my name has no translation, so..It is Jorge. Second thing; English is my second language, then when I got upset with statements like the ones you have posted: “Frankly, I think it’d be hilarious if some bunch of jokers was able to get its hands on a Russian or Chinese cruise missile on the black market and program the coordinates for the reviewing stand at Castro’s state funeral. Think of all the bad out of towners like Chavez and Ortega as well as the dregs of the Cuban Commie power structure. But then, I also think this it’d be interesting if some right wing crazies in Israel got ahold of some captured katyushas and made sure that Umm Al Fahm and other towns in the “Arab triangle” in the Galilee got hit while the next Hezb-allah barrage is flying.”, then it could be my english could get worst in those cases I must write in Spanish or Portuguese. But then would you understand it?. Third: Fortunately, I could make my choice to shot and publish either documentary, Ps or fine art, not depending on someone else tragedy to make my living. Altough I respect those who risk their life documenting war with a bit of ethic and commitment. Regarding the black stuff; I think that Black is your Soul. Anyway. Neither on a well written English, spanish or Portuguese I have time to discuss with you..you?, Do you exist?. Cheers

by Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo | 13 Aug 2006 07:08 | São Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
the gremlins have set in where are Bryan’s comments?

by Imants | 13 Aug 2006 09:08 | goannamanor, Australia | | Report spam→
Right-wing, extreme-wing, angry-wing bloggers at ‘little green footballs" or our guest Bozo-er are all puffing at the Likudnik-anticommunist (pick your mix) crack pipe. Displays of extreme paranoia mixed with rage at those who can’t understand what they understand… ranting at the garbage the out-to-get-me neighbors have left in the hall of their crack den, ruining the building and all that, while oblivious to the bigger shit-hole picture.

by Christopher Wise | 13 Aug 2006 09:08 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Personal attacks in any direction aren’t relevant or welcome here. And its hard to police the topic as “image manipulation & ethics in photojournalism” – something so abstract and academic – when it was a concrete situation connection with an ongoing war that we are talking about.
I think is a pity Bryan Denton had removed his comments (I am guessing this is what he did) or felt he had to apologise for them. Bending to anticipated dissent amongst the photographic community?
At the end of the day, we are politically divided amongst ourselves, and constantly seek evidence for what counters our passion-driven views, and evidence for that evidence, and so on.
Most of us are disgusted with the civilian deaths and count the tragedies in numbers, thus pointing fingers at Israel and by extension the US. The thought of staged photos, re-photographing dead bodies, and such, is easily dismissed by the counter-weight of Jewish, American, and even Western guilt. We simply don’t want to believe that those whom we think of as victims can be a threat; indeed those that have threatened the existence of Israel, of the West, and of civil liberty, are always portrayed as having been hard done by by the West, conspiratorialised byh the West. that the whole problem with the Middle East is that we messed everything up and its all coming back to us.
This is my understanding of the context in which we judge whether photos have been staged by Hibollah’s operatives: there is no space to conceive of global jihad as a real, self-propelling menace, feeding on the mistakes and weaknesses of the West, but ultimately without any responsibility for its actions, with calls to deliver the world from the infidels that we are. Of course, its all just a conspiracy, many would have us believe.

by Damon Lee Perry | 13 Aug 2006 09:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
jorge,unfortunately the bozoers of this world do exist,and take great delight in foisting their spurious opinions and reactionary nonsense on anyones unguarded ears.fortunately their views can be seen by anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of politics to be nothing but reactionary hot air.i wasn’t going to respond to mr rebbes bile.personally i think the best way to deal with people like that is to ignore them.however,him slinging his nasty but damp squibs here and there is one thing.personally and directly insulting you due to your race is bang out of order.so i am going to respond to mr rebbe.mr rebbe,you are a wanker

by Michael Bowring | 13 Aug 2006 09:08 | Belgrade, Serbia | | Report spam→
Perhaps worth a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlegreenfootballs%2Ecom%2Fweblog%2F

by Thomas Midgette | 13 Aug 2006 10:08 | Vienna, United States | | Report spam→
Your point Thomas, is what, we see theirs?

by Imants | 13 Aug 2006 11:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | goannamanor, Australia | | Report spam→
It’s curious that everyone is discussing the evils of photographers, men in green helmets and so on – kind of
takes the attention away from the real evil which is the pointless death and destruction. Strange?

by Colin Pantall | 13 Aug 2006 11:08 | Bath, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Rebbe, You are a work of art. No doubt a history major, did you know that 15 of those deaths were of Jewish origin, it’s important to do your math, or research, or something. How does it feel to loose your son or daughter, not to be able to find the body, 15 young lives. This information is available Rebbe, all you have to do is look. This term “Jew Hater” only shows your own commonness, which is quite ugly. For the record Rebbe, I come from a family of Marines, and I am quite proud of that. I understand that this forum is about photographs, however some of these comments are personel and common in nature, and I can’t just let it slide. Good Luck Rebbe, JPN

by John Patrick Naughton | 13 Aug 2006 12:08 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
i wish i could read this without having to scroll to right for ever (same old issue of text wrapping or not in the window). i want to ‘hear’ what people have to say about this but i managed to follow some 7-8 posts and my eyes gave up on me

by G. Muj | 13 Aug 2006 12:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Transylvania, Romania | | Report spam→
Imants Sun, I was just posting a link that seemed to provide some evidence of choreography. Timothy Fadek posted:

“Now I’m angry. I want to put a stop to these incendiary rumors right now. I would like Bryan to specify where and when
this alleged choreography had occurred, instead of making broad, generalized statements which damages the reputation
of all photographers in general and defames Lebanese photographers in particular. My personal experience of photographing
shoulder to shoulder to many Lebanese photographers has taught me that some can be aggressive and competitive in making
pictures, and that’s it. I have no problem with a little pushing and shoving. They are honest and also are very brave, risking
their lives by working in a war zone. For the last 3 weeks, I have photographed news events in Beirut, Saidon, Tyre, Qana,
Bent Jbail, Rmaich, Tibnin, and Nabatye. Not once did I see any photographers direct any events. Any and all armchair
quarterbacks sitting in the comfort of their cozy homes can do the profession a favor and stop the speculation and rumor
building on this forum.”

Such logic applied to say, policemen, would be viewed as flawed.
“My personal experience with law enforcement shows they are honest and brave, risking their lives working in life-threatening situations. Therefore, any armchair quarterbacks who would gainsay the police for alleged transgressions or improprieties when they arise should do us all a favor and stop speculating or addressing the instances when they are brought into question.” Or substitute politicians, or teachers, doctors, … soldiers.

That doesn’t fly. A legitimate issue has been broached. It isn’t whether war is horrific, or whether innocents die, but whether or not 1) a photographer has improperly manipulated photos, 2) whether some (less than) professional shooters have choregraphed video/photos for effect beyond reporting, and/or 3) have some photographers been manipulated by their subjects to propagandize rather than report.

Interesting questions, in light of the recent revelations of at least some truth to the allegations. Photojournalists are human beings. They’re going to run the gamut of beliefs, professionalism, and intentions, just as every other person in any other profession does. Journalism has its Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. It’s not a stretch to see that photojournalism and videography might have the same. Especially when the situation of war is far more grave and provocative than domestic comfort or professional malaise.

by Thomas Midgette | 13 Aug 2006 13:08 | Vienna, United States | | Report spam→
G. on my screen all the text wraps properly and there is no need to scroll to the right. There must be some issue with your browser that is causing this. PM Shinji and see if he can figure out what is causing it, must be maddening. Meanwhile, trust me, once the Rebbe started posting, you arent missing anything of substance.


To the rest of the members of the forum, I apologize for having bothered to answer bozo rebbe’s tripe, as Michael points out the only way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. The rebbe is a blogger who spends all his time trawling the net to pick fights and post inflammatory statements. It is not surprising he should find us, or that comments on this forum are now being used as fodder by the bloggers, which just goes to prove my initial point — that the criticism of the profession offered up by the bloggers is a very problematic form of policing becuase it proceeds on the basis of ideology rather than logical analysis.


While there may indeed be instances of professional abuse such as Adnan Hajj’s imagery, I also know that the majority of people over there covering events are doing so scupulously, as Timothy reminds us. The problem is not that the photojournalists as a whole are at fault, but that the perception of these failures in the system grows out of proportion and becomes exaggerated, so that the entire profession is mistrusted, and there is no grounds for such mistrust. The overwhelming solidity of the coverage coming out of Lebanon at the moment is clear testament to the probity and professionalism of the practitioners. Wire service editors — all editors, really — have to exercise their authority and vet the images and captions properly. The wire services also have to react to the scandal in an appropriate manner and not let the blogging and the fingerpointing cause them to overreact.

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 14:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
My browser is acting a little flaky with this blog’s posting software, so I will
respond to all in a single post.

To begin with, the choice of words used makes it very clear that at least some of you
have an ideological or political agenda to your “journalism”:

Right-wing, extreme-wing, angry-wing
Likudnik-anticommunist
reactionary
right wing

Are you lefties still using “reactionary”? Gosh, that was already passe in
the 60s.

For the record, I’m not a member of Likud or any other political party – I find most
Israeli politicians to be apparatchik hacks. If I had my choice Natan Sharansky would be
Prime Minister there. He’s the closest thing to a statesman in the higher echelon of
Israeli politics and a man of considerable integrity. However, not being an Israeli
citizen, all I can do is express my opinion. Though I recently voted in the Republican
primary in my state, it was to support an individual candidate, and I’m registered to vote
as an independent and have voted for way more Democrats than Republicans in the past 33
years, including Carl Levin (who is hardly right-wing or reactionary) every time he has
run for the US Senate and Bill Clinton twice.

Jorge said:

First of all my name has no translation, so..It is Jorge. Second thing; English is
my second language, then when I got upset with statements like the ones you have posted:
"Frankly, I think it’d be hilarious if some bunch of jokers was
able to get its hands on a Russian or Chinese cruise missile on the black market and
program the coordinates for the reviewing stand at Castro’s state funeral.
Think of all the bad out of towners like Chavez and Ortega as well as the dregs of the
Cuban Commie power structure…

Jorge, what possibly could upset you about the death of a mass murderer like Raul
Castro?

I’m sorry if I offended you by my using the English form of Jorge. My friend Vitaly
(Russian: Life) doesn’t mind it when I call him Chaim (Hebrew: Life). English is my native
language so I generally use the English form of proper nouns: Peking instead of Beijing,
Venice instead of Vincenza, Damascus instead of Damsek. I’ll make you a deal Jorge, I’ll
stop calling your George if you start calling the capital of Israel
“Yerushalayim and the Temple Mount “Har HaBayit”.

Mark Seager said:

Bozoer please drop the er of your name it would be more fitting!

Mark, please consult with Jorge on proper Lightstalker etiquette regarding altering
people’s screennames.

Timothy Fadek said:

Bryan,
Your comments here on Lightstalkers has been picked up by one of the blogs that started
this controversy. Your comments are now being used by the right wing as more ammo against
us.


Timothy (okay if I call you Timmy?), Charles Johnson of LGF is hardly right wing. He’s a
Jeffersonian liberal and always has been one. I believe his political affiliation is
anti-idiotarian. The controversy was not startd by a blog but rather by an unethical
photojournalist who got caught.

Oh, and Timothy, could you please explain something about photo #17 in your Lebanon
2006 portfolio? I’m curious about why everything in the photo has dust and rubble on it
except for the photograph of an Arab family, which seems pristine (like many of the
toys in the rubble that have been photographed). Also, did you use natural
lighting? The photograph of the family appears to have a different brightness and contrast
than the rest of the image – perhaps it’s my browser. Boy, that was real fortunate for you
to find a photograph of a family face up in the rubble – really grabs the human interest
angle.

Christopher Wise said:

Right-wing, extreme-wing, angry-wing bloggers at little green footballs
or our guest Bozo-er are all puffing at the Likudnik-anticommunist (pick your mix) crack
pipe. Displays of extreme paranoia mixed with rage at those who can’t understand what
they understand; ranting at the garbage the out-to-get-me neighbors have left in the
hall of their crack den, ruining the building and all that, while oblivious to the bigger
shit-hole picture.

Chris (it is okay to use a diminutive, isn’t it? I can’t check right now with
Jorge if it’s appropriate), keep ranting in your hope that nobody will pay any attention to the man behind the
curtain. The great and powerful Wise has spoken.

Jon Anderson, is the above another example of the “rational argumentation”;
you prefer? So far, btw, I have yet to see much substantive response here to the examples
cited on the blogs, except for Damon Lee Perry, and Thomas Midgette. Plenty of ad
hominum
, but most of you seem more interested in protecting your guild’s image and in
promoting your own political agendas than in addressing the issue. Reminds me a bit of the
Catholic church and pedophile priests. Just who is the reactionary here?

Michael Bowring said:

him slinging his nasty but damp squibs here and there is one thing.personally and
directly insulting you due to your race is bang out of order.so i am going to respond to
mr rebbe.mr rebbe,you are a wanker

Excuse me? Where have I insulted someone due to their race? By using an English version
of a Spanish name? I didn’t know that Spanish was a race. Hell, I don’t even know what
race Jorge is, but then I don’t care because I believe that race is an artificial
distinction between humans. While it is possible to identify genetic subgroups, the fact
that any healthy female can breed with any healthy male, means that there is only one
race, the human race. But while we are on the subject of insulting someone due their
heritage, could you comment on the “Likudnik” jibe directed at me?

john patrick naughton said:

For the record Rebbe, I come from a family of Marines, and I am quite proud of
that. I understand that this forum is about photographs, however some of these comments
are personel and common in nature, and I can’t just let it slide. Good Luck Rebbe, JPN

For the record, John Patrick, it is a violation of federal law to
use the internet to make a threat. Maybe one of those Marines is a Marine lawyer that can
explain it to you. I understand that this forum is about photographs, but I take the
safety of my children, family and myself seriously, and I can’t just let it slide. Good
luck John Patrick Naughton of 100 Stuyvesant Place Staten Island, New York 10301
718-816-8591. Give my regards to the FBI guys.

Kel-Tecs are so cool. Small, light, reliable, accurate, and American made.

Oh, and how do you feel about Hezb’allah murdering 241 Marines?

Jon Anderson said:

that the criticism of the profession offered up by the bloggers is a very
problematic form of policing becuase it proceeds on the basis of ideology rather than
logical analysis.

Jon, if you bothered to read the blogs instead of just calling them names, you would
see that the criticism is based on the logical analysis of photo sequences, raw video
footage, and shots of the same events taken by other photographers, along with articles by
print reporters. How is it ideological to ask why some many pristine toys have been
photographed in the rubble? Where is the ideology in asking why and how Kathy Gannon of
the AP managed to write two different stories identifying the same man with two different
names?

