Wed. Dec 22, 2004
Photographer Fails To Stop Terrorists
Yeah, I’m going to take this one a little personally.
There’s innuendo being thrown about over the photographer who somehow managed to capture the shootings of three elections officials in downtown Baghdad [photo online here, AP/”Str” (cached)]
And it would seem, there’s also innuendo about the innuendo: “Conservative bloggers suggested Monday that an Associated Press photographer was complicit with militants who executed three Iraqi election workers on Baghdad’s dangerous Haifa Street on Sunday. They accused the photographer of knowing in advance that the executions were to take place; rather than warn the authorities, they insinuated, the photojournalist went after the disturbing story and images to shock readers and smear the Bush administration’s war effort.”
Gosh, it sounds like, in a country with thousands of armed insurgents/terrorists, thousands of police, and tens of thousands of uniformed troops, the whole damn thing was the fault of one photographer!
But if we look at what was actually said by these “conservative bloggers,” much of the “charges” are actually glancing blows, insinuations, and innuendo. Roger Simon (who also shrugs off the label “conservative blogger”) says “After all, Baghdad is a city of over five million people. The odds are, indeed, extremely long — rather like my happening on a gang killing with my camera ready in Los Angeles.”
Or, about as likely as coming across the beating of a citizen by LA police, and you happen to have a video camera. It’s rare, but it indeed happens.
From Wretchard: “Even with today’s proliferation of compact photographic equipment, a legitimate photojournalist rarely gets the opportunity to capture an execution.”
A legitimate photojournalist rarely gets to capture the immediate aftermath of a bombing of military personnel, but judging from the photos I’ve seen from Mosul … it happens. Why is no one charging that Dean Hoffmeyer of the Richmond Times-Dispatch knew about the bombing in advance? You mean he just happened to be “sitting down to lunch in the dining tent when the attack came,” with a camera ready?
What are the odds of that?
Wretchard continues: “It may have been pure luck, but it was surely the longest of odds that would have brought an Associated Press cameraman to the site of a surprise attack on two Iraqi electoral workers. [...] In contrast, the attackers were bareheaded and apparently unafraid to show their faces, suggesting that ‘collaborators’ must conceal their faces while the Ba’athists stride with impunity through the light of day. It was fortunate for the AP that their photographer was accidentally there.”
Accidently there. On Haifa Street. Let’s find out a little more about Haifa Street, and what happened.
The attack occurred in Haifa Street, a major thoroughfare in downtown Baghdad that has become a focal point of the insurgency in the capital. There are frequent attacks in the area.
After the men were killed their vehicle was set on fire. The bodies were left lying in the street by the burned out wreckage.
Insurgents armed with AK-47 assault rifles and pistols then set up a roadblock on the street, stopping and searching every car that passed, pointing their guns in through the windows, the witnesses said. Some scenes were filmed by Reuters Television.
Haifa Street, a long road running parallel to the west bank of the Tigris river, is the location of Iraq’s Justice Ministry and other administrative buildings.
Washington Post: Insurgents Kill Three, Search Cars in Baghdad
In other words, it’s a major thoroughfare just a few blocks from the Green Zone. Not a terribly unlikely place for a photographer to be. Apparently Reuters TV was there, too (oh, I know, they’re evil, too). Looking at the photo, it appears quite a few of folks were there, in cars or on foot.
Who wasn’t there? These “insurgents” not only killed three election workers in broad daylight, then they burned the car (gee, what’s that smoke?) and then set up a roadblock to check more cars for other potential victims. Sounds like they took their time, in broad daylight, with no masks, and rather than hit and run, they stuck around for a while.
Who wasn’t there, in broad daylight, with a burning car, on a major thoroughfare a few blocks from the Green Zone? If the answer to that question doesn’t jump out at you, well, you may be a “conservative blogger” who is more worried about that damn photographer and his motivations.
Some of us are more concerned with the fact that in broad daylight in downtown Baghdad, you can not only publicly execute three elections officials on a major thoroughfare, you can hang around, burn the car, set up a roadblock to look for more … and no one will show up to stop you.
I supported this war. I find it infuriating that 20 months after toppling Saddam, unmasked men loiter in broad daylight after murdering elections officials in downtown Baghdad, and then leave unmolested. I find it doubly infuriating that those who supported this war often seem incapable of openly discussing the implications an attack like this has, even if they are “silver lining” implications. I find it triply infuriating when they focus instead on what is likely the most trivial aspect of this attack, whether the photographer was in on it.
Salon’s article, which you must view a long ad to read, ends with the following: “The kind of flimsy commentary-with-an-agenda bouncing around the conservative blogosphere right now regarding an AP insurgency against the war effort is not only a disservice to the public but a dishonor to the many journalists who have been injured or killed carrying out their dangerous mission in Iraq.”
