By now you’ve probably seen this Pulitzer winning picture from the AP and read some of the controversy surrounding it. It is a picture of 2 people getting shot in Baghdad.
If you are new to the story, you can get caught up to speed, here here here here here here here here and here. (it caused a stink)
But the 10 second version of all of those links goes like this… The photographer must have been working with the insurgents (and known there was a murder about to happen) to get this picture because the odds are incredibly long that someone would catch an execution on film AND, the photographer took the picture rather than running for his life. This is summed up by Powerline asking 2 questions:
The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?
Allow me to be the iconoclast as I answer the 2 questions:
Q1 What was the photographer doing there?
A Let’s review, there was a news photographer in a war zone. Duh?!? Why do you think he was there? Do you think the pictures take themselves? There are several hundred (thousands?) photographers running thru a war zone for a year and you are surprised one of them caught an act of war on film? These guys spend 24 hours a day, camera in hand, looking for a picture like this… Are we surprise one of them got such a picture of marginal (technical) quality?
I hate to call out my fellow conservative bloggers, but this is just silly.
Just tune in your TV to all the various “caught on tape” shows that populate the airwaves and you will see that even amateurs mange to get pictures of the most bizarre things on film and tape. Really it is somewhat odd that this is a Pulitzer winning photo, it’s not that good. Frankly, I’m surprised this is the “best” anyone got the whole year.
Sure you might wonder if he had advanced knowledge but assuming he must have because “the odds were against him” is just silly. To me, a former news photographer, too silly to even mention publicly.
Q2 Why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists?
A If the photog was more worried about his safety than the picture, he would have been home on his couch. War photogs ain’t like most people, when they hear shooting they run toward it. It flies in the face of self preservation but it happens every day. Look at Geraldo Rivera, (love him or hate him) when we went to war, he gave up a multi-million dollar contract hosting a cable news show to go get shot at… and his brother went with him. It takes a different kind of person to do that.
Again, this is silly on its face to assume collusion because the photog did not run.
When tornado’s blew thru a small community I was in, I grabbed my camera and headed into the storm to get pictures, not giving much though to what might happen to me. That’s just the way news photographers (and firemen and policemen…) work every day. War photographers, by definition, aren’t afraid of war.
And as far as the terrorists not wanting their picture taken… If they sought anonymity, they would not have done this in broad daylight on a busy city street.
Finally, look at the picture technically… If this is the best he could do with advanced notice, he isn’t too good a photographer. Clearly it was both taken with a longish lens and cropped dramatically. (look at the grain) Admittedly my eyes see what most people don’t in a photo but if I had to take a wild guess, I would guess the photographer could be 100 yards [Ed – corrected years] away or more easily. (trust me I shot football for years)
This is an unspectacular picture that has been blown completely out of proportion (sadly) by people on my side of the agenda. Let’s not get crazy huh? That’s what the other side is best at.
Update below the fold. and Kevin Craver takes the time to answer some of the questions I glossed over.
]]>< 
Michael:
Whatever dude. All the photo mags say that people with digital feebleblitzers will take better photos of flowers and especially puppies. So what if I spent alot of money, i think it was worth it.
However, I heard that Tamron IS introducing their own feebleblitzer for about 1/4 of the price, but the magnetic ratio is alot less. You get what you pay for I guess.
And I resent you saying that I’m not really serious, because I am. I will suffer a little of your artsy “creative control” anytime for the high tech digital convenience and accuracy of Canon’s feebleblitzer. Next time you’re shooting in a blizzard with polar bears charging at you, you’ll think twice about your old fashioned choices.
areaman:
You dumbshit. It’s feeblebletzer, not feebleblitzer. Guys like you piss me off. I really think you should know something about a subject before you criticize others. You remind me of Paul.
Actually Canon’s new model had to change the name slightly for copyright reasons, and it IS called a Feebleblitzer, pal. They lost the court case against Nikon this year. If you had enough money to join the 21st century and buy one you would know that.
hey- If you guys don’t knock it off, I’m going to post something about oozers!
Paul,
I found this thread from an article on Salon.com. Yes, I’m a tax-and-spend Liberal, and have no qualms about saying it publically. What I am not is a traitor, a terrorist, or a communist.
The reason I am here is because as your fellow American, I want to say thank you for speaking truth to the situation about these photographs.