I’m friendly with a number of full-time working reporters and editors so I know that
most do want to be accurate. Your comment about editors vetting images and captions is
well stated. However, the imperious attitude that you and other photojournalists here have
towards those mere citizens, bloggers even, that dare critique your work makes clear that
protecting your guild is more important than informing the public with accurate news and
images.

Mainstream media newspapers are downsizing and dying and blogs are starting to compete
with them for readers. I’m sure that buggy whip manufacturers and their employees said bad
things about automobiles, too.

NP: Steve Kimock, various MP3s downloaded from kimock.com.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 13 Aug 2006 16:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
‘the criticism is based on logical analysis of photo sequences’. The blogs I have seen have been basing their ‘research’ on the times that the photos were put on the wire, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the time they were taken. It may be logical, but they are analysing irrelevant information.

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 17:08 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I think we need a moderator on this thread. I nominate Guilad Kahn…

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 17:08 | Wiltshire, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I think people should actually bother to read Bozoer, calmly.
But Bozoer, you offend people with your tone, which some could take as – arrogant? Scary? A shame, since you are obviously well read and informed, and I believe you make some hard-hitting but undismissable points. If you cut away the personal attack (/defence), you might be able to reason, though I don’t think this is about reason or persuasion. People’s passions are up and all context is lost and out of control. Its not a discussion of whether a guy manipulated images or not, its not about some abstract ethics of the photographer, but rather image manipulation at the battlefront of the media war with globalizing jihad. The Islamists are winning this part of the war, though Israel’s heavy handed conventional-weapons approach has damaged the credibility (and obscured the acknowledgement) of the free world’s fight against jihadi tyranny.
I personally don’t care where Boezer came from, whether he came here on a memetic mission or not; the issues stand beyond all the personally-driven comments, and they are crucial ones. I read most of my news now on blogs, which are far from one kind of information source; many cull the mainstream news anyhow. But I don’t like ‘Peking’ – its a mistransliteration that never should have occurred.

by Damon Lee Perry | 13 Aug 2006 17:08 | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
I want to make something very clear regarding the speculation that has arisen from my comments. I said what i said on this site as a caution to the photographic community, not to call the whole industry into question. I saw what i saw and i commented on it. That said, THE VAST MAJORITY of the many photographers i have come across here, both foreign and Lebanese, are doing exemplory work under extremely difficult and dangerous conditions covering the brutality this conflict has come to embody. However it is photographed, a man woman or child killed in an airstrike is still just that. What i brought up was a question of journalistic ethics which i have seen breached BY INDIVIDUALS during my time here. Any one out there who is trying to politicize that is just plain sick, and is moving this further away from the real issue at hand.

There are hundreds of photographers working here now. Don’t let a few bad apples take the attention away from what the REAL story is, because by the looks of the blogs THAT is exactly what is happening. If anything, I am more interested in the wires investing in their stringers, their work, training, and their careers, not ruining them. Because ultimately, they act as the filter, and are equally as responsible for the people they employ and the work they put out for mass consumption.

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 18:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
I had put this thread down for the weekend, and just tuned into find platitudes and insults…I must say I certainly welcome all folks, internationally or cosmically to this forum, but in the case of this thread, which no doubt was placed by Mr. Levin to catalyze debate, has led all of us down the shitcan. I disagree with Bozoer Rebbe and many others on this thread, but I will not choose to attack. I disagree with the position the world takes on subduing cultures and institutions around the globe for gain, but I will not choose to participate. I choose dissent through my actions and images, not through my words. Just as the bloggers and journos choose to scour the world’s information and images seeking truth/untruths, I with my camera scour the earth for situations that I feel are unjust; and to the best of my ability strive to document, not for impact or conflagration but for my own humanity.
I feel that blogging has its place in our world, I disagree with the methods of many, but nevetheless feel that it has it’s place. LS is in some ways a blog.
The ethics of photojounalism and reportage will NOT be sorted out here, nor in any institution. It can progress slowly through discussion and debate, but as for a black and white conclusion, forget it.
I worked many years in film, both fiction and documentary, and to be honest there is little difference; it is all staged for exception of the pure verite experience. I am not sure if we are taking into account the psychology of the camera, but it certainly factors in.
I have not been in a conflict with the wherewithal to document, however, I do believe that the folks on the ground do strive to make valid statements, not necessarily objective statements. Some feel that the recent unearthing of malfeasance within photojournalism is a new trend, unfortunately this is an untrue sentiment. It is unfortunate that we as reasonable individuals cannot step off the box long enough to proffer well thought out discussion, but alas we are imperfect. And as such we must take great effort to respect eachother and ourselves by not falling victim to baseless attacks on either side. In some ways this thread is representative of the conflicts of our world; nobody wants to listen and digest, everyone wants to be heard.
There is no true objectivity, and as such, the idea that bloggers, journos, politicians, religious figures, citizens can offer unbiased perspectives is pure schlock. The best any one of us can do is represent oneself in the truest fashion, to attempt to vet one’s opinons and observations carefully.

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 18:08 (ed. Aug 14 2006) | Austin, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
Damon, point taken. It’s hard not to react to the ad hominum but I will try. It’s a serious subject that many of the journalists here would prefer to avoid.

Regarding Beijing, you are undoubtedly correct, but I don’t speak any Chinese dialects and the English word for that city was Peking. I had an entertaining chat at the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress, with a rep from an Indian auto parts company, about the odd names that have resulted from colonial days. As I alluded in my post above, when the newscasters who roll their Rs at every Spanish name and who badgered us about the “Torino Olympics”, call it Yerushalayim and the former Israeli PM Bin-yameen Nitan-yahoo (not Benjamin Nit-en-yahoo), I’ll believe they are concerned with linguistic accuracy, not annointing certain ethnics as authentic non-whites.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 13 Aug 2006 18:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
This thread does not need moderation – especially censorship – simply because someone says something you don’t like or disagree with. It is a passionate subject, and ought not to become personal, but there is nothing wrong in open comments as long as they are relevant. And Bryan, I don’t think your recent comments are so helpful; sure, we understand that its not all or the majority of photographers, or Lebanese, or … – but the fact that it happens has been revealed. So how many more images have been doctored? By whom? We could pursue this line and count to see how many photos Israel have staged against how many Hizbollah (or Al Qaeda for that matter elsewhere) have. But it too misses the point. Sure, the wires should invest in their stringers .. But. The point is surely the level to which we acknowledge the war machinery at work within which media manipulation exists, and I mean specifically relating to jihadism, and modern nation states, some of which value civil liberty. Surely there’s a choice between making a system work more genuinine freely and efficiently (stressing civil liberties a la Fareed Zakaria), or standing to the side while others bring it down and replace it with something medieval and radically illiberal? Sorry to stress this, but this is the context always left out.

by Damon Lee Perry | 13 Aug 2006 18:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
Let’s drop the personal stuff :-)

by Damon Lee Perry | 13 Aug 2006 18:08 | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
As I stated here and on other threads concerning these matters, there is no issue with people outside the profession questioning these matters, so long as the arguments being made are in fact rational and analytic and take the time to evaluate the various details properly. There is no doubt that some photographs were improperly doctored and Reuters didnt act in an appropriate manner to prevent their initial dissemination or to counter the subsequent furor with a suitable explanation or statement of policy. Arguments that seek to parse the probity of any given photograph require a lot of work and considerable reflection, and I havent seen much of it on the blogs I have read, which appear to be the same ones everyone else has provided links to. Yes one of the blogs had a look at the times posted for the various pictures from one series but no attempt was made to understand what could possibly be the truth behind it, instead it simply accused the various players of malfeasance. Frankly I felt more explanation was needed, and it turns out that, as Timothy points out above, the time stamps are not incamera time stamps but mark the time when editors put the images out. So that whole argument is basically null, and simply because the blogger lacked the expertise to know what the time stamps meant as well as lacking the investigational know how to check his facts. And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with depending on the blogs for our information.The distinction between rational analysis and mere opinion is lost on you, Rebbe, as is evidenced by your own argumentation here. Your statements are full of innuendo, snide sarcasm, wilful misinterpretation of historical events, red herrings, tu quoques, and several other logical fallacies (among them fallacy of composition, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and false analogy). You have spent almost all your time in ad hominem attacks, and there is not one single contribution to the matter at hand, which is the discussion of photographic misrepresentation. Not a single fact or analysis of the facts have you offered. I dont mind the sarcasm and innuendo, actually, so long as there is a substantial argument being made at the same time, but you have not offered it. While some of the blogs have indeed made straightforward rational arguments, you yourself havent, you just defend them all on the general basis of an ideological bias toward current Israeli policy. The bias doesnt bother me, just the lack of real analysis to back it up.The list of logical errors in your various posts is long, the “substance” you provide a ruse. Take the Ut photograph. It doesnt matter that that particular operation was ARVN: the materiel, the money, the planning, the napalm, the logistical support etc were all American. It was an American war. What we see in Ut’s photograph is the consequence of American foreign policy in Vietnam. What you are arguing is called a “red herring” in logic.Your claim, I’m a credentialled “journalist” is typical of your entire false premise: you cannot have it both ways, are you or are you not a credentialled journalist? You are not; you are a blogger who gets access to events, nothing more. You state that “The only difference between a blogger and a journalist . . . is that journalists’ work is never seen before an editor goes over it.” This is bad? That there should be some kind of quality control, critical reception and institutional assumption of responsibility for the content that is then disseminated to the public as a truthful record of events is the very sort of thing we need in order to keep these kinds of mistakes from being made, and as such it poses a a major difference between journalism and mere blogging, one which helps to safeguard the truth and provide better quality information. Blogging has no built critical controls, and as such much of it is badly written, ill thought out and rhetorical rather than analytical. You counter, "Instead of just one editor who relies on your word that the story is accurate, bloggers get fact-checked by thousands of readers and other bloggers. " First of all, it is rarely one editor that goes over the material, it goes through several stages, and if there is a problem you can bet that they wont be relying on your word, they will investigate, as they did with Hajj, and they will act, as they have in all the recent cases of malfeasance. Second, the crucial difference is that the critical process is focused and inherent to each piece of news and not dependent on an outside critique that may or may not occur. The process of critical reception that you describe is not inherent, it is secondary and contingent. While that process should not be discounted, any major news outfit still has to have in place some kind of critical editorial process prior to publication. Blogs do not and thus are less “responsible.” A blogger is free to print what he or she likes, and while any particular idea may eventually receive a critique, its existence and quality are not assured. Your comparison, furthermore, is flawed on the very grounds that you propose: if bloggers are subject to being “fact-checked” by thousands of readers and bloggers, then news accounts are by this very logic proof of even greater surveillance since they too are subject to critique by the bloggers and readers as well as having had the benefit of going previously through an internal factchecking procedure. Your next statement adds to the confusion. Now you state, “The basic difference between bloggers and journalists is that journalists get paid for writing and shooting aO” though some of the blogs, like LGF, actually generate a fair amount of revenue." Well, which is the fundamental criterion that differentiates these two forms of information, the existence of editorial controls or the fact that journalists get paid while bloggers dont? I wont harp on the poor writing, you are speaking loosely, so let’s assume that you really mean to say that there are at least two fundamental differences, lack of editorial controls and lack of a salary. fine. Clearly the first difference is a significant one, as I have just argued. As for the second, it bears a clue to another difference that could be said to be quite telling. The journalists earn a salary because they are tied to various institutions that are dedicated to principled news gathering and dissemination; this affiliation in turn comes about as a result of training and education and expertise, none of which is a guarantee of probity in every case, but in general do act as hedges against malfeasance and as incentives to high quality reportage. Bloggers have none of this. Again, this does not mean necessarily that all bloggers do not act in accordance with high ethical and rational standards. But the fact that these controls are not built in to their system of information gathering and dissemination means that the reader has to be equally on guard against their brand of “reporting” much of which is not in fact reporting but rather second-hand critique of what has already been reported by people on the ground. This is yet another significant distinction between bloggers and reporters. Bloggers are not there on the scene, they do not report the events, they comment on them after the fact. That commentary is important, it is part of the stage of critical reception of information; but it is not in itself journalism. Look at it this way: you could argue plausibly that people like Tom Paine were the bloggers of their day. They would use the printing press to distribute, often under pen names, various arguments about the events of the day. They were not reporters though; they were pundits, formers of opinion, essayists, ideologues, partisans, revolutionaries, moralists. There is a need for such literature, undoubtedly, but let’s not confuse the lines between them and let’s get back to the more fundamental question orginally proposed by this thread. Rebbe, if you have concrete analysis to offer of a particular example of photographic misrepresentation, instead of snide innuendo along the lines of what you wrote about Timothy’s work, then let’s hear it; otherwise, spare us your self righteous and pompous nattering. And if you should be tempted yet again to accuse me of closing the guild doors against outside critique, let me repeat what I wrote above, it should be clear enough even to you:M. Scott, thanks for providing the link to the Slate article.But dont be so quick to dismiss the writeraO™s argument. It is actually a very good one. Read the conclusion carefully:“Realism is a special effect like any other, and the sooner we realize as much, the better off we’ll be; the decrees of photo editors—no post-processing!—only serve to shore up a faith in photographic evidence that was never justified to begin with. Someday we will approach each photograph we look at with the condign skepticism we bring to each story we read. In the meantime, these useful scandals remind us that we’re complacent and credulous, and that photography is rife with paradoxes, which can’t be solved with hand-waving and apologies.”He is not saying that photos cannot or ought not to be used in information gathering endeavors such as news reportage or that we should not heed what they say. He is just saying that we tend to forget that a photo is not a self-evident representation, that it is an artifice, a construct, a fiction, and as such needs to be “read” with the same amount of rational skepticism that one brings to bear on any text—"including some of the outrageous texts written by these bloggers whose fingerpointing is often more emotional and rhetorical than logical. This is not only a sound argument, it is in my view an ethical responsibility, which the complacent wire editors failed miserably to undertake. That one photo by Hajj with the smoke altered is so badly done, so obviously shopped, that they should have caught it immediately. Moreover, the alteration was entirely unnecessary! The original is perfectly adequate. Stupidity, laziness, confused priorities (putting the conventional idea of the “Shot” ahead of the need for truth telling), etc led to all this hoopla, and as the editor of Slate points out, it might not be such a bad thing after all. A naive faith in the objectivity of the “stories” (be they visual or textual) that come to us in the printed pages of magazines, papers and webzines, is a very dangerous thing. Everyone forgets what Joan Foncuberta pointed out long ago and remains absolutely the most sensible thing said on the matter:“Every photograph is a fiction shown as if it were true . . . What counts is the control of the photographer to impose an ethical direction to this lie. The good photographer is the one who deceives the truth well.”