“Commentary-with-an-agenda”? That’s what blogging is … or rather, what it has become. But I won’t open that can of worms right now. However, when Mark Follman says they are doing a “disservice to the public,” he implies some kind of journalistic obligation on their part.
And that’s when we reach that gray place with many hammering sounds, as people try to establish their bloggish/journalistic position. There are many bloggers who want to be considered journalists, with the same kind of access and an equal place at the table. I’m not one of those people, and I have no idea whether Wretchard or Roger Simon are.
But if you were, one would think it would be wise to maybe contact AP for a comment (or even better from the blogger’s point of view, a “no comment”). Salon did: “A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants’ plans are ‘ridiculous.’ The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely ‘tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street,’ said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer ‘definitely would not have had foreknowledge’ of a violent event like an execution, the source said.” Lacking that, a blogger could talk to a professional photojournalist or two, to get their take on the photos. It wouldn’t take much time or effort, if you really wanted to get to the bottom of it. Or be even handed. But that’s not blogging. That’s journalism (at least, theoretically).
Thus, I’ll gladly admit to my personal bias here, as I have had a gut-full of people who automatically think anyone with a camera has nothing but Bad Intent. Not Roger and Wretchard, or any of these people, but people I encounter in day-to-day life who see me with a camera, and assume the worst. So I’ll admit to that bias, I’m fed up with people assuming the worst of photographers, in Atlanta or Baghdad. But I’ll also admit there have been rare occasions the media has been used, or has willingly filmed such terrorist attacks in Iraq.
Personally, I have no proof either way. In fact, at the time of the event, I saw the photos and the thought the photographer was in cahoots never crossed my mind (it was shot with a telephoto lens, not as tight as a photographer would prefer, and only a closer view shot with a wider lens would have raised my eyebrow).
However, lots of other thoughts immediately crossed my mind after seeing those photos, about topics I consider to be of far greater consequence to the future of Iraq. Serious topics that anyone hoping for Iraq’s future should find of great concern, and worthy of discussion, no matter how painful. None of them are discussed at the links or sites above.
It’s all about one photographer, and the evil he might have perpetrated. Maybe.
Published 01:14PM, Wed, Dec 22 2004
Category: Iraq Photography
Previous: «« Perpetual Rumsfeld ««
Next: »» Notable Net Neighbors »»
Peanut Gallery
I think “the media” is a common target for ideologues of any stripe. The 1980’s featured lots of cheesy movies where there was some great conspiracy by the government/corporations and the media to control the populace for some nefarious purpose.
I personally think that ideologues fear the media because they can’t control it. They can control their own Message and they can control the information they feed to their sheep. To a large extent, they can control the actions of their followers, especially in electoral matters.
The one variable they can’t control is the media, who oftentimes offers information contrary to their Message because the media largely reports to a broader swath of the populace and so must present (as much as possible) information of interest to the greater population. Because of this, the media necessarily presents a wider spectrum of information than is found in Party materiel and thus becomes the villain because the information it presents has the potential of actually changing someone’s mind, or at least opening it to different possibilities.
Ideologues in America fear the media for the same reasons that the mullahs and the tyrants in the minarets fear the Western media: It opens minds and presents information contrary to The Message, which weakens their hold on their followers and erodes their power.
The media we currently have isn’t evil, it’s lazy and it generally just sucks.
Ironically, for reasons eloquently set forth by Paul, if the media was more conscientious about doing its job properly, ideologues would hate it even more.
Well … first we have to seperate the american idea of ‘the media’ from most european forms of the media. Most EU countries have public broadcasting services – which have to report on a fair and balanced way. As far as I remember that (law) has been trashed during the Reagan administration – resulting in something like Fox News.
I agree with emcee fleshy that american media has become very lame – if you guys consider a comedian visit to another program and their discussion already a big event (the whole John Stewart Crossfire nonevent)- you have never seen a british journalist crunching a MP or minister. Or that irish journalist that almost took a bite out of your beloved President W. Bush.
Although I am not a big fan of bloggers trying to be ‘the next big thing’ or playing journalists themselves – they have shown how to put some fierce truth searching back into the mainstream media. Rathergate showed how it works …
Well, of course, I came here to see if you had a reaction to the kerfluffle under discussion. I guess that makes me a good blog reader.
Two points:
– Salon can get a statement out of the AP since they’re probably a customer, as well as a member of the guild. I doubt that Wretchard (or I or you) would be able to, outside of the obligatory “No Comment” which does no one any good if it’s the truth you are seeking and not a gotcha. I tend to give Wretchard the benefit of the doubt as a truth-seeker, same as I do most bloggers.
