On editorial responsibility

I agree with your sentiment but can't help wondering if it has anything to do with the fact that NYT likes to use unique images taken by their staff/contract or assigned photographers, rather than wire images, wherever possible? This is obviously taken by Moises who as far as I am aware is a contract photographer for NYT.

Just a thought.

Comment posted by Adam on January 14, 2009

Because Israel wants to control the coverage of the conflict. As long as romanticized images like these are being published the world won't know the extent of the horrors and deaths that are happening in Gaza. Is it any wonder why foreign journalists are not being allowed into Gaza to cover the conflict for themselves? Israel does not want the world to see the carnage, the dead bodies of women and children. They want you to see their heroic soldiers in action, fighting the terrorists, showing their might. The whole situation is so frustratingly heartbreaking.

Comment posted by Yasuri Yamileth on January 14, 2009

Has anyone published anything about the 6,000 some rockets that have landed in Israel or that the Gaza was in nice shape when turned over and now is trashed out? Yes, I'm all for editorial responsibility, as in, keep it real.

Comment posted by Don Olson on January 14, 2009

Such romantic pictures of war were typical for the time before the American Civil war. War was shown in heroic poses, and death was depicted only in an abstract way. Only later, dead soldiers were shown on photographs – like Robert Capa's iconic Fallen Soldier.

Nowadays, wars are clean, they only exist as game-like computer pics – the "Nintendo Wars". Photographers are embedded into troups and their pictures are controllable. The Israelian army even has its own YouTube channel. Only few independent photographers report from Gaza.

The above photograph printed in the NY Times is indeed remarkable considering the catastrophe in Gaza. It shows a "Picnic War" like 150 years ago.

Comment posted by luke on January 14, 2009

the link http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053877.html doesn't work. is it only with my connection ? or the others too?

Comment posted by A on January 14, 2009

I wonder if Journalism/journalists ever had a chance to show/write the truth. Be a journalist myself in the past, I realised how we fool around with ourselves. I have seen some of the best journals in the world fabricating stories, something I personally witnessed during Tsunami in India (Tamilnadu) and what I got to see the next day in the newspapers and magazines across the globe, does not justifies Editorial responsibility.

The question that still bothers me is that, 'Is journalism part of palying politics or telling truth?'

Comment posted by Alok Johri on January 14, 2009

its a great picture its just a shame that NYT is so bluntly pro-Israel but hey its the US media how do you think they are going to cover this war/massacre from the other side of the wall....doubt it.

Comment posted by joesph on January 14, 2009

New York Times is no different than Pravda when it covers the Middle East.

Comment posted by Yanice Idir on January 14, 2009

So all we are talking about by now is the field in the background. What about the people in the front -- what are their posture, expression and attention? i don't take political side here. But if you look closer, you will see a different story. Despite the beautiful scene, these men were not interested. The far left man looks anxious with his righthand hold his left -- trying to protect himself a bit. The one to his left is a man, looking like being in deep thought and holding his fist a little. The man at the center -- the sunlight makes it clear he was scratching his head, puzzled by something. His left hand actually blocked all the beautiful scene from his own sight. The man on the right was holding a phone or something like that, but that man is less important as the lighting suggests. It seems they are sitting quite worried by the war. The beautiful background and these men's ignorance about it tells a story, although the vision is not as spectectular as a bloody scene. Whether there is any other photo more important and informative is arguable, though.

Comment posted by t.f. on January 14, 2009

During my years as a photojournalist ones work was always at the mercy of the purchaser of the reproduction rights in this case the politics of the publisher and audience. To my knowledge at least two past eminent members of Magnum refused assignments were the work could be used politically. In this case not the truth about a
bloody conflict that should never have happened.

Comment posted by Richard Sadler on January 14, 2009

the picture, as the caption says, is about the cease fire

Comment posted by John M on January 14, 2009

Who owns the NYT? Even the grey lady has bias, hell, every thing published is published for a reason. Is it a big step to consider that perhaps the NYT paints a romantic (almost impressionistic - it nearly feels like a Manet) of Isreal's troops becuase it wants them to appear romantic?

Comment posted by Hamish C on January 14, 2009

It's an interesting dilemma. I work at a national newspaper in the UK, and one thing I've noticed is the quality of the pictures we're getting from the Israeli side of the conflict - they evidently have some excellent photographers with them. Countless silhouettes, bucolic scenes like the one above, images that explicitly romanticise the IDF. In contrast, what little we get from inside Gaza is chaos, fear and bloodshed - and often not taken by professional photographers. It's a telling difference, and one that goes to show the extent to which this conflict is being fought in the media as much as on the ground. I'm surprised at the NYT for not being more critical in its picture choice - it has a journalistic duty to its readers to steer a path between the extremes of both sides' propaganda, especially over such a polarised, emotive and globally important situation.