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 18:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Matt, a couple points of clarification. You state that you shoot what you shoot for the benefit of your own humanity, and if I understand you correctly I figure that is a pretty good statement of your motives, though they do not cover my own. I am still in agreement with Kenneth Jarecke who once wrote here that our job is to reveal the humanity in the subjects we photograph, to let our viewers see that. That involves a certain amount of ethical responsibility in still photography, though I gather and freely grant that moving film and video may operate differently from still photography. While it is probably very hard for the average film crew to avoid as you call it the “psychology of the camera”, and I assume that you are referring to the effect that the intrusion of a camera may have on a group of people even as it seeks to record their lives from a fly on the wall perspective, I personally feel, based on long experience doing just this kind of fly on the wall documentary work with still cameras, that the problem you describe is in fact much more of a problem for film crews, whose presence by their sheer number and the nature of their equipment is obviously much more disruptive. Let me tell you, with my little camera and my willingness to live with people until such point as picture taking becomes natural and unnoticed, that “psychology” is pretty much a canard. Observation is not necessarily distorting. Now why should I bother to mention this here, since my own working methods and results are entirely irrelevant to the discussion? because I felt that you were implying in a loose fashion that we may have to revise our rationale, redefine our notions of the truth value of news photographs, and perhaps admit that “staging” is part of the process? But that isnt so. Still photography doesnt necessarily distort what it captures, nor does staging at any point become legitimate or necessary. A still photographer, even a crowd of still photographers, can work safely as independent observers usually because the enormity of the events which they cover completely absorb the attention of the players to the extent that they are either unaware of the photographers or simply dont care, as the photograph is just not a priority in their immediate scheme of things. Now problems can arise when the principal players wish to stage-manage events, but I see no convincing evidence of significant staging so far, and the fact that the blogs have gone on and on about this without presenting the necessary critical evidence is sufficient proof of their lack of responsible commentary. The whole thing about the time stamping is one very significant example of the trouble that ensues as a result of a lack of expertise and a disinclination to check the facts adequately. Talk all you want about a new system of checks and balances, but that system will have to be a helluva lot better than what the blogs are proffering. Certainly images can be abused, their meanings distorted, their fidelity to the scene photoshopped beyond recognition. This has always been a problem, digital just makes it easier. but that doesnt mean that the industry itself is a complete failure or that it doesnt succeed in policing itself or that we need blogging to supply what the system itself is unable to furnish: adequate checks and balances. Nothing against blogging per se, but if this is what you rely on to filter the news, you are in trouble. News today is no more sensationalistic than it ever was. Its global reach, however, is indeed much greater, so that makes the sensationalism or misinformation more of a problem. I am not deeply troubled by the current scandal, because I know that the majority of newsgatherers out there are doing a heck of a job under difficult circumstances. They are professionals. The damage being done to journalism is a matter of perception and hype and PR, but that needs to be countered by effective, logical, restrained and reasoned action on behalf of all the news organizations.


Damon, I hear you and respect what you are trying to say here, but if the rebbe would in fact come up with some reasoned analysis of the current theme, then I would be happy to entertain what he has to say in a rational light, but that is not the fact. Whereas the general idea, that we should countenance criticism and not leap blindly to defense of photojournalistic practices without examining the case being made, appears to be a perfectly reasonable argument, that is not in fact what the rebbe is going on about, that is just the pretext for a different sort of argument. And it is irrelevant, as in fact Andy already presented this idea in a concise and clear manner which requires no further adumbration. What it requires is responses like those of Timothy and Andrew Testa and others who are either on the scene or understand the process and can attest to the fact that there is no staging going on at the places they have visited or that procedural matters like time stamping can mislead bloggers who do not understand what those times signify. The Hajj case is a very clear example of unnecessary and inept photoshopping, and there is some legitimate question about his captioning in some cases, but that one solid case has yet to be joined by very many other such cases, as the rest appears so far to be based on misunderstanding and hasty conclusions being drawn by people who simply have not investigated adequately. As Kenneth posted on a separate thread, by all means question things, question everything, skepticism is a healthy thing, so long as the questioning and the answering are all done with the same dedication to truth that characterizes the work of so many of the journalists, both textual and visual, over there in Lebanon.

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 19:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
mark, purely an oversight nothingmore. I agree with you. Look I am not saying that photojournalists and their editors dont make mistakes and shouldnt be taken to task for it when they do. Of course they do. The nature of reporting is such that mistakes can be made, and it is a testament to the professionalism of the majority that so few errors are made by these strangers in strange lands amid all the confusion. Two quick examples. I spent this spring covering the dominican elections and monitoring the Haitian. In the case of the former, a very hotly debated race with enormous political consequences for our future, I spent alot of time rumor chasing, listening to heated accusations on all sides and determinedly hunting down the truth amidst the confusion. It is a hard and tiring job, on top of all the other pressures with respect to picture taking in sometimes dangerous and often just plain difficult and fatiguing surroundings. So I am fully aware of what a photographer must do in the field and how to go about doing it well. The point is that the Dominican press, which lord knows has its weaknesses, did a very good job verifying the truth of things, but mistakes may get made. The Haitian elections provide one example where some small errors surfaced: occasionally I noticed that captions were misleading either because they clearly sprang from a misunderstanding of the culture and society (as in the case of some WPN stuff I saw) or from hasty summaries of the statistics (as in one case where the editor/writer of the “blog” that Ron Haviv was furnishing pix for made some misleading remarks about employment). Small time stuff, not at all of the same magnitude of what we are witnessing here with “Reutersgate.” Nonetheless though, fair examples of the problems inherent in covering foreign situations where it is hard to ascertain facts. Moreover, I happen to know of some photographers who, in order to provide more dramatic photos, were framing their pix so as to suggest that the fires in the streets and the crowds were evidence of a mass migration out of the capital in response to a putative breakdown in order, none of which was true. This is irresponsible, but it is the sort of thing that one sometimes discovers in less experienced phtographers anxious to make their mark or anxious to please their editors or anxious to live up to some romantic notion of the photojournalist in the midst of conflict (a pose which unfortunately Haiti tends to elicit). But these gaffes are rarely if ever present in the work of seasoned professionals, and most of the Haiti observers that I know were laughing about and decrying these excesses with equal fervor. In these cases it is up to the news organizations to vet the information, both visual and textual, that is coming in. In the case of the putative mass exodus from PAP, it was easy enough to verify that in fact no such exodus occurred, though if I recall correctly, that headline did make it out and as such presents a serious lapse of editorial responsibility. One of the things bedeviling us is, ironically, the very thing that makes news coverage in the age of digital so easy and so compelling: its instantaneity. We have images back from the field arriving faster than ever before in the history of news gathering, but this poses a huge problem: the time needed to assess the information is just not there, the pressure to get it out, to capitalize on what the digital revolution has made possible is so strong that perhaps the home orgs are not taking the time to review and assess as adequately as they should.

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 20:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Further information on mr “Green Helmet,” Salam Daher of the Lebanese civil defense, Here

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 20:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Hello. I am not a journalist, nor a photojournalist. I just ended up following the complete
discussion and wanted to ask the pros two questions:

To what extent are you aware of how your editors use your photos. A very famous one from the
second intifada showed a tough looking Israeli soldier standing over someone on the ground,
apparently beaten up, with a gas pump (evidently it was a gas station) in the background. The
photo circulated through the West as an instance of an Israeli soldier beating up a Palestinian
on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. If I recall correctly, it was an AP photo. As I remember, the
mother of the young Jewish-American, who lay beaten on the ground, recognized her son and called
the papers to correct the error. So the obvious question is: who supplies the caption, the
circumstances, the interpretation of the photo? There was, certainly, no photographic manipulation
here, the gas pump clearly indicated that the incident did not take place on the Temple Mount. So who
misinterpreted the context? Of course, everyone who received the photo accepted it as captioned, without
looking at an obvious problem in it - the gas pump.

Similarly, even if there was no staging of photos at Qana and elsewhere, the photo of the dead
child lacks the most elemental context: Hezbollah and Hamas imbed their arms, personnel, and rocket
launchers in heavy civilian concentrations. Western horror at the death of civilians when the
Israelis respond to the attack is an essential element of their strategy. The photographer has
no way to provide the context, to interpret photographically how the civilians came so
directly into harm’s way, unless he/she is
invited to photograph the arms and the rocket launching when they occur. This is not just manipulation
of a scene at a political demonstration, as described earlier; this is staging a selected piece of the story,
relying on the impression made by the one photograph to be accepted as the complete story. Yes,
I appreciate that photographers are there to make a living, even an honest living as far as not
falsifying the scene as presented. But it seems disingenuous to think that one is telling the story
in the photograph; at best it is a most narrow slice of the story. I find it hard to imagine that
that you believe that the larger context of the story is not your responsibility.

by isaac chavel | 13 Aug 2006 21:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Bronx, United States | | Report spam→
“Clio, the muse of history, is as thoroughly infected with lies as a street whore with syphilis….”—Schopenhauer…

pile upon pile of a rubble of words….it is, in fact, discouraging that the tower of words which has been erected above as only contributed to the truth of the fundamental understanding that argument cannot be accomplished merely by the elongating of thought or the propulsion of accumulated words (ideas/fact(oid)/argument/arrangement): it is a fact first learn in Logics when studying philosophy, but Rebbe, Im surprised that as a Rebbe, it should have been one of the first lessons you would have understood by studying Torah. It’s clear that Rebbe’s arguments are no more nor no less compelling as any other, although I find his derisive tone adolescent. However, I find the tone of some of LS members equally derisive and serve little purpose. The irony is that our lives and the life our our traditions (oral/written) demarked by history and philosophy and theology had shown us the squalid nature of this kind of apperature of thought: righteousness, nor argument, is not one by the acculumation of thought, just as truth (or winning of idea) is not arrived at through the greater sequence of arguments (facts?/proofs?). Elegance. In the beginning was the word, not words, and what i find most frustrating (though a fascinating 45 minutes reading all the above) is that the better-prepared the intellect (through education/university/study/reading), the more far off course the arguments often become. It is a temptation to jump, pellmell, into the tumult of cascading words and didactic parry. As Jon has pointed out, there are some horrific “historic errors” of “fact” spit out above, but I cant keep up with their splintering, nor should we. If history and philosophy and careful, thoughtful study, has elucidated anything for us, surely it is that a logarathia of accounting is not the abbacus upon which moral or historical truth is calculated. Yes? The calling into question of “imagery” is necessary, just as the calling into fact/testament/philsophy/body politic is a critic brand of our human nature, and one upon which we have been bestowed: to question is the one area in which, we as a species, have proved our greatest apogee of light. Pick, each of, an historical moment, and let it cascade (the dust heap as Carlysle reminds us) and then let me listen to your argument that the a continental shelving of ideas means truth. It does not. I find some of Rebbe’s comments depressing, just as a find much of the Blogger world depressing (in its masterbatory eponymous form of soliloquy), but I sympathsize as well with some of his jousts, because it is, in truth, a fever that is easily understood: we invest ourselves into the relevance and the tautilogical moral supremacy of our words and ideas. It’s natural, and i too might often feel the compulsion to fight back when attacked. Why is it that in our analysis of moment (especially when we call upon the enchanting gene in the bottle, History) we seldom alight above time: that which spins much longer through us that the moment. Hysterically historicising history of now. As i tried to point out on another thread, Tyre is an extraordinarily historical city, its now dessimation a siv for arabs and jews and christians alike. The original post was an interesting one and a vital one, though there have been moments of outrageous accusation and inelegance. HOWEVER, what differentiates this site, and this post from much of the “blogger world” and the “journalism” world is that, here, alive and breathing, is an opportunity to chew and to fight over ideas and arguments and points of view. I welcome Rebbe to this debate, because without it, it is clear that we are all doomed. Rebbe and his oponents benefit, not from the supremacy of their arguments, or the elegance (or inelegance for that matter) of their epistemological spars, but from the recognition that the amount of words (including my own stupid ones here) POINTS CLEARLY TO THE ABSURDITY OF THE SIMPLE: act, moral and otherwise, cannot be accomodated through the escalation of language. We’ve written, what, 5,000 years worth of words and nothing has changed, not a moral supremacy, not the unguiding of thought, not the liquidation of erroneous hatred, not the squalid deception of righteousness, not the vitiated politicization of truth, not the anemic academic malfeasance of linquistics, not the bend in the river, nor the swerve in the curve of the riverrun…..it still remains the same, and argument (moral, teological, ethical, historical) is not done through the exercize of linquistic weight (look at Heidegger’s work juxtaposed against his inability too renounce the Nazis). NOTHING is accomplished through the hysterical angering of words, specially since they are hitched to history’s grief-wagon, as we’re witnessing now. Why is it that we cannot use words for the undercovering of something, instead of the waring of one another?

Arendt said that "Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion and public debate, and where no opportunity for the forming of opinions exists, there may be moods (moods of the masses and moods of individuals, the latter no less fickle and unreliable than the former) but no opinion….”….we must welcome this debate, not as a conquest of victory (who writes more, who gets it more exact, who gets to the truth more quickly), but because debate fosters language in a new context: that of regeneration, not resignation. Waring means resignation, a priori. Rebbe, and fellow LS member, let us, now more than ever, remember why we are debating and carving: is it not to try to excavate what happened, what happens as a means, a hope, that it will shed light and insight into what is and has and seems forever to happen?…..

it is a loss and sadness, that, 10,000 years of language still has not offered us anything but the same, continued war-drumming and loss. Babel, we should have learned then…..

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 21:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
Thucydides: “So little trouble do men take in the search after truth; so readily do they accept whatever comes first to hand.”


Thucydides is considered the first real historian because unlike Herodotus he was not content to record myths and fables but to investigate events and record them after verifying their truth. Yet even he was forced to admit the essentially “fictional” nature of his enterprise in the famous 22nd paragraph in which he describes his MO:


(22) “As to the speeches which were made either before or during the war, it was hard for me, and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said. Of the events of the war I have not ventured to speak from any chance information, nor according to any notion of my own; I have described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others of whom I made the most careful and particular enquiry. The task was a laborious one, because eye-witnesses of the same occurrences gave different accounts of them, as they remembered or were interested in the actions of one side or the other.” (Jowett translation)


Essentially while on the one hand he claims to act with the highest regard for veracity and thorough investigation, on the other he is forced to admit that he has created the speeches he places in the mouths of the leading characters and has had to rely on the conflicting viewpoints of various witnesses in order to reconstruct events at which he was not himself present. Herein lie some of the perennial, crucial problems inherent in all forms of historical narrative, including its stepchild, journalism. Journalism, be it visual or textual, is still essentially a narrative medium, and therein lies its power and its problems.


