home

Smearing Photojournalists

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:33:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Why are right-wing bloggers smearing AP photojournalists who won Pulitzer Prizes for their work in Iraq?

The photo staff of The Associated Press, including five Iraqi photographers and six foreigners, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for breaking-news photography for its yearlong coverage of the combat in Iraq. Deanne Fitzmaurice, a 16-year veteran of the San Francisco Chronicle, won the Pulitzer for feature photography for her photo essay on an Oakland hospital's effort to treat a 9-year-old Iraqi boy severely maimed in an explosion.

AP director of photography Santiago Lyon singled out the Iraqi stringers for praise, saying they responded with bravery to a dangerous assignment.

< Ezra's New Column: Get a Job | 'Round the Bloggerhood >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Smearing Photojournalists | 24 comments (24 topical)
    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    Michelle Malkin raises issues about whether a reporter was working with murderers to get a good shot and this makes your blog, TL? Must have been a slow news day. This is Michelle Malkin, after all. Did you really think she was goingto congratulate them?

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#2)
    by cp on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    what justpaul said.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    Well, it appears that in fact the relationship existed. From the link: " To sum them up, they claim the AP was aiding the enemy when one of its photographers, who has sources in the anti-U.S. insurgency, went to a rally and captured a shot of insurgents shooting two Iraqi election workers." Art and pride aside, if anyone knows the name and locations of any terrorists, in my view they had best be humping their behinds to tell the authorities what they know. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, they should have no expectation of special treatment afforded journalists. The question starts to be: What did the journalist know, and when. And wouldn't a reasonable person just assume that they are being used by the terrorists? And if they are being used, wouldn't they just understand that the terrorist thinks they this is assistance?

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:45:43 PM EST
    Its normal one side want to make you think in one way and the other side needs you going down the other road. its all just chaos and faceless political phony policy that all sides do. I just hope no one shots any-more photojournalists this week.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#5)
    by Darryl Pearce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    The question starts to be: What did the journalist know, and when. They have a right to remain silent, especially to an administration that advocates covert operations "secret even in success"... or failure. What's good for me is good for thee.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:01:16 AM EST
    DP - Tell me why anyone, but especially an American, and especially an American in Iraq at this time, has the right to remain silent about information retaining to terrorists, or anyother criminal activities for that matter. Journalists are kidding themselves if they think this is right, or will he approved of by the majority of their audience. I would like to ask the senior management of all the main stream media this: Do you understand that things like this is why americans continue to turn you off? Catch a clue. We find these actions totally wrong.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:22:42 AM EST
    Warhawks like that psycho-beatch Milkin don't like to be reminded that Iraq is much more than toppled statues and rose petals.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:27:16 AM EST
    PPJ/Jim asserts: "sources in the anti-US insurgency = links to terrorists." Uh, get a clue, Jim. Anyone covering the Sunni community in Iraq has "sources in the anti-US insurgency" if they're the slightest bit of a professional. The implication of Jim's position: if you want to cover the war and show both sides, then you're supporting terrorists. That's the "reasoning" that got us into this mess to begin with.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#9)
    by wishful on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:43:07 AM EST
    A photograph is a photograph. All photographs have a point of view, by definition. It will always be so. Apparently, some photographs were judged to be somehow extraordinary. Who is to say that they are not so, and so what if there is disagreement? The allegations of complicity of the photographer in killings in a time and place of war does not seem to be extraordinary to me. There is actually a lot of killing going on in a war. That should be followed up if there is reason to believe it to be true, beyond the accusations of people who do not like that the photographs won awards. There may be any number of motivations for such accusations, not all of them based on objective evidence. It might be interesting to hear a critique of the photos themselves, without any assumptions on the part of the viewer that the photographer is complicit in the deaths. Or maybe it really wouldn't be so interesting after all.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#10)
    by Darryl Pearce on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:57:04 AM EST
    Tell me why anyone... has the right to remain silent about information pertaining to terrorists, or any other criminal activities... Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 09:08:35 AM EST
    et al... The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." So the terrorists have stories to tell huh? Well I for one don't care to hear them. If the AP has info leading to a terrorist act and would rather 'get the picture' than report it, they should be brought up on charges of aiding the enemy...it's that simple! These terrorists thugs wouldn't last too long if they weren't being helped.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    I have to say that I agree with B.B on this one.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    Donzelion - I assert nothing. I quoted information from from the link in the post. Now if you want to say the link is incorrect.... And I am not claiming terrorist support by anyone. What I said was that if anyone has information, they should turn it over to the authorities. And if they don't, and if they use terrorist contacts to take pictures of terrorists killing Iraqi authorities, a reasonable "terrorist" would assume that the person taking the pictures are being of assistance. i.e. Getting the terrorists message of death and terror to the general population. DP - Sorry, this isn't a "criminal case." All they have to do is give the information on the terrorists they have. wishful - You truly are wishful. The issue isn't the photgraph, but how they were obtained.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    Getting the terrorists message of death and terror to the general population.
    A message that the president fights hard to keep hidden from the American public, no pictures of caskets,wounded checking into walter reed in the middle of the night, etc. Don't want the sheep to know whats going on an the price thats being paid. I have the suspicion that the Iraqis don't need pictures to tell them that its violent there.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:15:44 PM EST
    SD - How did you go from photographs of terrorists killing Iraqi election officals to Walter Reed? That's a nice try and changing the subject. How an answer on the issue in the thread.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:33:30 PM EST
    PPJ says:
    The issue isn't the photgraph, but how they were obtained.
    The issue is that some are making accusations about how they were obtained. As you point out,
    if anyone has information, they should turn it over to the authorities.
    If anyone has information about the photographer, they should turn it over to the authorities. Otherwise, such accusations are speculation, innuendo, and otherwise spurrious, at best.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:35:44 PM EST
    Dearest No Name - The link specifies that the photgrapher had information. "There are two main objections. To sum them up, they claim the AP was aiding the enemy when one of its photographers, who has sources in the anti-U.S. insurgency, went to a rally and captured a shot of insurgents shooting two Iraqi election workers.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    et al - Also from the link is this comment by d.b.cooper which just nails it. "To sum them up, they claim the AP was aiding the enemy when one of its photographers, who has sources in the anti-U.S. insurgency, went to a rally and captured a shot of insurgents shooting two Iraqi election workers. Not quite, Bunch. The complaint was that the AP was tipped off in advance about the rally - and then gave murderers in action publicity. In this country, sports broadcasts refuse to show dingbats running on the field, as to not encourage others to do the wam. But the AP saw fit to print photos of two cold-blooded murders going down - giving the killers exactly what they wanted - publicity. No matter what your stand on the war, that was reprehensible. Posted by: db_cooper at April 6, 2005 01:56 PM"

