Full Version: Pulitzer prize for Photojournalism
Murder on Haifa Street
This photo was among a group of photos from the Iraq war that won the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News recently. It depicts the events before and after the execution of Iraqi election officials in Baghdad.
This photo raises questions about the responsibility that journalists and photographers have when they are covering stories. Can they cover stories without being complicit in the crimes involved?
Those that selected this photograph included J. Ross Baughman, the winner of the controversial 1978 Pulitzer prize. Baughman took his photos while imbedded with Robert Mugabe's Sealous Scouts.
Question for debate:
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
QUOTE
ON DECEMBER 20, 2004 newspapers around the world carried a dramatic photograph of an execution of Iraqi election workers, in broad daylight, on Haifa Street in Baghdad. The Associated Press photo, allegedly made by an anonymous Iraqi "stringer," was remarkable for its depiction of the executioners ,who were unmasked and seemingly in total control of the street.
On April 5 the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News was awarded to a selection of photographs by the AP from the war in Iraq and the "execution" on Haifa Street was among those honored. The only photographer not named was the "stringer" credited by the AP. It is the only time, to my knowledge, that an anonymous photographer has been cited in the history of the AP's Pulitzers.
On April 5 the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News was awarded to a selection of photographs by the AP from the war in Iraq and the "execution" on Haifa Street was among those honored. The only photographer not named was the "stringer" credited by the AP. It is the only time, to my knowledge, that an anonymous photographer has been cited in the history of the AP's Pulitzers.
This photo was among a group of photos from the Iraq war that won the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News recently. It depicts the events before and after the execution of Iraqi election officials in Baghdad.
This photo raises questions about the responsibility that journalists and photographers have when they are covering stories. Can they cover stories without being complicit in the crimes involved?
Those that selected this photograph included J. Ross Baughman, the winner of the controversial 1978 Pulitzer prize. Baughman took his photos while imbedded with Robert Mugabe's Sealous Scouts.
Question for debate:
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=184117
Amlord you said it quite well about a month ago.
Except for sources like Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard this story won’t have legs.
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
This is but another assault on the media by the right. It is probably less important than The Bush Administration's paying Armstrong Williams to spread its propaganda. The Pulitzer Committee can function quite well without the Weekly Standard’s advice.
I'm not sure there was any complicity.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 17 2006, 10:34 AM)
Wow is the news THAT slow lately?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=184117
Amlord you said it quite well about a month ago.
Except for sources like Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard this story won’t have legs.
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
This is but another assault on the media by the right. It is probably less important than The Bush Administration's paying Armstrong Williams to spread its propaganda. The Pulitzer Committee can function quite well without the Weekly Standard’s advice.
I'm not sure there was any complicity.
This situation does require some careful consideration.
Let me deal with the first question quickly. Without any thought as to how the photograph was obtained, the Pulitzer Prize should be awarded for the photograph itself. This is my opinion about this kind of award in general; you honor the work, and not the person. Whether this particular photograph is one of those that should be so honored is a matter of opinion best left to experts. Certainly it is a dramatic visual representation of a newsworthy situation.
The second question requires more discussion (although the simple answer is obviously "Yes, of course.") What circumstances are necessary before a journalist or photographer is guilty of complicity? I would say that the person involved would have to know in advance that a crime was going to take place, and have the power to prevent it. (For example, a photographer who happens to take a snapshot of looting in progress, without warning, is not guilty of complicity. A reporter writing an article about the black market in some foreign country, even if she has some informants on the wrong side of the law, probably has no power to prevent the crime from taking place, except for writing about it.)
Was there complicity in this situation? I don't know. Certainly, there is reason for concern. In the very worse case, the anonymous photographer participated in a horrible act of violence as an accessory. In such a case, if the Associated Press was aware of the photographer's actions, they would share in the complicity. As far as I can tell, this is all still speculative.
Let me deal with the first question quickly. Without any thought as to how the photograph was obtained, the Pulitzer Prize should be awarded for the photograph itself. This is my opinion about this kind of award in general; you honor the work, and not the person. Whether this particular photograph is one of those that should be so honored is a matter of opinion best left to experts. Certainly it is a dramatic visual representation of a newsworthy situation.
The second question requires more discussion (although the simple answer is obviously "Yes, of course.") What circumstances are necessary before a journalist or photographer is guilty of complicity? I would say that the person involved would have to know in advance that a crime was going to take place, and have the power to prevent it. (For example, a photographer who happens to take a snapshot of looting in progress, without warning, is not guilty of complicity. A reporter writing an article about the black market in some foreign country, even if she has some informants on the wrong side of the law, probably has no power to prevent the crime from taking place, except for writing about it.)
Was there complicity in this situation? I don't know. Certainly, there is reason for concern. In the very worse case, the anonymous photographer participated in a horrible act of violence as an accessory. In such a case, if the Associated Press was aware of the photographer's actions, they would share in the complicity. As far as I can tell, this is all still speculative.