Now before you accuse me of taking this discussion to the philosophical stratosphere, let me point out that this has direct implications for the present discussion. Isaac you raise some very important points: the caption problem and irresponsible “packaging” of a photograph I already dealt with in part in my discussion of the Haitian elections above. Lamentably, some photographers are lax, whether out of a lack of time or a disinclination for writing, when it comes to writing up adequate caption information that explains the context properly. I have worked as an agency photographer since 1995, and I know quite well that this is a pervasive problem. we all need to be rigorous in these matters in order to prevent misinterpretations. As to your second point about context, I think you raise a stickier issue. Here we take Thucydides as a guiding light in this matter, with his emphasis, whenever possible, on ascertaining the immediate facts, free of elaboration or adornment. That is, if on the one hand we have to be sure to provide adequate context information so that a gas pump incident is not confused with a beating on the Temple Mount, on the other hand we cannot be expected to provide contextual information that is merely conjecture or a generalization that, while it may be true in numerous instances, doesnt bear scrutiny in the present circumstance. While it may be true that Hezbollah does in fact use civilian populations as a screen, and I dont doubt it, you cannot ask a photographer at Qana to include that information in his captioning in an attempt to explain the context if he has not personally witnessed any such armaments on the scene. That kind of generalization can only be provided by the writers and editors if there is other evidence to suggest that in fact this is the case in this particular event as well. But a photographer cannot conjecture or overgeneralize from the instances he records with his camera. Yes, the context is our responsibility, but only insofar as we can authoritatively furnish it and explain it.


In the end it comes down to the fact that the medium is imperfect along with its human practitioners, and as such it depends greatly for its value on the ethical line we take. That is why a photographer’s integrity, veracity and plausibility are so precious.

by Jon Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 23:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Jon! :)))))))…I dont know about other members/bloggers, but since philosophy was one my University Time-Benders (read: major) with English and FineArts (yea, go figure what the hell i was doing during those 4 years, what services has two BA’s done for me lately ;))) ), i love it when you take the discussion “…to the philosophical stratosphere…” (any sphere, even with thin oxygen is fine with me ;)) ), …i owe you lots of rum (which Aranxta will, i hope, bone up with in Perpignan)….so, for you, Thucydides:

“Ignorance is bold and knowledge reserved.”-Thucydides

sort of what i was trying to suggest in my last post, but, my head was wearied (im cleaning the bathroom in shifts while i type/read) :)))))…cheers companero…b

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 23:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
o, yea,Jon, i forgot, to follow up on your precise reasoning about what constitutes “journalism” (which is the act of narration), as i’ve written many times before here in the last year, and one upon which we’ve both written rhapsodically about, I want to add to this, again, Arendt. Narrative is the, in situ, definition of what all of us do (im speaking now about being alive, and not only about being photographers/writers/journalists): we tell and listen and tell stories: words are our grotesquely fallable mechanism by which we sensorially imagine, reimagine and understand this world: the key to our mess, forever broken and bending. A blogger, by the way, is a writer, an orator, more likely, and this is different than a “journalist”: a right (speech) enshrined not by the Bill of Rights, by the necessity of our biological design: we speak: aint no getting around that ;)))…anyway, tub is waiting for a scrub, so Im sharing this beauty too:

“Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it…”—Arendt…

by [former member] | 13 Aug 2006 23:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
isaac chavel wrote :


>> “ So the obvious question is: who supplies the caption, the circumstances, the interpretation of the photo?”


The photographer supplies the initial caption information. In my own captions I always try to write in as
much context as I can, while sticking to the basic “short paragraph” caption format. More often than not
I will include a story summary paragraph as an addition to the individual image’s caption information.
There are many stops along the news factory production line thereafter where a photographer may lose
control of the caption information. Sometimes updates to the understanding of the story come from secondary
reports and editors will try to reconcile that information. It is not uncommon to get a phone call in the middle
of the night from an editor trying to work out correct caption information. Working in conditions like the war
in Lebanon can be bone-wiltingly exhausting and mistakes can creep in despite your best intentions, so I am
usually more reassured than annoyed when editors call to double-check.



>> “it seems disingenuous to think that one is telling the story in

>> the photograph,; at best it is a most narrow slice of the story.”


I don’t think it would be disingenuous on the part of the photographer so much as it would be naïve
on the part of a reader to think that any one photographs tells “The Story.” Of course a single
photograph is a fragment. That’s why photographers keep going back day after day for more. That’s why
they work with writers. That’s why you’ll see them take a day off from bang bang to see what’s happening
in the hospitals, churches, sports halls, discos, opium dens, or whatever. And that’s why you have
photographers and writers hopefully working from as many sides of the conflict as possible. None of us
individually can tell the story. We can individually contribute to a collective telling of as much of the
story as possible.


So I hope you and other readers get as much information from as many points of view as possible.
How you interpret it is up to you. As for the slice of information in Qana, I congratulate those photographers
who, at considerable personal risk, did their job and showed us that, indeed, on that day at least 28 people
were killed in those buildings, 16 of them children. Had those photographers and writers not been there then
we may not have known that it happened at all. Or perhaps there would have been a propaganda effort
to inflate the casualty numbers. Reporters got there quickly while the rescue was still in progress and got
some good raw information.


Now if you read that information in a larger context and choose to blame Hizbollah because they
sometimes launch rockets from civilian areas , then that’s up to you. (For the record, I personally
haven’t seen that Israel actually still claims a rocket launch from that building on that day – though they
have suggested that on previous days rockets had been launched from elsewhere in Qana.) And if you
choose to believe that this attack or this war is good for the people of Lebanon and its fledgeling government,
that it weakens Hizbollah, or that it makes Israel or the Middle East as a whole more secure, then that is
also up to you to decide.

by Thorne Anderson | 13 Aug 2006 23:08 (ed. Aug 13 2006) | Amsterdam, Netherlands | | Report spam→
Mark Seager,

Hi Bozer I was unaware there was any official Lightstalker etiquette, hope you don’t mind me calling you Bozo it takes the strain off my left hand.

Neither was I, but apparently Jorge would like us to use formal nomenclature. However, as journalist I’m sure that you understand the concept of intellectual property. Bozo is a registered trademark of Larry Harmon Pictures Corporation and I respect their rights to the name so I use a variant so as not to cause confusion.

Now I took the time to read your tirade & spotted a few mistakes….hope your taking note Jorge as you do not want to learn English from Bozo.

The difference is that I didn’t call anyone a functional illiterate.

(1)Passe is a French word that needs an accent which i presume you do not have on your keyboard so please refrain from using as it may cause confusion.

Passé is a French word. Passe is an English word borrowed from the French. The use of the accent grave or other diacriticals is generally non standard in American English. The Associated Press doesn’t use them on its general wire, and Bill Walsh, national desk copy editor for the Washington Post and author of a style manual says, “English isn’t a language of diacriticals, and we’re writing in English.” The few American newspapers that do use diacritical marks typically reserve them for names.

(2)Started not startd

Are you always that petty? It’s clearly a typographical error.

(3)Neighbours not Neighbors (4)Paedophile not pedophile

Not in my dictionary, but then I use Webster’s not the OED. If you will look at Jorge’s original post, he used the British spelling for favor, which I did not consider a spelling error.

(5)Finally there is no such word as idiotarian.

There is now.

ne·ol·o·gism
1. A new word, expression, or usage.
2. The creation or use of new words or senses.

I’m sure I can find an old OED that doesn’t have the word keyboard either.

BTW Do you type one handed? Shalom Mark

Most people are right handed, and I’ve been told that most people who type one handed use their right hand. How did you strain your left hand?

by Bozoer Rebbe | 14 Aug 2006 01:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Jon Anderson said,

Your claim, “I’m a credentialled “journalist” ” is typical of your entire false premise: you cannot have it both ways, are you or are you not a credentialled journalist? You are not; you are a blogger who gets access to events, nothing more.

Really? I publish automotive news web sites, focusing on special interest and high performance vehicles, not blogs. They are considered legitimate news sites by the automobile companies and by the credentialling folks at the major international auto shows, who screen pretty rigorously. I was publishing for years before I even heard the word blog. In January I launched a new family of automotive news aggregator sites, focusing on international regions including China and India. I’m based in the Detroit area, where there is huge demand for news on the global auto industry. After trying a few formats, I decided that it was most practical to use blogging software, as it was designed, in part, for news sites that are frequently updated. The sites are not, however, operated as blogs, and there is no commenting from readers, as most blogs have.

I posited that the primary difference between bloggers and journalists is editors. To be sure, as you pointed out, this is a quality control issue, but do editors really do much fact checking? That seems to be the heart of this issue, since allegedly inaccurate captions have been published. They may edit the content so that it reads better, or meets the paper’s style standards, but so many errors or distortions of fact get through that I really question whether a newspaper is any more accurate and reliable than a well written blog.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 14 Aug 2006 01:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
“As for the slice of information in Qana, I congratulate those photographers who, at considerable personal risk, did their job and showed us that, indeed, on that day at least 28 people were killed in those buildings, 16 of them children. Had those photographers and writers not been there then we may not have known that it happened at all. Or perhaps there would have been a propaganda effort to inflate the casualty numbers.” Thorne, I am afraid that is not good enough. How did the reporters know about the incident in the first place? Were they there when it happened, or were they called there? I accept that reporters and photographers risk their lives travelling the roads to get to such a place, once they are informed of the incident (I forget if the first reporters on the scene were the ones who lowered the initially proclaimed death toll - remember Jenin?). But are they at the sites of Hezbollah firing of rocket launchers? After the fact they are, naturally, never informed to the prior events that led to the bombing, they have to choose to track it down on their own. They have to get there in advance, to witness firings of rocket launchers, note their location relative to civilian dwellings, as well as arms stores, and then be willing to report to the outside world that the proximity of military operations to civilian concentrations was sufficiently close that the incident was within the error of “precision” bombing, or sufficiently distant that the Israelis committed a gross error, and a human tragedy occurred by their hand when they could have prevented it. But the nature of reporting on Hezbollah (I assume the same applies to Hamas) precludes any such complete background. Admittedely it is their military secret, but I do not think you see yourself, or other reporters/photographers for that matter, there to serve their war aims. (“link text”http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/3/55363.wmv)

Thus the photographs are just snapshots. That is all you can provide, I understand that. I assume most of you want to document the horrors of wars, by any of its participants, and to any of its victims. But the photographs are not used as such in the press. Your photographs are used far more broadly, as defining the war and the character of the participants, which, in turn, implies moral judgement, etc. Your most successful pictures are spread over page one, but the words, for the relatively small slice of readers who are interested, are relegated mostly to the inside. Even I know that when being faithful to the content of the photo, the key is its impact.

“For the record, I personally haven’t seen that Israel actually still claims a rocket launch from that building on that day – though they have suggested that on previous days rockets had been launched from elsewhere in Qana.”

Is Qana that large that the individual buildings are immune from attack because the Israelis are not absolutely certain from which individual building or immediate vicinity it came? Their job is to protect their citizens from the shelling, at minimal risk to the civilian population in Lebanon. But if rockets are launched from the vicinity, if not from the exact location, does anyone really expect that the Israelis desist from any and all action until the precise location of where the rocket launcher was is verified. And now that it may have moved, the whole village/town(?) is off the hook?

" if you choose to believe that this attack or this war is good for the people of Lebanon and its fledgeling government …"

You can trust me that I never thought that this war is good for Lebanon and its citizens. The notion of “fledgeling government” is a romanticized sugar-coated version of saying that the government failed to disarm Hezbollah as per resolution 1559, that the mass arming of Hezbollah took place right under the noses of the government. Sorry, but that can’t pass without a rejoinder. I see an awful lot in what you say, especially as a photgrapher on (what for me is) the other side of the war zone; but Lebanon and its citizens have been given a free pass, especially in light of the Cedars Revolution, as to their failure to disarm Hezbollah.

by isaac chavel | 14 Aug 2006 02:08 (ed. Aug 14 2006) | Bronx, United States | | Report spam→
Great work Timothy Fadek, keep up the good work

by Raffi Kirdi | 14 Aug 2006 03:08 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
Matt, “rebbe” is not a name, it is a title: rabbi. And you dont need him to link you to his “work.” Just google him or have a look here: http://bozoyon.blogspot.com/


Rebbe dont be disingenuous, you know we arent talking about the auto industry here, and that kind of “journalism” deserves to be placed in quotations, as you did in a previous post. Your other blogging is of an inflammatory nature and nothing you have offered is in any way a genuine journalistic treatment of the subject at hand. You are increasingly ridiculous. You write, “so many errors or distortions of fact get through that I really question whether a newspaper is any more accurate and reliable than a well written blog.” The first rule of argumentation is not merely to assert but to prove your assertions. How many errors get through and why? “so many” is a mere rhetoric. Are newspapers less accurate than blogs? how so, exactly? None of the blogs linked here has proven to be very accurate with the exception of the criticism of Hajj, whcih is an obvious case. The rest are all unproven and mired in specious argumentation. So tell me, give me proof: how many blogs are actually more accurate than the papers? In what areas exactly are they more accurate? How, in fact, are they comparable in any way, since as I pointed out above most blogs are not journalism, they are commentary after the fact? this is like comparing apples and oranges. Again, your argument is specious, it sounds like you are arguing something rational but in fact on close examination the argument is nothing more than vague assertions, exaggerated generalizations and very poor induction.

by Jon Anderson | 14 Aug 2006 03:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Thanks for clearing that up Jon. Everything has fallen into place, pardon my ignorance.

by [former member] | 14 Aug 2006 04:08 | Austin, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
For those who have recently joined this forum, I would like to explain the nature of Lightstalkers and why some photographers might seem a little defensive of their profession.

There’s a certain fraternity among us. It’s a bond found between people with shared experiences and goals. The experiences at times can be stressful, but the goal is simple. Photojournalists want to show others what they have seen.

The dialog that takes place here is pretty much what happens whenever you get three or more photojournalists together. Fairly intelligent, passionate, sometime heated, but a bit more restrained.

Of course, the reason that Lightstalkers is more restrained than real life is because it’s a public forum. Most of us understand that what is posted here can end up anywhere (I’m also not overly comfortable with the written word and usually unintentionally piss people off).