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#19)
    by wishful on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:56:36 PM EST
    no name at 3:33 was me, apologies. I still stand by my position that the information in the claims you refer to should be turned over to the authorities, Jim, along with any supporting evidence. Do you really disagree with that?

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:17:13 PM EST
    wishful - Are you being obtuse? Of course I agree that the photographer's info should be turned over to the authorities. I think I said that three times. The issue is, he didn't.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#21)
    by wishful on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    PPJ, maybe the photographer's info should be turned over to the authorities, if it exists. Maybe his accuser's info should be turned over to authorities--if it exists.

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 05:39:20 AM EST
    wishful - If you wish to say that the link is incorrect, then say so. But the claim that he had terrorist connections comes from that. BTW- Did you read the link, or just start writing?

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 07:32:06 AM EST
    TL - The level of malcontent and accusation in this blog is becoming really irritating. I pretty much know when I open a thread for hot button issues that there will be at least a 50/50 split of liberal and conservative comments. This thread has 12 conservative comments, 9 liberal comments (all trying to take the conversation back, refute or defend their positions, or disseminate strawmen). While I know I can ignore these comments, I also know that most comments I make will be mocked, parodied, or just downright laughed at. I can't even hear myself think. The whole conversation above is ridiculous and pointless IMHO. (Which I'm sure will be spun right back in my face as "proving them right" by not responding. I wish there was somewhere that I could have a real dialog with other progressives without so much distraction. On a funnier note, www.EmbedTomDeLay.com (fake - but I wish it was real!)

    Re: Smearing Photojournalists (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    if you want to cover the war and show both sides, then you're supporting terrorists. Donzelion, Not taking issue with the general jist of your comment, but is taking pictures of the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians by other Iraqi civilians really "covering the war"?

    Smearing Photojournalists | 24 comments (24 topical)