First, I'm wondering why this thread is appearing now - a year after The Daily Standard ran the story. This doesn't look like slow news "lately" - it looks like slow news for the past 365 days. 
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
The only reason this one photo (out of twenty) should not have been recognized is if it had not been "a distinguished example of breaking news photography". Is the murder of election workers prior to an election breaking news or not? I would argue that it just might be.
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
In general, yes - unless doing so would place them in harm's way. In that case, I'd say it's more of an ethical dilemma than an ethical responsibility. In this case, there is simply no way of knowing whether the photographer could have safely intervened or not. There's also no way of knowing for certain whether or not there's anything to the charge of complicity. On one hand, we have the Associated Press - who should be acquainted with the facts of the case, if anyone is - plainly stating (several times) that there was no complicity. On the other hand, we have rampant speculation by a couple of die-hard Bush infallibility believers. I suppose it's up to each of us to weigh the credibility of the two sides.
D. Gordon, who wrote the piece for The Daily Standard, describes AP photographers as "tough, forthright, immensely talented, and completely reliable as news gatherers." Except, it would seem, just this once. The Associated Press, in relation to Iraqi stringers, stated over a year ago that "it's important to note... that the photographers are not 'embedded' with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures." They also said that accusations of complicity were "ridiculous" and that the photographer "definitely would not have foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution. The only people suggesting that there might have been complicity are a bunch of conservative bloggers - and The Daily Standard.
One wonders why that is the case. Or is the answer implicit in the Standard's own article?
Ahhh. Can't have accurate reporting in relation to the chaos in Iraq, now can we?
This was a non-story in December of 2004 when The Belmont Club and Power Line first started trying to discredit accurate reporting out of Iraq in the run-up to the US-managed election. It was a non-story when The Daily Standard tried to revive the charge four months later. And it is a non-story now that Amlord has, for unknown reasons, tried to revive it sixteen months later. Is there really nothing else with which to smear the Associated Press?
I note, though, that The Daily Standard had no qualms about paying the AP to run the photo - double-column width - despite the fact that they seem to be among the only people on the planet concerned about the photographer's possible alleged complicity with an Iraqi murder squad. What does that tell us about their ethics?
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
The only reason this one photo (out of twenty) should not have been recognized is if it had not been "a distinguished example of breaking news photography". Is the murder of election workers prior to an election breaking news or not? I would argue that it just might be.
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
In general, yes - unless doing so would place them in harm's way. In that case, I'd say it's more of an ethical dilemma than an ethical responsibility. In this case, there is simply no way of knowing whether the photographer could have safely intervened or not. There's also no way of knowing for certain whether or not there's anything to the charge of complicity. On one hand, we have the Associated Press - who should be acquainted with the facts of the case, if anyone is - plainly stating (several times) that there was no complicity. On the other hand, we have rampant speculation by a couple of die-hard Bush infallibility believers. I suppose it's up to each of us to weigh the credibility of the two sides.
D. Gordon, who wrote the piece for The Daily Standard, describes AP photographers as "tough, forthright, immensely talented, and completely reliable as news gatherers." Except, it would seem, just this once. The Associated Press, in relation to Iraqi stringers, stated over a year ago that "it's important to note... that the photographers are not 'embedded' with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures." They also said that accusations of complicity were "ridiculous" and that the photographer "definitely would not have foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution. The only people suggesting that there might have been complicity are a bunch of conservative bloggers - and The Daily Standard.
One wonders why that is the case. Or is the answer implicit in the Standard's own article?
QUOTE
The execution picture advanced the meta narrative of the mainstream press that Baghdad and much of Iraq was chaotic and out of control.
Ahhh. Can't have accurate reporting in relation to the chaos in Iraq, now can we?
This was a non-story in December of 2004 when The Belmont Club and Power Line first started trying to discredit accurate reporting out of Iraq in the run-up to the US-managed election. It was a non-story when The Daily Standard tried to revive the charge four months later. And it is a non-story now that Amlord has, for unknown reasons, tried to revive it sixteen months later. Is there really nothing else with which to smear the Associated Press?
I note, though, that The Daily Standard had no qualms about paying the AP to run the photo - double-column width - despite the fact that they seem to be among the only people on the planet concerned about the photographer's possible alleged complicity with an Iraqi murder squad. What does that tell us about their ethics?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 18 2006, 04:53 PM)
Question for debate:
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
To answer the first question, the answer is NO. It's a shocking photo, but I saw far more dramatic, heart-wrenching and shocking photography in the wake of the flooding of New Orleans.
The second is far trickier.
An "ethical responsiblity?" What, should the photographer come in swinging his camera against armed gunmen? If he had tried to be a hero he would more likely just ended up another body bleeding out into the gutter. A photojournalist is supposed to GET THE SHOT. Whether or not he or she feels compelled to step out of their role of impartial observer into active particpant is an individual choice. It cannot be compelled.