Face to face this conversation would be livelier and less diplomatic, but at the end of the evening things would be cool. Because of the common experiences, the fraternity thing and a certain level of respect. It’s hard to explain and not something that’s often talked about (well I can’t remember anyone taking about it). Actually I do. It’s not my story, but it will serve to illustrate the point.

Before my time, a group of photojournalists working for several different publications were covering the Three Mile Island story. They had just sat down to dinner when the call came in to evacuate the area. They had ordered, but hadn’t eaten. They paid their bill (that’s another thing most bloggers don’t have an expense account) and left the restaurant. Now, you know that seen in Independence Day where the scientist guy and his dad are driving to Washington D.C. and there’s no traffic going into the city? That’s what this group of photographers was experiencing driving towards the nuclear power plant.

So what I’m saying is this, if you haven’t willing gone into a place where most right thinking folks are trying to get out of, you’re not part of the fraternity and you won’t be given the same leeway of someone who is.

If you found yourself in the huddle of an NFL football game you wouldn’t start trying to call the plays would you (regardless of your Madden 2007 skills).

We do a good job setting and promoting ethical standards in our field. It’s a small community and the bad apples get thrown out of the barrel pretty quick.

Charles Johnson can take the credit, that’s fine, but it was a photographer who first notified Reuters about the shopped image.

For now, we will continue to educate and help aspiring photojournalists and we’ll continue to show others what we’ve seen.

Thanks,
Ken

by Kenneth Jarecke | 14 Aug 2006 04:08 | Montana, United States | | Report spam→
Dear Bob, Andy, Mark, Jon, and the rest of the people involved on a serious, conscious discussion on the original subject. First, I would like to apologize for loosing my temper, due to the insidious, generalization, not responsible statements posted on the topic that people were discussing, but also on another subjects that attempt to the integrity of life of human beings (some of them could be either mine or someone else family). I am sorry, but I am alive! I think the original thread was to create a civilized discussion, which could be on aspect such as ethic, credibility, and responsibility on the news. To listen for the opinion of other LS on this as usual, people who were there or not, people who could know and make it clear on what happened there in Qana. Here have being discussions on other situations involving either media manipulation, imaging manipulation, etc. Enriching argument with samples, proofs, and responsible points of view, based on fact not speculation, not lying, not offending, not willing for disgrace of others, even though if your enemy. Regarding Qana (according to video on youtobe). It seems to be was something wrong over there, the whole situation seems to be tricky, anyway sooner or later what really happened would show up as a fact. If video is showing what really happened, there is not a bit of humanity on manipulating such a disaster. Good news out of that is here are A LOT of good, responsible, HUMAN PS covering conflicts, disasters, and risking lives to show the world what is happening, and had never, would never got spoiled, neither by money, nor for editorial pressure or whatever could make a human being loose its moral integrity. Regarding other things I would follow the advise of some colleagues here and would just ignore, and keep focused.
Cheers,
Pupo

by Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo | 14 Aug 2006 05:08 | São Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
……anyone who overstates their superiority and worth as a human is a sad little item.
Bozoer Rebbe and others will be gone in a couple of weeks as they has no great affinity here nor are they interested in remaining. He will be gone as he cannot sustain his stance within a wider community, within a closed situation and a limited thought pattern his world is clear and seems to hold sway.
The person in the street missed all this…………… or as the bloke down the road who saw no real difference between the doctored and the real photo he thinks all this fuss is a complete waste of space and kept mowing his lawn muttering dic…..

by Imants | 14 Aug 2006 07:08 (ed. Aug 14 2006) | goannamanor, Australia | | Report spam→
Amen Kenneth.

by Jon Anderson | 14 Aug 2006 14:08 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Does anyone remember Mr. White?

by Simon Anstey | 14 Aug 2006 21:08 | Copenhagen, Denmark | | Report spam→
Amen Kenneth :))))))….amen imants….amen (amen) jon….simon: yea, i do (please dont conjur up that klansmen racist from the swamps, dont want to deal with him again)..;))))))))))))….amen to all that ;))))) ….cheers, b

by [former member] | 14 Aug 2006 23:08 (ed. Aug 15 2006) | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
Kenneth: very well put. many of the younger and less experienced LS members, myself included, should head the input of those fraternity members like yourself.

cheers,

MK

by Marc Kelly | 15 Aug 2006 01:08 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Personally, I’m glad this is happening. Every now and then we need to evaluate how we do our jobs and to be reminded that we can’t take what we’re told at face value and that there are rules and ethics in our industry.

Editors send us off all the time to shoot press conferences and “media oportunities”. We need to evaluate every situation we encounter and make an objective decision as to how we cover these stories. I wasn’t at Qana, but Tim Fadek was. If he says photos weren’t staged, then that’s good enough for me.

I just want to point out that Hezbollah isn’t the only orgainization trying to get its propaganda in the news. I cover alot of stories here in Jacksonville where the people I’m photographing have their own agenda and want the story slanted in their favor. All I can do on an editorial assignment is document what happens. For my personal work or for an ad shoot the rules are different, but for a newspaper or a magazine we have a certain obligation, I think, and it’s good to be reminded about that every now-and-then.

With all this new technology we’re zooming back and forth just bouncing all over the place. It’s good we’ve slowed down a little and started to talk about this again. Today I sent a picture off to a wire service. It was an editorial shoot and I used a slow shutter speed to blur the background. Usually when I check-in my images I get an “it’s fine, bye.” Today the editor asked me if the blurring was done in-camera.

I’m not the least bit worried about the state of journalism or how we’re covering these stories and presenting them to our audiences. Our viewers are smart and know when they’re being fed crap. The critics of journalists have already made up their minds and no matter how perfect we are their opinions won’t change. All we can do is be honest and present our work in an ethical manner.

Kenneth, thanks for for your post. You put my feelings into words better than I can.

by Oscar Sosa | 15 Aug 2006 02:08 | Jacksonville, FL, United States | | Report spam→
Anderson Fri Aug 11 15:22:47 UTC 2006

Presenting death corpses around for the media or the people standing around is not common in islamic countries/societies. You´ll only find this when the death can be linked to the western enemy (i.e. Israel or the USA) and it is a favored weapon in the propaganda war. Usually it is ruled out by islamic law and this law is very strict.

Here an information for you about islamic funerals in Lebanon:
Compared to Christian funerals, Muslim funerals are very economical and generally simple. When a Muslim dies, the family gives the deceased a bath, wraps the body in a white cloth (called kafan), and places it in a pine casket (in some cases, it is carried on a stretcher to the mosque). This must be done at the time of the daily prayer, which occurs five times a day. At the mosque, a funeral ritual called Salat al jinaaza is performed. After the ceremony, the body is transported in a procession to the cemetery. The grave is usually constructed with concrete blocks. After the lid and coffin are in place, a ritual ceremony called Talkin is performed by the leader, who asks the deceased questions through two angels, Munkar and Nakir, who serve as intermediaries. The funeral is never held at the cemetery, because the grave is considered a defiled place.
(…)
In the case of the Muslims, the funeral is held as early as possible. Since there is no custom of preserving the corpse with dry ice, the burial is held within a day or two of the death.
[Kodo Matsunami, International Handbook of Funeral Customs (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998) p. 95]

Now you could counter that those dead are “shahids” but the only difference would be, that they want be washed and would be burried in their clothes. That are the rules. Islam is a cultur of shame and to present dead corpses around would (usually) hurt the feelings of the relatives and would show the disrespect of the reputation of the deceased. What you try to do is to implement your christian-postmodern-guilt-laden view into islamic societies and that makes you a perfect tool for radical islamistic propaganda.

Some questions: how many shots have you seen of dismembered corpses in Israeli/western newspapers presented by rescue workers of Magen David Adom or ZAKA in this manner? How many photos of dismembered corpses have you seen in the western MSM of muslims killed by muslim terrorists presented by rescue workers of the XXX Red Crescent?

And a last question: how many shots have you seen of dismembered corpses in all their brutality in European newspapers after e.g. 9/11 or Madrid or London 8/8 by rescue workers of the Red Cross?

Do you see the direction? When a victim from western origin is killed by islamic terrorism, than the medias know very well their responsibility for the dignity of the dead. But when the death can be blamed to Israel (or the USA) then there is no dignity any longer left.

It isn´t you or your associates who are to blame in the main point. The medias are to blame, the medias which are eager to buy photos of and to show those dismembered corpses in their tv-newscasts and newspapers. Those medias which are fixed on the Middle East and fixed with the “western guilt” of postmodern thinking. But and this is to say, don´t give here the upholder of moral standards if you don´t know the basics of ME culture.

by Guggi Heinz | 16 Aug 2006 12:08 (ed. Aug 16 2006) | Salzburg, Austria | | Report spam→
see also links at rob galbraiths forum on this topic (la times, picture editores etc interviewed)
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7897-8520

by Bernard van Dierendonck | 16 Aug 2006 20:08 | Zürich, Switzerland | | Report spam→
see also links at rob galbraiths on this topic (la times, picture editores etc interviewed)
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7897-8520

by Bernard van Dierendonck | 16 Aug 2006 20:08 | Zürich, Switzerland | | Report spam→
I think this is a healthy discussion. An honest and open dialogue and analysis of what is happening can only be helpful in the end. If photgraphers want their work to be viewed as objective, the only response when that objectivity is challenged, is openess.

If the response is defensive, or obfuscating it only provides ammunition to those who doubt it. Integrity breeds integrity, and will lead to respect. Clearly there are those that have less than honorable intentions in the ‘media’ and it is your duty as ‘journalists’ to hold those people accountable, and remove them from your industry.

Showing that manipulation and fraud are not tolerated on any level, will go a long way in supporting the idea of objectivity.

by Eli Stoltzfus | 20 Aug 2006 13:08 | Missouri, United States | | Report spam→
please read this link:
Editor and Publisher comes to the defense of war photographers in Lebanon

In Defense of War Photographers
While some criticism is warranted, the current controversy over manipulated or staged pictures from Lebanon has been fueled by speculative, unfounded, or politically-driven charges that have tainted all of the brave photographers who cover conflict in the Middle East.

By Greg Mitchell

(August 22, 2006) — With most others in the mainstream media silent, I rise here in support of the overwhelming number of press photographers in the Middle East who bravely, under horrid conditions, in recent weeks have sent back graphic and revealing pictures from the war zones, only to be smeared, as a group, by rightwing bloggers aiming, as always, to discredit the media as a whole.

This broad condemnation, and the conspiracy theories, lodged against photographers in war zones — who are risking their lives while bloggers risk nothing but carpal tunnel syndrome — needs to be refuted.

Indeed, one American photographer in Lebanon, Bryan Denton, often cited by the blogs as backing their claims, has now apologized for his earlier “irresponsible” assertions at the Lightstalkers site, and stated flatly, “Any one out there who is trying to politicize that is just plain sick, and is moving this further away from the real issue at hand. There are hundreds of photographers working here now. Don’t let a few bad apples take the attention away from what the REAL story is, because by the looks of the blogs, THAT is exactly what is happening.” Don’t expect to find those second thoughts on any of the blogs.

Which is not to say that this is much ado about nothing. Obviously, Adnan Hajj, the Reuters photographer who doctored at least two images, deserved to be dismissed. A handful of other pictures snapped by others warrant investigation. In a few cases, caption information was wrong or misleading, and required correction. In addition, the controversy has sparked an overdue discussion — some of it here at E&P — on the credibility of all photography in the Photoshop age and the wide use of local stringers abroad in a time of cutbacks in supervision.

But, in general, the charges against the photographers, and their news organizations, have been hysterical, largely unfounded, and politically driven, while at times raising valid questions, such as what represents “staging.”

Time does not permit a point by point documentation of the dozens of ludicrous, or at least completely unproven, examples of doctored or staged or otherwise manipulated photos on the Web. Have no fear, I will soon return to this subject, but in the meantime, feel free to plunge into the blogosphere. If you go deeply enough, you may feel you are back on the Grassy Knoll. One of the most-linked sites in this controversy, EU Referendum, goes so far as to suggest that a kind of Hollywood “film-set” was improvised at the site of the Qana killings “for the benefit of both Hezbollah and the media.”

Many of the blogs routinely refer to The New York Times, AP, CNN and other news organizations as being in league with Hezbollah or at least “anti-American.” Rush Limbaugh declared that “photographers are obviously willing to participate in propaganda. They know exactly what’s being done, all these photos…. So the point is, Israel is probably not even killing all these civilians.”

Just this morning, a blogger emailed me his latest “scoop.” Remember those photos a few days ago showing “Made in USA” signs posted here and there amid the rubble of South Beirut? This fellow is convinced that an AP photog wrote the signs, in a certain font, on his computer — and pasted them into his image.

One problem with the theory: E&P happens to have photos taken by others that show exactly the same thing – but the blogger will no doubt now claim that all of these highly competitive photogs conspired on this.

Often, the allegations of bogus photos amounts to nothing more than this: Showing, say, one picture of a badly-damaged car in Lebanon next to another shot of a totally destroyed auto, both said to be hit by Israeli bombs. Aha! Obviously the one that was only badly-damaged must have gotten wrecked in some other way. The possibility that one vehicle suffered a direct hit and the other a glancing blow — or that different Israeli missiles were used — apparently does not occur to these people.

One day last week I spent an entertaining ten minutes examining a long thread at one blog in which many posters were convinced that, for some unfathomable reason, a very dark-skinned Lebanese man in one photo MUST have been pasted into the scene — for one reason, everyone know (?) Arabs are never that dark.

Keep in mind, in considering all of these charges, that almost without exception, the bloggers are basing their comments on photos posted on the Web in compressed jpeg form, with little true detail possible. So when they write, for example, about people or props being “planted” at the site of an explosion — the only evidence for this being the apparent lack of dust on their surface — remember that sharp detail and true surface texture are not visible in Web photos.

Here’s just one typical example of blog hysteria in their attacks on what some of them call “fauxtography.”

An image captured by one of The New York Times’ most acclaimed photographers, Tyler Hicks, that appeared in the paper and in a gallery at its Web site, showed a young man being pulled from the wreckage of a collapsed building after the Israeli attack on Qana that killed at least 28, including 16 or more children. Eagled-eyed bloggers soon found, on other news sites, images of the same man darting about the same disaster scene, trying to rescue people.

So, in their usual manner, they put 1 and 1 together and got 2 much: One blog after another charged that this man, after doing his rescue work, was planted on the pile, as a bomb victim, by Hezbollah, probably with the cooperation of Tyler Hicks, who then sent the manipulated photo around the world. The Times, as usual, was denounced by the rightwing bloggers for pro-terrorist and/or anti-American bias.