Comment posted by Martin on January 14, 2009

It's pure speculation to imagine or suggest what the soldiers in the photo are thinking, or why the newspaper decided to use this image. Mostly such speculation mainly shows our own prejudices. Maybe the NYT is pro Isreal, but who knows exactly how those soldiers feel about what they are doing in Gaza? Did anyone bother to ask them? Most are probably conscripts and other than going AWOL or refusing to serve in Gaza and thus ending up in jail have little choice in the matter. I've met and talked with young Isrealis on holiday in India who have just finished their compulsory military service and few could be described as happy about the situation at home. Most would rather live in peace with the Palestinians and were just glad to be out of uniform and as far from the trouble as they could get. Much like the majority of Palestinians themselves, for the most part they're just people caught up in events beyond their control. As usual It's the fanatics who cause all the trouble.

Comment posted by Nigel Amies on January 14, 2009

It's very simple; the Times' coverage of Israel has always been almost comically biased in favor of Israel. Just as its coverage of our own depredations in Latin America is almost comically biased in favor of the United States.

Comment posted by g on January 14, 2009

I did think that journalism was about objective reporting rather than taking sides but I imagine it comes down to getting bang for your buck. The NYT strives hard to retain a staff of assignment photographers and sending a 'snapper' to loiter around until the media are allowed access to Gaza or anywehre is an expensive business in hard times. They could rely on the wire services to provide images but those images can and will be published everywhere. The staff photographer's pictures, if they are decent, will run: exlusively. That is what an editor decides, under fantastic amounts of pressure, everyday.

NYT did run a quite interesting article on Al Jazeera's fantastic reporting online
(http://tiny.cc/aCcJx) which does seem to indicate that a pro-Israeli stance in the US is something that is city and country-wide rather than limited simply to one newspaper.

Comment posted by Frank on January 14, 2009

look at this article

Comment posted by Frank on January 14, 2009

Alessandra:

Your impulse to portray war in all its terror and horror is, in some sense, rather noble. But it's also, necessarily, distorting.

In the photo you post, I see war as it is often experienced by those who fight it, but rarely captured on film. Long stretches of boredom, only occasionally punctuated by moments of horror. The numbing exhaustion. The fact that wars often rage in incomparably beautiful places, but that soldiers don't generally notice. Take a look at the officer, propped up against the boxes and rucksacks, apparently sending a text message - perhaps to a loved one. Or the three soldiers sitting on the ramp, staring blankly, too exhausted to take advantage of their three-hour respite other than to rest. This is bucolic? Romantic?

There are many truths about war. If the New York Times shied away from showing civilian casualties; if it ran only (or mostly) photos from the Israeli side of the border; or even if this photo showed the troops in an heroic posture, I'd think your complaint had merit. But you seem to be suggesting that there is only one truth worth representing - the death of civilians - and that printing even a single image showing another aspect of the conflict somehow constitutes a denial of their suffering.

I'm glad the photo editors at the Times didn't feel the same way.

Comment posted by Cynic on January 14, 2009

Hello,
the NYT image represents the 3 hour "pause" time in the war. Why not to ask directly the NYT editor for the reason of their choice? You might invite them the editor and the photographer at Magum in NY and talk with them.

Kids published on the web site of the Italian Newspaper "la Repubblica" ,
"handle with care" images
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/bambini-gaza/6.html

Would these images help to stop this (and not only this) crazy non-sense ?

Regarding war, any war, I am shocked, ashamed as human bein.
As a photographer and person I am questioning myself about the role of photography...
What are we doing on this planet, of this planet? Bulding richer houses... and then? Shooting for war and then getting the "First Prize" in photography and then? How would you feel if you get the first prize and the war continues?

Children are the smile of the whole world.
A smile of a kid is the flower of Life.

Comment posted by Jamuze on January 14, 2009

The verdant fields and lazing soldiers is a most artistic image, one which could easily be transformed from a picture of the powerful in a ghastly war on an occupied people, into a Norman Rockwell painting: just replace the soldiers' uniforms into overalls and the tank into a tractor, and you have a romantic scene of male youth. This image of the conflict that does not even nod to the lethal, chaotic reality of what is happening in Gaza is Israeli propaganda. But despite these media efforts, the Zionist myths about the IDF, the 'most moral army on earth,' are being revealed to the world for what they are: lies. Israel is a country that has lost its moral compass, and this latest assault on Gaza is showing more and more people how tragic are the consequences.