Consider the tragic case of Kevin Carter. In 1994, he won the Pulitzer Price for photojournalism for his picture of a starving child crawling along the ground while looming behind her a vulture stalks waiting for her to die. Carter took the picture. He did not pick the girl up or chase the vulture away. Carter was besiged by questions from horrified viewers of the photo as to why he hadn't stepped in and done something--ANYTHING to help.
http://www.huaren.com/UnitedNations/photo-1.htm
Three months after taking his famous photograph, Carter committed suicide.
Photojournalists have a job to do. They should try not to compromise their personal safety in the process, but they have to try and maintain their humanity as well. I'm afraid Carter lost his for one terrible moment and it haunted him to his death.
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
I often do not agree with the Pulitzer Prize choices. It's a matter of taste, although I must say that most choices are worthy of the prize. I probably would have gone along with the decision if I had been asked about it.
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence
Let's get something straight here. Journalists and photographers are observers, not subjects. Think about the late great Hunter S. Thompson riding with the Hells Angles -- now there is a case of complicity that he never, as far as I know anyway, got nailed on. Yet he wrote about all kinds of illegal activity that took place while he was their, um, mascot of sorts.
So, a photojournalist is in with the whatever-we-call-them-today folks. These guys decide to kill another guy, and what say did the photojournalist have in this decision? None I would gather. What role did he play in the crime? Took a couple of photos, which is a pretty non-complicite action and could be considered providing evidence against the murderers.
Ah-hah! He was acting as an undercover, sort of, police officer!
Give the guy a medal. Oh wait, he already got one. Never mind.
I often do not agree with the Pulitzer Prize choices. It's a matter of taste, although I must say that most choices are worthy of the prize. I probably would have gone along with the decision if I had been asked about it.
Do journalist and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence
Let's get something straight here. Journalists and photographers are observers, not subjects. Think about the late great Hunter S. Thompson riding with the Hells Angles -- now there is a case of complicity that he never, as far as I know anyway, got nailed on. Yet he wrote about all kinds of illegal activity that took place while he was their, um, mascot of sorts.
So, a photojournalist is in with the whatever-we-call-them-today folks. These guys decide to kill another guy, and what say did the photojournalist have in this decision? None I would gather. What role did he play in the crime? Took a couple of photos, which is a pretty non-complicite action and could be considered providing evidence against the murderers.
Ah-hah! He was acting as an undercover, sort of, police officer!
Give the guy a medal. Oh wait, he already got one. Never mind.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 19 2006, 09:39 AM)
To answer the first question, the answer is NO. It's a shocking photo, but I saw far more dramatic, heart-wrenching and shocking photography in the wake of the flooding of New Orleans.
Just a point of information here - and the reason I was asking why this thread was being started now. The photo in question is from last year's Pulitzer Prizes - well before Katrina even happened. This year the Breaking News Photography award did go to "photographs depicting the chaos and pain after Hurricane Katrina engulfed New Orleans" - taken by the staff of The Dallas Morning News. Again, I remain baffled as to why this year-old story was posted here rather than in the History forum.
Should this photo have been recognized with the prestigious Pulitzer Prize?
For his 1968 photo of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner, photojournalist Eddie Adams received the Pulitzer Prize. This photo, along with the one of the young girl running away from a napalm attack with no clothes left on her body, helped to stir up American public sentiment against the war in Vietnam.
This is possibly why some on this forum would criticize the latest photo, because it does not boost the morale of the viewers regarding the latest "chore" our leaders have set forth for the military.
I honestly don't know if this photo should have been recognized with the Pulitzer Prize, except that it involved real danger and breaking news.
Do journalists and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
I think they do to a degree, and that nighttimer answered it pretty well:
For his 1968 photo of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner, photojournalist Eddie Adams received the Pulitzer Prize. This photo, along with the one of the young girl running away from a napalm attack with no clothes left on her body, helped to stir up American public sentiment against the war in Vietnam.
This is possibly why some on this forum would criticize the latest photo, because it does not boost the morale of the viewers regarding the latest "chore" our leaders have set forth for the military.
I honestly don't know if this photo should have been recognized with the Pulitzer Prize, except that it involved real danger and breaking news.
Do journalists and photojournalists have an ethical responsibility to avoid complicity with crimes committed in their presence?
I think they do to a degree, and that nighttimer answered it pretty well:
QUOTE
An "ethical responsiblity?" What, should the photographer come in swinging his camera against armed gunmen? If he had tried to be a hero he would more likely just ended up another body bleeding out into the gutter. A photojournalist is supposed to GET THE SHOT. Whether or not he or she feels compelled to step out of their role of impartial observer into active particpant is an individual choice. It cannot be compelled.
<snip>
Photojournalists have a job to do. They should try not to compromise their personal safety in the process, but they have to try and maintain their humanity as well.
<snip>
Photojournalists have a job to do. They should try not to compromise their personal safety in the process, but they have to try and maintain their humanity as well.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.