Even the popular, non-political site Gawker joined in, under the headline, “Times War Photos Artfully Staged, Directed.”

Well, there was, indeed, something wrong with the Times presentation. On the Web, though not in print, it suggested that the man had been blasted in the Israeli attack. In fact, the Times quickly found out — and corrected its Web caption — that the man fell down and got hurt in his rescue efforts. This simple explanation for the chronology was too much for some of the bloggers who continued questioning the incident, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Others in the mainstream keep citing it too. As recently as this past Sunday, a Boston Herald editorial still had the man in the Hicks photo posing for the camera, then getting up and running around. It said the Times had “issued a correction” — without mentioning that it related to the caption about how he got hurt, not about it being a bogus photo.

But all of this was inevitable. Many bloggers appear ignorant of time-stamping and the fact that photos are often posted on Web sites out of sequence.

Another revealing example (there are dozens) concerns the statements of a young U.S. photographer in Beirut named Bryan Denton. On Aug. 11, he posted a comment on a discussion board at the important online meeting place for photojournalists, Lightstalkers.

The photographers, by then, were already discussing charges of dead Lebanese children being displayed for the cameras in a stagey way. Timothy Fadek, whose photos have appeared in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times Magazine and dozens of other top publications, had posted on Aug. 8 that when he covered the Qana air strike he twice saw a rescuer raising “a dead child to a photographer, and in anger and distress, shouted something in Arabic which I didn’t understand. But his message was clear, that he was very angry and vented his anger to the media (the world).”

Another photog, Stuart Isett, asked, referring to rescuers displaying the body of one child over and over: "How are the pictures misleading? The child is dead and the subject was showing this to the cameras — that’s how any intelligent reader would view these images. The man in the image has every right to show this dead child to the world — this happens all the time in terrible situations.

“What this is all about, is an attempt by right wing blogs to muddy the waters and somehow claim, like Michele Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have, that Qana and other civilians deaths in Lebanon are staged.”

Then, on August 11, Denton posted a comment on Lightstalkers that got the rightwing blogosphere in a dither. When he later denounced them for poltiicizing it, however, they were silent.

Much more on this in Part II of this column, tomorrow.

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P and has written for Aperture, The Washington Post, and other publications about war photos.

by [former member] | 24 Aug 2006 04:08 (ed. Aug 24 2006) | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Rebbe dont be disingenuous, you know we arent talking about the auto industry here, and that kind of “journalism” deserves to be placed in quotations


I wonder what Mark Phelan of the Detroit Free Press, Jonathan Welsh of the Wall Street Journal, or Lawrence Ulrich of the New York Times, or Paul Abeleson, Technical Editor of LandLine magazine, would say about your remark. You might also ask the Pulitzer Prize committee about the Pulitzer they gave to Dan Neil of the LA Times.

Cars are typically the second biggest purchase most people make. The transportation industry employs directly or indirectly about one in seven Americans. Events in that industry are newsworthy, and while plenty of newspapers publish warmed over press releases, there are a number of fine journalists and writers working the automotive beat. At least when one of the “buff books” runs a story, they do actual testing of the car and provide actual data to back up their copy.

At least the folks writing about cars admit that the events they cover are media events, unlike the true believers here.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 25 Aug 2006 18:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Mr. Fadek,

I see that you didn’t answer my questions about one of your photos from Lebanon. So I’ll ask you again.

Could you please explain something about photo #17 in your Lebanon
2006 portfolio? I’m curious about why everything in the photo has dust and rubble on it
except for the photograph of an Arab family, which seems pristine (like many of the
toys in the rubble that have been photographed). Also, did you use natural
lighting? The photograph of the family appears to have a different brightness and contrast
than the rest of the image – perhaps it’s my browser. Boy, that was real fortunate for you
to find a photograph of a family face up in the rubble – really grabs the human interest
angle.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 25 Aug 2006 19:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
please read part 2 of Editor & Publisher article on this topic

by [former member] | 25 Aug 2006 19:08 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
well you know Rebbe, sometimes photo’s land face up and sometimes they land face down. When they land face down, you don’t take a picture, and when they land face up…er…you DO take a picture, got it?
I think it’s hilarious the way you think we’re all part of some spectacular conspiracy, you obviously know very little about photographers. I have a suggestion for you, why don’t you buy a ticket, get on a plane and go and have a look for yourself? That’s all we do.

by [former member] | 25 Aug 2006 20:08 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
At least the folks writing about cars admit that the events they cover are media events, unlike the true believers here.
-
more subterfuge, red herrings, false analogies and snide insinuations. Rebbe, you dont just publish articles on the auto industry, you have a tendentious blog
of your own where you shoot your mouth off freely, and you hunt the net for other boards on which to spout incendiary nonsense, as in the case I quoted a
few posts back. Regardless of whether you have a legitimate journalistic output vis a vis the car industry, your writing on this issue and on the Middle East
is not journalism, it is mere opinion. Bring your automotive-journalistic skills to the table here and show us some genuine analysis and I will respect what
you have to say, but so far there isnt a single grain of investigative journalism in anything you have written. Far from a journalist, on this
board you have behaved merely as an internet “troll.”

Your attempt at clever argumentation is subterfuge: Qana was not a “media event”; it wasnt staged, even if in fact Green Helmet held up a dead child for
others to photograph. The bombs really fell, that child and many others really died, the block was demolished, and nothing in any of the silly blogging that came after
changes that. To argue that a subsidiary incident occurring at Qana effectively turns the Qana bombing as a whole into a “media event” is to argue
on the basis of what is called the “fallacy of composition.” To make an analogy between such an event and a car show is mere rhetorical equivocation:
they are alike in nothing. You are not helping to clarify matters by these childish dodges. As for praising the people who cover auto shows and evaluate
Detroit’s product because they “they do actual testing of the car and provide actual data”: well, this is again another subterfuge.
The two things are not comparable. A photojournalist doesnt furnish data; he or she furnishes a photographic record of what happened.
This of course involves the potential for abuse. Photojournalism is not a quantifiable science with charts, graphs, figures and data.
It produces moral not scientific proofs. But of the alleged manipulations or misrepresentations that have occurred, how many are certifiable
at this point? How many genuine transgressions are now certified, other than Hajj? It is a point worth making: so far the bloggers just
point fingers and insinuate, as you are doing with Timothy’s picture; but there is no proof or even an attempt to make an argument “to back up their
copy.” All right, if you admire these automotive writers for their precision, why not follow suit? You wont because you cant and you are not
really interested in taking the time to present a real argument; you are in it for the vituperation.

As for covering the automotive industry, one further point. Many papers do this as a function of their advertising department, not their Editorial dept.
According to Dan Neil this is why he got into this area, because the “usual standards of journalistic ethics didnt apply.” Dan won the pulitzer for his writing on
the automotive industry, true; but the prize he won was not for journalism, it was for “criticism.” Dan Neil joined the ranks of Critics not journalists, people
like Harold Schonberg, who won the prize for his music criticism, or Ronald Powers, who won for television criticism, or Emily Genauer, for
her art criticism. The Pulitzer Prize for Criticism is not awarded for journalism; its criteria are different. Again, Rebbe, another red herring.

by Jon Anderson | 25 Aug 2006 21:08 | Bonao, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Rebbe, you dont just publish articles on the auto industry, you have a tendentious blog
of your own where you shoot your mouth off freely, and you hunt the net for other boards on which to spout incendiary nonsense, as in the case I quoted a
few posts back.

So much for your journalistic skills. You find one blog, that I publish under a nom de plume and you jump to all sorts of silly conclusions. I can think of a number of working journalists publish their own blogs specifically so they can express opinions that would be inappropriate in a news story.

Regardless of whether you have a legitimate journalistic output vis a vis the car industry, your writing on this issue and on the Middle East
is not journalism, it is mere opinion.

I never said my posts here were journalistic. With the exception of those who have posted information about their experiences in Lebanon, almost all the posts here have been opinions. As for my comments on other blogs regarding the Middle East, though I’ve made some pure opinion comments, most of my writings have been based on historic fact. One of the problems with the way the Middle East conflicts have been presented and perceived is a lack real, verified, history that is presented. For example, how did Palestine get to be called Palestine? Did Jewish settlement prior to 1948 displace any Arabs? What is the role of the powerful Arab landholding clans in the Jewish / Arab conflict? What exactly was the King David Hotel in pre-state Palestine? What are the historic ties between the Palestinian movement and the Nazis? What happened to 750,000 Jews in Arab and Muslim countries after 1948?

Bring your automotive-journalistic skills to the table here and show us some genuine analysis and I will respect what
you have to say, but so far there isnt a single grain of investigative journalism in anything you have written.

I believe that I broke the news on Chrysler’s development of a police package for the LX platform, about a year before Chrysler announced the program.

I also believe that I was the first to identify what has become known as the extreme pickup truck market segment and the first to publish the size of that market, $100 million a year and growing. The size of the market surprised even International and General Motors, the two biggest players in that market.

Contrary to published reports, and prior to the announcement that it was greenlighted, I published that there were no engineering or manufacturing barriers to the production of the revived Dodge Challenger. This was based on an interview with Trevor Creed, head of Chrysler design.

While published reports indicated that GM could build no more than 20,000 Pontiac Solstices a year, I verified that the Wilmington plant could easily expand production.

As for analysis. How’s this:

Detroit and Southeastern Michigan are more the global center of the auto industry than ever. While manufacturing jobs in this region have gone away, virtually every company that sells cars, truck or components in North America has established facilities in southeastern Michigan. The trend started back in the 1970s, when Porsche opened up a lab in Ann Arbor. They were having difficulty getting their cars to pass the then new emissions tests at the EPA lab in A2 because the cars were set up and calibrated in Germany. Other companies followed suit. As foreign manufacturers and vendors entered the NA market, the also found the need to have sales and engineering offices in this region. Just as companies in the financial business will most likely have an office in NYC regardless of where they are headquartered. Even Geely, the Chinese company which has announced plans to market passenger cars in NA starting next year, is planning on moving their US offices from Salt Lake City to the Detroit area. Koreans come to Detroit to do business with Indians. Speaking of India, of the 25 or so Indian component and service vendors that were displaying at the ’06 SAE World Congress, five of them already have sales and/or engineering offices in this region.

With all the headlines about GM, Ford and the big vendors like Delphi and Visteon, this is somewhat counterintuitive.

Far from a journalist, on this

board you have behaved merely as an internet “troll.”

by Bozoer Rebbe | 26 Aug 2006 00:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Rebbe, you dont just publish articles on the auto industry, you have a tendentious blog
of your own where you shoot your mouth off freely, and you hunt the net for other boards on which to spout incendiary nonsense, as in the case I quoted a
few posts back.

So much for your journalistic skills. You find one blog, that I publish under a nom de plume and you jump to all sorts of silly conclusions. I can think of a number of working journalists who publish their own blogs specifically so they can express opinions that would be inappropriate in a news story.

Regardless of whether you have a legitimate journalistic output vis a vis the car industry, your writing on this issue and on the Middle East
is not journalism, it is mere opinion.

I never said my posts here were journalistic. With the exception of those who have posted information about their experiences in Lebanon, almost all the posts here have been opinions. As for my comments on other blogs regarding the Middle East, though I’ve made some pure opinion comments, most of my writings have been based on historic fact. One of the problems with the way the Middle East conflicts have been presented by the mainstream media and perceived by their viewers/readers is a lack of real, verified, history that is presented. For example, how did Palestine get to be called Palestine? Did Jewish settlement prior to 1948 displace any Arabs? What is the role of the powerful Arab landholding clans in the Jewish / Arab conflict? What exactly was the King David Hotel in pre-state Palestine? What are the historic ties between the Palestinian movement and the Nazis? What happened to 750,000 Jews in Arab and Muslim countries after 1948?

Bring your automotive-journalistic skills to the table here and show us some genuine analysis and I will respect what
you have to say, but so far there isnt a single grain of investigative journalism in anything you have written.

I believe that I broke the news on Chrysler’s development of a police package for the LX platform, about a year before Chrysler announced the program.

I also believe that I was the first to identify what has become known as the extreme pickup truck market segment and the first to publish the size of that market, $100 million a year and growing. The size of the market surprised even International and General Motors, the two biggest players in that market.

Contrary to published reports, and prior to the announcement that it was greenlighted, I published that there were no engineering or manufacturing barriers to the production of the revived Dodge Challenger. This was based on an interview with Trevor Creed, head of Chrysler design.

While published reports indicated that GM could build no more than 20,000 Pontiac Solstices a year, I verified that the Wilmington plant could easily expand production.

As for analysis. How’s this:

Detroit and Southeastern Michigan are more the global center of the auto industry than ever. While manufacturing jobs in this region have gone away, virtually every company that sells cars, truck or components in North America has established facilities in southeastern Michigan. The trend started back in the 1970s, when Porsche opened up a lab in Ann Arbor. They were having difficulty getting their cars to pass the then new emissions tests at the EPA lab in A2 because the cars were set up and calibrated in Germany. Other companies followed suit. As foreign manufacturers and vendors entered the NA market, the also found the need to have sales and engineering offices in this region. Just as companies in the financial business will most likely have an office in NYC regardless of where they are headquartered. Even Geely, the Chinese company which has announced plans to market passenger cars in NA starting next year, is planning on moving their US offices from Salt Lake City to the Detroit area. Koreans come to Detroit to do business with Indians. Speaking of India, of the 25 or so Indian component and service vendors that were displaying at the ’06 SAE World Congress, five of them already have sales and/or engineering offices in this region.

With all the headlines about problems at GM, Ford and the big vendors like Delphi and Visteon, this is somewhat counterintuitive.

Now this is strictly my opinion, but it seems to me that Dan Neil won the Pulitizer for criticism in part because he has a record of criticizing American car companies, which dovetails with the biases of the selection committee. Toyota makes a car that is of higher quality. That’s verifiable. What’s not often reported is that the difference is just barely statistically significant. Everyone selling cars in NA makes good product. Some is better than others, but there is very little dreck. Right now the Indian and Chinese manufacturers are not ready for prime time, but their next product cycles will produce cars suitable for the NA and European markets.

BTW, did you know why Toyota is hyping their hybrids so much? It’s because they are very weak in diesel technology, which in Europe is essential to market success.

The bottom line is that you can attack me and bloggers all that you want. You can circle the wagons and demean people who aren’t in your guild as ignorant or worse. Keep it up. You’ll just end up like the buggy whip manufacturers.