I’m an amateur photographer myself, with a deep love of the medium. At 45, photographs have shaped my world view from an early age. I remember holding the issue of a magaizine in my hands with the Kent State Pieta in my hands when it came out. I remember that horrifying image of the Vietnamese man about to be summarily executed at point blank range. I remember the image of the Challenger exploding.
Granted, the photograph above isn’t of particularly good technical quality; Who knows what limits there were on the photographer and his equipment. But the fact of the matter is he was there, he got the shot in spite of danger to himself simply for being there.
One of your readers asked why didn’t the photographer do something to stop the murder–not all of us are heros. Sometimes it’s impossible to do anything. Judging from the quality of the picture, I’d bet the photographer was too far away to get there in time.
This is a question that plagues photographers and photo journalists; Why am I only taking pictures, and not helping? It’s a question I’ve asked myself–what whould I do if I found myself in a situation where I could help instead of document? I like to think I would help if I could. But when we can’t, we have to settle for documentation. Sometimes we have to show the rest of the world what we are seeing, make known the wrongs.
Thank you, Paul, for having the courage to stand up for reason in the face of a growing reactionary and vitriolic outcry on both sides of the political fence.
Here’s to the voices of reason, on both sides.
Jean Dudley.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
The AP in cahoots with terrorists? Try again
It’s so refreshing when someone on the “other side” gets it right for once. In December, numerous right-wing bloggers tagged the Associated Press as treasonous after one of its Iraqi stringers captured photos of Iraqi election workers being executed by insurgents in broad daylight on Baghdad’s notorious Haifa Street. The photographer, they claimed, could only have gotten the photos if he’d been working with the bad guys.
But when a team of AP photographers won a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for their work in the war zone, it was enough to motivate blogger Kevin Aylward to step up and point out the cloudiness of his partisan colleagues’ thinking. “This is an unspectacular picture that has been blown completely out of proportion (sadly) by people on my side of the agenda,” Aylward said. “Let’s not get crazy huh? That’s what the other side is best at.”
Back in December, while the bloggers were busy furthering their long-running rant about how the “left-wing media” is always eager to depict the war effort as a disaster, Salon spoke with a source at the AP familiar with the situation in Baghdad who confirmed that the photographer “definitely would not have had foreknowledge” of a violent event like an execution. (See the above link.) In his post yesterday, Aylward punched holes in most of his fellow bloggers’ assertions as to why the photographer had to have been colluding with the terrorists to get the photos. (See the other above link.)
The Washington Post’s coverage of the Pulitzer win for the AP this week sheds more light on why right-wingers seem to have such a hard time with images that expose the true ugliness of the war. The article points back to another indelible image from Iraq: a March 2004 photo that AP photographer Khalid Mohammed took of Iraqis celebrating over the charred bodies of four American military contractors who were murdered in Fallujah. “Some people tried to prevent me from taking the picture,” Mohammed said. “I had to move fast because I saw the situation was very, very dangerous.”
“Mohammed’s photos startled the world,” the Post continues, “and were a critical part of Iraqi history after the U.S.-led invasion. Fallujah instantly became a household name, recognized as an insurgent stronghold until the U.S. military led a major assault on the city in November.”
If it were up to the war hawks, the world would never see any of the nasty stuff that casts a shadow of doubt on the mission — even if it takes peddling a conspiracy theory that some of their very own won’t buy.
— Mark Follman
[15:53 EST, April 6, 2005]
The really amazing thing, Fritz, is that the pictures that the “right wingers” are complaining about show the enemy doing nasty stuff. The amazing thing is that insurgents murdering election workers is seen to cast doubt on our mission and not theirs.
Synova:
The amazing thing is that insurgents murdering election workers is seen to cast doubt on our mission and not theirs.
Well said. It’s as if those of us on the right can’t look at the picture for what it portrays, because we’re too busy looking for another reason to vilify the MSM. I admit to having the same reflex. But if I just look at the picture again and drop my prejudices, it’s actually a pretty powerful statement in favor of what the U.S. is trying to accomplish. Thanks for the perspective.
Paul:
If you guys don’t knock it off, I’m going to post something about oozers!
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Areaman and I will behave, we promise. Your oozer posts are the true definition of a “circle of confusion.” The lame “feeblebletzer adjustment” jokes are history — please please please give the oozer thing a rest. (For a week or two).
hey- If you guys don’t knock it off, I’m going to post something about oozers!
lol
nooooooooooooo!