– Because I came here, you’ve got a seat at the table whether you want it or not, Reid. By opining on the ethics, and explaining the mechanics, of photojournalism, you make one for yourself. Now, it might only be at my table, but the other commenters would likely indicate otherwise.
By the way: average schmoes like me fear the random photog for many reasons. The wonder that is the interweb is not a small one…who wants to end up as the object of ridicule on a Fashion Disaster blog or something similar?
“I doubt that Wretchard (or I or you) would be able to, outside of the obligatory ‘No Comment’ which does no one any good if it’s the truth you are seeking and not a gotcha.”
Ah, but there’s more than just the obvious gotcha. If you’re a blogger who wants to be considered a journalist, or, if you want companies to respond to bloggers with due respect, calling for comment is mandatory.
“I tried to contact AP to get their side of the story, but they refused to respond to my attempts. So, we must assume….”
Enough Wretchard’s or Simon’s or Jarvis’ do that kind of thing, and you’ll soon find PR departments and AP Editors not giving bloggers the brush off. Show them what happens when they do.
“Because I came here, you’ve got a seat at the table whether you want it or not, Reid. By opining on the ethics, and explaining the mechanics, of photojournalism, you make one for yourself.”
Alternately, if I weren’t a photographer (and I’m certainly no “photojournalist”), I could make a place at the table by contacting one, interviewing them about the photo in question, and posting their educated and informed speculations.
Or, I could just make them up myself. You see my point here?
“By the way: average schmoes like me fear the random photog for many reasons. The wonder that is the interweb is not a small one … who wants to end up as the object of ridicule on a Fashion Disaster blog or something similar?”
If I was pointing the camera at you, Scott, you’d have every right to wonder what I was doing (though, if it were a public locale, all you could do was wonder). Whenever I’m shooting a person, if it is at all possible, I approach them and try to reassure them I’m no threat, and get their OK. I’m not trying to pull anything over on anybody.
However, last week I was once again aggressively approached on my own property by someone who wanted to know what I was doing. Well, I was pointing my camera at the lake, and the geese and ducks within it. Not one of the condo buildings, or residents car’s, or anything anyone had paid a dime for. Yet, that was the third time I have been aggressively accosted on my own property … simply because I had a camera. Each time, my response has grown more sharp. Next time, the words may be so harsh they draw blood.
So, there’s reasonable suspicion (“why is he pointing that camera at me”) and knee jerk stupidity (“why is he pointing a camera at anything ... it must be for evil purposes!”). I’m quite understanding and kind about the first, but the second, well, I’ll try to verbally filet you.
Thomas Friedman gets it . The linked column was inspired by the photo under discussion, and though Friedman finds a full column of important things to say that were triggered by seeing that photo, he does not mention the photographer once.
1) You may be right about the AP. I personally doubt that the AP will be responsive to those not in the guild.
2) I re-read Wretchard’s piece, and I don’t see where he’s making anything up. He’s asking questions. You’ve answered some of those with your post. That’s the way of the big blog conversation, no?
Note, too, the inconsistencies in the two stories as reported. The original AP story implies that it was a hit and run job, with the gunners melting into the crowd (as gunners seem to do over there) when the cavalry arrived in the form of US helos. The Post, on the other hand, leads one to believe that this was a long-lived operation of some sort with roadblocks, searches, cars on fire, etc. with no US military presence. This is another case of me not knowing the whole story yet, so it’s difficult to comment on the other, more important, questions you raise.
FWIW, I didn’t read the story and immediately think about the photographer, outside of what a piece of journalistic luck just fell in his lap. But I don’t think that makes Wretchard’s an illegitimate question either, by any means.
On the evil photographer bit:
Public photography is a difficult situation, especially these days. One thing I can do in a public locale if I’m having my picture taken (besides just wonder) is walk over and politely ask you what’s up. You don’t have to answer me, of course, but, fool that I am, I think it would be polite to explain. You are a scrupulous professional and probably would. You surely must see, though, that not everyone with a camera is scrupulous, professional or not. The opportunities for anonymous abuse are far greater than they used to be. I’ll just add that I’d hate to be an amateur trying to complete a class project these days.
Now on private property, it’s a whole ‘nother ball game. It sounds like you live amongst a bunch of loons that deserve every bit of verbal horsewhipping you want to give them. I would never bother a man on his own property. Did these idiots believe they were protecting the homeland or something?
Reid, the geese and ducks must have some sort of Homeland Security implications you’re just not grasping.
Recent Comments
- Reid (Republican Postmortem)
- elburro (Republican Postmortem)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Reid (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
Can’t you shoot someone with a camera?! Or am I getting something wrong here? Honestly, some people take great pleasure in finding a scapegoat for other people’s failures. Since the ‘media’ (who or whatever that is) is still the enemy for many rightwing fellow citizens.