And Fadek still hasn’t answered my questions.

by Bozoer Rebbe | 26 Aug 2006 00:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Rebbe, round and round you go. Your ideas never develop and you never really answer anyone’s questions do you? You make a pretense of answering them.
You have just spent the last post trying to convince me that you are a journalist: lots of analysis of the auto industry. So what it is it to be? Are you a
journalist, and if so why talk about the “guild” and circling the wagons as though you werent? And if you are not a member of the “guild,”
and on these issues you appear not to be since you do not offer solid arguments, then just admit you are a troll and there’s an end to it.
All that automotive reporting is irrelevant, it doesnt add to the discussion here, and as I pointed out such work is carried out at the behest of advertising
departments, not the editorial dept. I asked you to bring your putative skills as a journalist to the table
in order to analyze the various accusations made against photographers in these blogs. But you didnt because you cant, and you dont want to.
Enough already, it is plain that you are just being perverse.

by Jon Anderson | 26 Aug 2006 04:08 | Bonao, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Bozoer,

Conspiracy theories and Little Green Helmet’s aside – none of these change the fact that precision-guided missiles slammed into an apartment block
killing innocent women and children. Whose fault is that?

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 08:08 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
frank,unfortunately the rebbe(not his real name,i like to think of him as nancy),is one of those people that think certain groups,nations etc have more of a right to kill than others.he sees death and destruction
as some sort of game,and innocent peoples deaths as suitable chips to play with.i wonder who the real rebbe is?at the moment i am torn between him being a bitter middle-aged housewife from florida who’s
hubby ran off witha red head from ’snappy-snaps" or a chubby mid-west adolescent with a grubby ferrarri poster on his bedroom walll and a weekend job stacking tyres at his local toyota dealership.

by Michael Bowring | 26 Aug 2006 08:08 | Belgrade, Serbia | | Report spam→
Personalising the discussion only lowers it and detracts from the issues. Its not about Rebbe, or shouldn’t be. If we are honest we should let ideas compete with ideas, through serious dialogue. I personally don’t even think the most important issue is an attack on photographers per se. I think Greg Mitchell, though well-intentioned, misframes the issues as one about the innocence or guilt of photographers. Doing this misses a crucial point, not within the remit of his article nor in this thread, that there is a context to the issue of media manipulation that needs to be understood: jihadism – and the media-battle front in the ‘jihad vs. dar el harb’ war – continues to be ignored and even unidentified as the threat that it is. It is only within this context that we can understand the significance of the faking/staging issue in the Middle East: how is the media being used (directly or indirectly) by jihadists, and to what concrete ends? Who are the active agents, secondary agents, and the unwitting pawns? How has jihadism benefited from squabbles in the western media regarding media corruption? And what are the real effects of on public opinion, and policy making, in the Middle East and the West?

These questions will of course be rebuffed by equivocal questions regarding American and Israeli use of the media, though this is a predictable and unfortunate reflection of the loss of perspective of well-meaning modern-day humanists. Perception of the appropriate context is somewhat lacking in the ‘corruption of the media’ debate. This is hindered by squabbling between the left-wing vanguard of the mainstream media (MSM) and right-wing bloggers, as well as the left’s undue focus on whether photographers as individuals are guilty, and its naïve moral equivocation of faking/staging by jihadist groups with that of Israel, the U.S. and its allies. For the leftoid MSM, it’s as if the term ‘right-wing’ automatically denounces the credibility of the views expressed on these blogs, and as if blogs themselves are unreliable since there are not ‘real’ publications. Though sadly, the term ‘left-wing’ increasingly refers to apologetic myopia.

This division, admittedly simplified, though polarized over support (or lack of) for Israel, represents a fundamental weakness in the West’s perception of, and hence ability to fight, a real enemy: jihadism. Further than this, complicity with the enemy cannot even be acknowledged since the enemy isn’t properly identified. Maybe for some this is a side issue, but any question of the faking or staging of photos must be seen within the context of a war which is recognised for what it is. Arguments concerning whether jihad is purely a response to U.S. foreign policy mistakes (reactive) or in fact has its seeds sown long ago within Islamic history (proactive), are primary. This affects one’s political stance and hence one’s understanding of the context to the allegations of media corruption, and the implications that ensue.

If so-called ‘radical Islam’, or Islamism, is seen as a mere reaction to Israeli and U.S. aggression, then we blind ourselves from the proactive reality of global jihadism. And the lack of an identified global threat makes it tempting for some to view accusations of fake or staged photos in the Middle East as one merely and indiscriminately directed against photographers. But the photographic community, as a target, is a red herring. It is indeed because of this fundamental misunderstanding of the war as backdrop, the MSM (and to some extent even some of the blogs accusing the MSM) has overlooked and failed to explore the possibility of jihadi media infiltration, or its own complicity with the jihadist agenda. Of course the majority of photographers are doing a valiant and valuable job in the Middle East. And sure, a dead baby is still a dead baby, however it is held up for the cameras. But a dead baby held up to the camera is a strong emotional device, and coupled with a selective memory, is powerful tool in a media war which will ultimately usher in further waves of jihadi violence in the Middle East and in Europe, America and beyond. If we fail to question the images we see in the media, to question the media, and if we reduce these issues to the personal, then we risk further blindness and deserve what comes.

by Damon Lee Perry | 26 Aug 2006 11:08 | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
damon,
if the ‘western press/media’ were unified in any way during the lebanese/israeli war it was in one way only.it was united in trying to get the whole thing stopped a.s.a.p..Which in my opinion is a good thing.
trying to stop killing,seems a pretty responsible media stance to me.
as for jihadism,of course it exists,everyone is aware of that.what’s not so clear is what it is,what is its real agenda,who is it.this lack of real knowledge leads to an awful lot of speculation and lays itself open
to potential manipulation and distortion by all sides.i would love to read an informed debate about all this but scaremongering and over-reaction just spreads fear,which exactly what the ‘jihadists’ want.

by Michael Bowring | 26 Aug 2006 12:08 | Belgrade, Serbia | | Report spam→
Y’all: to add something additional: I watched Christopher Anderson’s report this morning at Magnum:

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/lebanon.aspx

bob

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 13:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
Damon: the incidents, including the manipulation of photographer and the propogandist tools used during this war, on both sides (of which I would remind you that war IS a priori propgandist in nature, not matter
what the cause, no matter how righteous or incendiary, no matter how propicious or opaque) have nothing at all, not at all, to do with global jihadism: instead, it happened, as all moments in our effluvious history, to
be a case of propinquity. Although “jihadism” (i find the evocation of this word often a superficial canard by people who know very little about Islam (and the concept of Jihad, other than what has been
spouted in the media) nor the root causes and reactions. “Global Jihadism” is, of course (christ I had that description), at the front and center of one thread of incidentiary and quite destablizing movements
(terrorism spawned under the rublic of so-called “islam extremists” is a reality, but also part of a global trend over which has been mapped, like tattered skin on a lamp, the word “jihadism”, involving profond and
deadly actions of terror directly related to the reaction of the disenfranchisement of many in the 3rd world). Of course, elements of the war in lebanon are pricked by this, but there are also more fundamental issues at play
here, ones that predate the so-called rise of “global jihadism”….our questions MUST be more profound than the questions of “questioning the media”…for if we fail to understand the more significant reasons for
the manipulation, as well as for the culbability of both Hezbollah and IDF (away from the global movement of “jihad”) we will, in time again FAIL to understand….in time there will be a new catch phrase
to enwrap the “terror” which freezes the world, and it will be born of new faces, new slogans, and even new invective (new religion/ideology?)…and the scatters bodies of children and women and men wil remain he same…

we risk blindness, indeed as you point out, and im afraid the west’s easy definition of Lebandon and the middle east and se asia as “global jihadism” is another example of how profoundly little the weathly, age-of-enlihtment
west has really understood and even grappled to understand…..

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 13:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
Bob, I think we fundamentally disagree. What do you think of as jihad? Some kind of inner spiritual struggle, like yoga? This idea is totally contrary to the reality of jihad as military struggle, first witnessed when Mohammed took Mecca. As the 6th unofficial pillar of Islam, jihad is entwined with fatah – conquest – at the root of Islamic history and expansion, as consciously instigated by the early caliphs. Do you know the history of Islam? Of the centrality of fatah? Of the theological division of the world between the dar el Islam and dar el harb? Of the significance of the doctine of takfir, the ability to designate groups of people as kafir (infidels) and incriminate them? Of the 13th Century writings of Ibn Taymiya, levered open by the so-called ‘extremists’, unleashing an 800 year old wave of jihad? What are the ‘more fundamental issues at play here, ones that predate the so-called rise of “global jihadism”’ that you talk about? Far from being a recent reaction to geopolitical injustices, jihad has a long history, dating back to the beginning of Islam, revitalized by Taymiya, and thwarted by the end of the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim caliphate, in 1923. Your persistence in putting it in quotes suggests reluctance to give the concept due recognition for what it is. I agree ‘terror’ is an injustice, but because it blurs its specificity. We are not talking about the IRA here. You say that for some “global jihadism” is an easy ‘definition’ of the situation in Lebanon and the Middle East. Far from it! It is far from easy to see appropriate attention given in the leftoid MSM to jihad as an ideological force to be reckoned with. We are too busy blaming ourselves, our governments, to see the global reality. Sure the truth is that no simple phrase can define or explain the complexity of the region’s, or the world’s, problems. This is not a Star Wars good vs. evil scenario. We acknowledge the U.S. etc has made fundamental mistakes. But I know which is the lesser evil. I think the media, far from helping identify ‘terror’ for what it is, has blurred and obscured the enemy, to the point where Westerners morally equivocate and stick their head in the sand. So what is it you think is so fundamentally misunderstood? What is more fundamental for informing the difficult decisions we have to make? Interested in what you think.

by Damon Lee Perry | 26 Aug 2006 15:08 | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
Damon,

KISS. “Keep It Simple Stupid” That’s a favourite saying of mine in the military. Nice writings for some political science essay, but it has
very little to do with what is being discussed here – photojournalists doing their job. In the Qana incident the Israelis f-cked-up (admittedly)
and even apologized. The seasoned journalists on the ground were simply covering the obvious – the tragic fact that innocent women and children
huddled in an apartment building were killed for no good reason.

In another instance a few weeks earlier Israeli artillery and precision-guided missiles also hit an UN observer position in southern Lebanon killing
four observers, including a Canadian. Again, in that instance the Israelis apologized for their actions even though the same position was targeted by
Israeli artillery and aerial bombardment for days previous to that incident.

Makes you wonder, eh? Like you say, nothing is black and white.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 16:08 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
It seems that this topic, which is over fifteen days old is a hot one, and also much to my amusement that I am not the most popular guy on the net-those honers would go to the Rebmobille & Santo Damon for their sensitive and insightful editorials. Forgive me if I digress, but wouldn’t it be a better idea to forget certain comments and not even reply to them. Keep to the subject at hand, their are noise makers in every theatre, lets not let them destroy the play. A personal note to Frank, as an American I am deeply sorry for the loss of life of your countryman and the role America played in it, and I am not alone. Best, John Patrick Naughton

by John Patrick Naughton | 26 Aug 2006 17:08 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
Thanks John,

I actually covered his Memorial Service in Kingston, Ontario a few weeks ago and he taught me in a military media awareness course for military
and civilian journalists a few years earlier.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 17:08 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
Frank,

Good example. Israel indeed f…ed up badly in Qana.

The Un is a different story.

If it was not fro one of the Canadian UN officer (who died) who wrote to his brother about
Hizbulla using the location protected by the UN base to launch rockets at Israeli civilians
we would never know about it if it was not for this e-mail.

After all, no one from the media ever photographed even a single Hizbulla armed person firing rockets.
so left to the media we would never know from where Hizbulla operates……

by Eyal Dor Ofer | 26 Aug 2006 17:08 | Israel, Israel | | Report spam→
Eyal,

That doesn’t change the fact that Israel fired artillery (not just once) and laser-guided munitions directly into the
bunker. I agree, not likely a f-ck-up on their part.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 17:08 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
i must express to you ALL my sincere and unabashed disappointment in your increasingly sadly scewed view of this matter.
i am lebanese
do not assume here, at all ever that these photos have been manipulated…so why does this argument continue?

Bozo (amen mark seager),
you are most flagrantly and completely unwelcome in this version of your instigatory comments. you know not what you speak
of. Example: during isreal’s invasion of lebanon, after 1982, 214 marines were surely NOT killed buy hizbullah.
do you know the first thing about that war? hizballah was not responsible for those deaths…we still do not know who
was … anyhow point being they, the US, the americans and in all their national glory were not supposed to be there and
were certainly not welcome there during a most viscious invasion by the zionist state.

Eyal (i suggest you, and all, check out if you don’t know already eyal sivan’s co-directed movie route 181),

the UN job is to provide security in the region which they are in. if in fact this canadian you mention is correct and
they actually launched a missile from the UN base…then in effect he is only showing and justifying to you and all
just how il a job the un were doing during the war in lebanon, a fact that, i can attest to as a member of the lebanese
community at large watching what was happening, and able to attest to the luxuious hotels they were staying in the entire
time.
you are each missinformed, but this is not your fault in fact. it is just the conditioning of your dialy surroundings in
an environmet that does not provide for a factual basis for which to make your judgments, inferences, and ideas coming to
play.

the hypothesis of these being staged photos is an absurd one. during times of war autrocity is but meant inevitably to be
exagerated, its a war, but not only a war zone … a recently reconsructed one, if amya REMIND you all.
israel is a country that is based on and thrives on the violence which it imposses daily on its own citizen
(being a police state) and the military state and occuying nation that it is … irrevocably, and under every international
law that we can see ever haven been made that is still supposedly valid. the geneva conventions? i’m not going to ramble
because it could be a book. also hat has it been more than 60 un resolutions that israel has blatantly ignored?
i’m sorry to say, but this is sad…just listen to yourselves.
oh and hezballah is not supported by even close to a majority of the lebanese population and is represented by only 15%
of our parliament. look up…wikepedia is great source since not so many are as ‘fourtunate’ as i to be a lebanese national.