But when a team of AP photographers won a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for their work in the war zone, it was enough to motivate blogger Kevin Aylward to step up and point out the cloudiness of his partisan colleagues’ thinking. “This is an unspectacular picture that has been blown completely out of proportion (sadly) by people on my side of the agenda,” Aylward said. “Let’s not get crazy huh? That’s what the other side is best at.”
Oops. Too bad the post was written by Paul.
Oops. Too bad the post was written by Paul.
It had to be Kevin. Or at least Paul got the idea from Kevin. Paul is too stupid and biased for a really thoughtful post.
Thank you, Paul, for having the courage to stand up for reason in the face of a growing reactionary and vitriolic outcry on both sides of the political fence. Here’s to the voices of reason, on both sides
Courage? COURAGE? Get a grip, lady or man! There’s no courage involved. And just b/c some people agree with you, does not make them the “voices of reason” as you put it. Can you be any more over the top?
Oh, and hate to burst your bubble about Paul, but read some of the evolution vs. creationism flame wars over the past couple of weeks and get back to me.
[Sorry, Paul. I had to do it for her sake, and more importantly, yours. You can thank me later.]
Killing the messenger has been a popular — and ineffectual– response to bad news since Herodotus. But blaming the messenger for not sprinting a hundred yards forward and whacking armed terrorists with his telephoto lens? Wow! You heroes need to quit reading Soldier of Fortune and eating pepperoni pizza so close to bedtime.
I have no idea what “Subscribe to this comment thread” means, so I will leave that unchecked.
Look. No one is trying to kill the messenger (the terrorist *possibly* *probably maybe* collaborator? Look. Why not just shove AP out of Iraq and now? Was their “photographer” at 300 meters or 50 meters? Do they know the difference? What was the alleged “tip off”? A demonstration? Or a car-bombing. Look. Get them out. They are clearly liars and probably terrorist collaborators.
“McGehee — so why would you run up to a group of terrorists with guns in their hands when you were armed with a camera — and not feel threatened?
In reply, I’ll quote from Paul’s original post:
Clearly it was both taken with a longish lens and cropped dramatically. (look at the grain) Admittedly my eyes see what most people don’t in a photo but if I had to take a wild guess, I would guess the photographer could be 100 years away or more easily. (trust me I shot football for years)”
McGehee: The photo isn’t cropped that much, if you look at the original “uncropped” version, so judging by the grain/noise, it was shot w/ either a crappy camera or high-speed film or @ high ASA setting if digital.
The problem is the AP is saying that the photographer took this with a 400mm lens that he just “grabbed.”
With high-speed film, the photog COULD have PERHAPS hand-held that heavy 400mm and got that amount of depth-of-field WHILE stopping the motion of the killers AND eliminating his own camera shake…
But where is the COMPRESSION EFFECT that you get with a 400mm lens at that distance? Those cars look pretty far apart to me, not “stacked up” like you’d expect when shooting at 400mm.
There is no compensation for the “compression effect.” It’s physics.
But what do I know, I’ve only been a pro shooter for over 10 years…
“So why was the photographer in the middle of the street and why didn’t he stop the murders, or at least try.”
“I’m not wild about the fact that we gave a prize …to a reporter who stood around and watched two people get murdered.”
Let’s get a couple of things straight – it the job of soldiers and police to stop people from being murdered; it is the reporter’s job to document events. SOMEONE has to take pictures, or there will be no pictures. Photographers are not equipped or trained to outwit and outmaneuver heavily armed thugs. Let’s be very clear; to “try” to stop these murders, alone and unarmed (and even if you were armed), is certain death, and accomplishes nothing. This is not a Hollywood movie were the hero sees a mugging and pops the the would be assailant in the eye. These are people who chose a busy street in order to make a public display of murdering election workers, and who would think nothing of murdering one more person. They are not like a tornado; they are calculating and ruthless.
As it is, this photographer risked his safety to convey a fact about the ongoing war in Iraq. He was not standing “around and watch[ing] two people get murdered.” He was showing us why we’re over there and reminding us that the war is not just a yellow ribbon magnet. It is dirty, senseless, and bloody; it is a place where people who volunteer to move the country forward towards stability are killed for their efforts. The only people standing around and watching are us.
so are you mad b/c he was in on it or that the ppl died????