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 20:08 | Los Angeles, United States | | Report spam→
Rayya,

Good points, but you are quite out-to-lunch when it comes to describing the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
and the unarmed UN observers serving there. A great number of your countrymen were rescued from Lebanon by Canada and other nations
militaries in the recent confrontation. Be grateful for that. Now, more UN troops from other countries are headed to the region to
keep the peace since your own Lebanese Army cannot do that.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 21:08 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
i never mentioned a lack of appreciation for the wonderous people of the world who were and still are risking their lives
after 5 of their fellow officers were slaughtered. however, i do find it important to realize the un’s US bow down every
time a war begins in the middle east.
www.theUNcampaign.org

Sergent,

enough snip and rude remarks. My country’s army cannot, NO, in any way shape or form ever fight or even attempt to
approach the US fulled funelled and funded israeli army which used to be known as one of the world’s strongest
(though not biggest) in the world we live in. i’m sure as a sergent you may know that. you know that the
international foces are not being deploid for the sake of asisting the lebanese army with its job BUT to ENSURE israel
stay the hell off and out of its enemy’s land, after 25 year of an occupation in the south, not being able to withstand
a hezballah victory of forcing them out 6 years and exaclty (actually to the day today) 3 months ago. they are capable
of handling their business in the south once the IDF (israeli defence force) which is israel’s military but israel
cannot resist…they love to excercise and enforce their acts of agression as constant reminders of their presence (muscle flexing we call it among people)…vs. katyushas…come on frank (hope you don’t mind me calling u
frank) i think YOU of all people know better. also, so that you know sergent, i have received more than 1 email from
one of your very own special forces inteligence captians…personal appologizes since this war began. over and over
again. you can say what you will, but in the end it comes down to many’s personal endorsement of this war and every
last one of those paying US taxes, 6 billion dollars a year to be exact(with a military surplus this summer) to a racist
zionist, and terrorist (NOW DEAMED SO A CONFIRMATION BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL) state, be they the woman down the street
or my relatives and freinds out here for that matter…
hands off ABOUT LEBANON’S ARMY, you have not been sitting here through this.

Damon,

it may be a good idea foR you to go learn some arabic before you continue to make your incorrect assumptions about
arabic words. conquest is not the mening of fatah…the words root is to open…in the past however, opened or began
even. fatah is the weakest and was an increasingly corrupt political party in control of the PA (palestinisn authority)
in the recent past until hamas won the last election almost 1 year ago now, democratically.
gihad= struggle
strugglism does not exist therefore, and to Black as well, GIHADISM surely not a real world…since you seem to be
yourself confused about that. easier to stop using the word that means strugglism.

we are not, and i know personally, that many of the members of our government are aslo not happy with the idea of there
being 4 armys in the southern lands of one of worlds smallest countries. isreal’s, lebanon’s (now both present)
the un’s and soon the international community’s…headed by italy.

sign off for the day
R

in times of war we’re all the loser, there’s no victory.

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 23:08 | Los Angeles, United States | | Report spam→
i never mentioned a lack of appreciation for the wonderous people of the world who were and still are risking their lives
after 5 of their fellow officers were slaughtered. however, i do find it important to realize the un’s US bow down every
time a war begins in the middle east.
www.theUNcampaign.org

Sergent,

enough snip and rude remarks. My country’s army cannot, NO, in any way shape or form ever fight or even attempt to
approach the US fulled funelled and funded israeli army which used to be known as one of the world’s strongest
(though not biggest) in the world we live in. i’m sure as a sergent you may know that. you know that the
international foces are not being deploid for the sake of asisting the lebanese army with its job BUT to ENSURE israel
stay the hell off and out of its enemy’s land, after 25 year of an occupation in the south, not being able to withstand
a hezballah victory of forcing them out 6 years and exaclty (actually to the day today) 3 months ago. they are capable
of handling their business in the south once the IDF (israeli defence force) which is israel’s military but israel
cannot resist…they love to excercise and enforce their acts of agression as constant reminders of their presence (muscle flexing we call it among people)…vs. katyushas…come on frank (hope you don’t mind me calling u
frank) i think YOU of all people know better. also, so that you know sergent, i have received more than 1 email from
one of your very own special forces inteligence captians…personal appologizes since this war began. over and over
again. you can say what you will, but in the end it comes down to many’s personal endorsement of this war and every
last one of those paying US taxes, 6 billion dollars a year to be exact(with a military surplus this summer) to a racist
zionist, and terrorist (NOW DEAMED SO A CONFIRMATION BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL) state, be they the woman down the street
or my relatives and freinds out here for that matter…
hands off ABOUT LEBANON’S ARMY, you have not been sitting here through this.

Damon,

it may be a good idea foR you to go learn some arabic before you continue to make your incorrect assumptions about
arabic words. conquest is not the mening of fatah…the words root is to open…in the past however, opened or began
even. fatah is the weakest and was an increasingly corrupt political party in control of the PA (palestinisn authority)
in the recent past until hamas won the last election almost 1 year ago now, democratically.
gihad= struggle
strugglism does not exist therefore, and to Black as well, GIHADISM surely not a real world…since you seem to be
yourself confused about that. easier to stop using the word that means strugglism.

we are not, and i know personally, that many of the members of our government are aslo not happy with the idea of there
being 4 armys in the southern lands of one of worlds smallest countries. isreal’s, lebanon’s (now both present)
the un’s and soon the international community’s…headed by italy.

sign off for the day
R

in times of war we’re all the loser, there’s no victory.

by [former member] | 26 Aug 2006 23:08 | Los Angeles, United States | | Report spam→
Sgt. Frank,

Perhaps if UNIFIL wasn’t acting as Hez’b’allah’s recon division I might have more sympathy for their loses.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp

I think George needs to be revised
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
ISRAEL AND JEWS ARE ALWAYS AT FAULT

by Bozoer Rebbe | 27 Aug 2006 04:08 | Motown, United States | | Report spam→
Does this mean israel did not invade and kill babies?

by bob brown | 27 Aug 2006 08:08 | dallas, tx, United States | | Report spam→
Mark Seager:

“Who gives a shit about the circumstances surrounding the incident on the UN post.”

I guess you could care less, and I’m sure there are others here who feel the same about Qana
to use your analogy about soldiers and civilians caught up in war zones. Same goes for the
press when they are targeted, like that Reuters crew in Gaza. I guess it was their fault.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 27 Aug 2006 13:08 (ed. Aug 27 2006) | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
Rayya,

Your own army could not control the south BEFORE the Israelis invaded allowing Hezbollah free reign there.
Now you criticize the very people coming in to help you. Speaking from LA, you haven’t quite comprehended
the irony of your statements.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 27 Aug 2006 15:08 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
The original thread Stages shots from Lebanon…Leds us to a discussion which at a point became hot, endless, sometimes apparently missing the point and either getting it personal. It is good that it happened because it created in a way an atmosphere that gave a shake to our brains. It have shown that besides been PJs with are human beings with different points of view, either on the main subject (which was about ethic in Pj), up to socio-political conflicts and mass destruction. One thing led you to the other and at the mean time if we sit back and think; it would help us to understand how important it is, not to us but to history of the world, the accuracy of work we do. I have noticed that when we are talking about ethic in PJ, it seems to be we are speaking same language, but then, when we assume positions on who is responsible or not, then there is another story. There is even a justification for the problem (War and mass destruction). Actually, it has always been a justification for wars, extermination of cultures, even a human race.

Regarding the main subject: staged shots…. I would just agree and, say again that there is LOT OF people doing a remarkable work, documenting either this conflict, or other facts that are part of our imperfect history. Oh!, talking about last thing. I have been thinking that in order to clear up our minds a bit to understand this conflict ( I do not know if it is possible or if it is going to have an end), or even better not to forget what wars, military interventions and Words, Slogan and phrases used to justify them had caused big human “Holes” in History, and it just keeps on going. Maybe we could take the time to do some homework from different sources and study for example what happened to Indian civilization, Such as many others, and why. My little contribution to that could be found on the links below.
Cheers Pupo
PS: As I said we could read from different sources, but facts would always prevail, then we could get to conclusion, even though, it would be partiat true.

VANISHING INDIANS: http://www.bluecorncomics.com/vanish.htm
An ABC of American Interventions http://www.counterpunch.org/catalin09112004.html

by Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo | 28 Aug 2006 08:08 | São Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
The original thread Stages shots from Lebanon…Leds us to a discussion which at a point became hot, endless, sometimes apparently missing the point and either getting it personal. It is good that it happened because it created in a way an atmosphere that gave a shake to our brains. It have shown that besides been PJs with are human beings with different points of view, either on the main subject (which was about ethic in Pj), up to socio-political conflicts and mass destruction. One thing led you to the other and at the mean time if we sit back and think; it would help us to understand how important it is, not to us but to history of the world, the accuracy of work we do. I have noticed that when we are talking about ethic in PJ, it seems to be we are speaking same language, but then, when we assume positions on who is responsible or not, then there is another story. There is even a justification for the problem (War and mass destruction). Actually, it has always been a justification for wars, extermination of cultures, even a human race.

Regarding the main subject: staged shots…. I would just agree and, say again that there is LOT OF people doing a remarkable work, documenting either this conflict, or other facts that are part of our imperfect history. Oh!, talking about last thing. I have been thinking that in order to clear up our minds a bit to understand this conflict ( I do not know if it is possible or if it is going to have an end), or even better not to forget what wars, military interventions and Words, Slogan and phrases used to justify them had caused big human “Holes” in History, and it just keeps on going. Maybe we could take the time to do some homework from different sources and study for example what happened to Indian civilization, Such as many others, and why. My little contribution to that could be found on the links below.
Cheers Pupo
PS: As I said we could read from different sources, but facts would always prevail, then we could get to conclusion, even though, it would be partiat true.

VANISHING INDIANS: http://www.bluecorncomics.com/vanish.htm
An ABC of American Interventions http://www.counterpunch.org/catalin09112004.html

by Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo | 28 Aug 2006 08:08 | São Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
Sgt. Frank. I think I saw you covering the return of the soldier who was recently killed in Afghanistan. Such a sad day and, as odd as this may sound, i thought while watching the procession, and the photographer, in uniform, shooting his fallen brother, i was even more profoundly shaken by this mess which continues to escalate. One think which differs here in Canada, is that the Canadian media televises and covers the return of her fallen men and women and in doing so honors them and their service. Something, I still am not certain as to why more americans (and I am one) have not rised in furor over with the current administration. Collective morning is part of what it means to also understand collective grief and collective loss: our humanity. Oddly, I felt strangely comforted seeing Frank cover the return and ceremony (if that was you) for I thought: there’s a fellow member honoring a brother fallen: if it were there the rest of all of us understand how all this pans out…..

thanks frank and please pass that on to your fellow servicemen and women. Though I hate all this, as a new immigrant, I value the service that has been blanket upon those young men and women and the price they and their families have paid is unsustainably emmense.

thanks again,
bob

by [former member] | 29 Aug 2006 01:08 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
I’d also like to point out the great work of Todd Heisler, winner of World Press Photo award and Pulitzer Prize this year for his work for the Rocky Mountain News on the widows and families of service men killed in Iraq. His work is moving and brilliant in both style and content. He is also a LS member:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2006/feature-photography/works/

by Damon Lee Perry | 29 Aug 2006 13:08 | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
I’d also like to point out the great work of Todd Heisler, winner of World Press Photo award and Pulitzer Prize this year for his work for the Rocky Mountain News on the widows and families of service men killed in Iraq. His work is moving and brilliant in both style and content. He is also a LS member:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2006/feature-photography/works/

by Damon Lee Perry | 29 Aug 2006 13:08 | Beijing, China | | Report spam→
Thanks for that Bob,

Unlike the US, the new generation of Canadian public is not “used to” (if I may use that term) deaths of our troops on the battlefield today. It’s
still a shock to them – which is very much a good thing. The soldiers contributions are not forgotten and are always covered by the national Canadian
media. I have covered several interment ceremonies here in Ottawa from soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan and there has always been a national pool
feed.

Sgt Frank Hudec
Cameraman/Canadian Forces Army News
www.army.forces.gc.ca
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca

by [former member] | 30 Aug 2006 19:08 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Recommended
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→

Participants

M. Scott Brauer, Photographer M. Scott Brauer
Photographer
Boston, Massachusetts , United States ( BOS )
Wendy Marijnissen, Photographer Wendy Marijnissen
Photographer
Antwerpen , Belgium
Sean Dwyer, Press Photographer Sean Dwyer
Press Photographer
Dublin , Ireland
Christopher Wise, Photographer/Designer Christopher Wise
Photographer/Designer
Bangkok , Thailand
Daniel Etter, Photographer / Writer Daniel Etter
Photographer / Writer
Istanbul , Turkey
Simon Anstey, Photographer Simon Anstey
Photographer
Malmö , Sweden ( X )
Andrew Moore, Andrew Moore
Hong Kong , Afghanistan
Eyal Dor Ofer, Eyal Dor Ofer
Israel , Israel
Damon Lee Perry, Damon Lee Perry
[undisclosed location].
Thorne Anderson, Photojournalist Thorne Anderson
Photojournalist
Dallas, Tx , United States
Justyna Mielnikiewicz, Photographer Justyna Mielnikiewicz
Photographer
Tbilisi , Georgia
Guggi Heinz, Guggi Heinz
Salzburg , Austria
John Patrick Naughton, Photographer John Patrick Naughton
Photographer
New York City , United States
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States
Eric Don-Arthur, Lightwright Eric Don-Arthur
Lightwright
Accra , Ghana ( KIA )
Bozoer Rebbe, Bozoer Rebbe
Motown , United States
jaradana, jaradana
Usa , United States
Imants, gecko hunter Imants
gecko hunter
" The Boneyard" , Australia
Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo, Photographer (freelancer) Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo
Photographer (freelancer)
São Paulo , Brazil ( GRU )
Michael Bowring, photographer Michael Bowring
photographer
Belgrade , Serbia
Thomas Midgette, Thomas Midgette
Vienna , United States
Colin Pantall, Photographer/Writer Colin Pantall
Photographer/Writer
Bath , United Kingdom
G. Muj, designer / ex photog / G. Muj
designer / ex photog /
Doha , Qatar
isaac chavel, isaac chavel
Bronx , United States
Raffi  Kirdi, Photojournalist Raffi Kirdi
Photojournalist
Fontainebleau , France
En route to NYC (ETA: Aug 31 2014 ).
Kenneth Jarecke, photographer Kenneth Jarecke
photographer
Montana , United States ( BII )
Marc Kelly, Photographer Marc Kelly
Photographer
Brooklyn , United States
Oscar Sosa, Photojournalist Oscar Sosa
Photojournalist
Jacksonville, Fl , United States
Bernard van Dierendonck, Photographer, Journalist, Bernard van Dierendonck
Photographer, Journalist,
Zürich , Switzerland
Eli Stoltzfus, Eli Stoltzfus
Missouri , United States
bob brown, bob brown
Dallas, Tx , United States


Keywords

Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2014 November Eleven