Indeed, as Cynic points out, for some in war, there is a great deal of boredom and waiting. For the Palestinians, too, there is waiting throughout the occupied territories (let's not forget, this is a belligerent military occupation) --at checkpoints across the West Bank, at the locked entrances to the Wall cutting through their land, at the airport or bridge to see if they will be let back into their country. In the Gaza Strip, surely Palestinians are waiting as well. Waiting for the water to come back on, waiting for the sun to rise because there is no electricity for light, waiting for the stumps of amputation of a son in hospital to heal, waiting for the next Israeli drop of burning white phosphorous, waiting for any truck of humanitarian aid to be let in, waiting to see how the impoverished families of some 4,000 injured care for their relatives, waiting for the world's governments to heed the calls for justice expressed by their citizens in the tens of demonstrations across from the UK to Indonesia, Italy to Boston.

I don't think better images would stop this crazy nonsense, Jamuze. For that, real politics is needed: citizens taking their responsibilities seriously and telling their political representatives to do what they can to, first, end the killing in Gaza, and then end the occupation. But citizens at least need a chance to see the reality in all its complicated context. The NYTimes isn't where they'll find it, though.

Articles like these, by Israeli academics, do help:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
http://www.counterpunch.org/mendel01062009.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/gordon?rel=hp_picks

Comment posted by LA on January 14, 2009

How does one determine that anyone dead inside a destroyed building was "starving?" You probably want to clean up your language there a bit, the first read is that the four children were amongst the 30 corpses.

My guess is Israel is banning the press because they learned in Lebanon that dead Lebanese civilians is front page news. The dead Israeli civilians that force Israel to take such actions rarely are.

Comment posted by Jeff D on January 14, 2009

Journalism (and newspapers, particularly) are in the business of staying afloat at the moment. Do they really wonder, if this is the picture they choose to run on the conflict, people are leaving in droves for more relevant sources? No wonder they're dying.

Comment posted by jared iorio on January 14, 2009

Call me naive, but I don't think it's ever ok to ban the press. It strongly suggests that that there is an unpalatable truth being hidden. The idea that it is justified as a means of making the media more 'fair' would be laughable if it weren't so horrendous.

Comment posted by Martin on January 14, 2009

This is a rather timely debate, as I have been thinking a lot about some of the issues that are being raised here.

I'm firmly on the fence as regards this issue in the wider sense. Personally I think there is right and wrong on both sides. Its the zealots on both side that have access to the guns, leaving the average guy in the middle to get shot to pieces.

What concerns me is that in the months leading up to the invasion, there was no mention of the rocket attacks on Israel in the media here in the UK. (I can't speak for the USA). Yet as soon as Israel took action the worlds press was on the case, and from what I have seen has shown a particularly anti Israeli sentiment. when was the last time that dead Israelis were shown on the front pages?

Now as I said before, I'm on the fence on this one, I'm not pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian or visa-versa . I think both sides are, for different reasons, equally in the wrong. The leaders of both sides should realise that violence will only make things worse. Perhaps the media should focus its attention on this, rather than churning out the same tired images.

As for the image above, I don't see bucolic or romantic. The article is clear about the pause in fighting to allow aid relief. Now, pictures in news papers are there to illustrate the article, I think this picture does this. As mentioned above it show something we don't often see. these men look tired, bored, the one with his hand on his head looks as if he is just beginning to feel the weight of the events he is involved in. So i don't see what's wrong with it at all.

Jason.

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on January 14, 2009

my thoughts:

Western journalists can't get into Gaza so neither can't a NYT photographer, so what to do? The fact that this picture shows an almost idyllic portrayal of the war can almost be seen as how Israel thinks about the good deed of 'allowing' a 3-hours pause, the humanitarians they are. To make such an ironic gesture perhaps results more from the problem every war has, that the violent imagery numbs the perception of it abroad, thus we could also read it as an effort to bring differentiation in the imagery of war, perhaps even resulting from boredom on the side of the editors.

besides this i think when one knows the political context of this picture, the picture is quite strong in its ambivalence...

Comment posted by Edwin Gardner on January 14, 2009

Regardless of what side one takes in the politics of this story, wouldn't it be more practical to have this discussion by looking at all of the NYTimes' page 1 pictures of this conflict from, say, the last week or couple of weeks?
It seems a little pointless to take 1 picture (perhaps even disconnected from its context of that day's particular story) and exam it in a vacuum and put the Times on trial for bias or negligence. It is possible that they are biased, but we can't make that judgement from 1 photo.

btw, this got me curious, so I did a quick count of the last 3 days of slide shows on the Times' site: total of 26 pictures/ 19 are of the Palestinian suffering. The rest are either pictures of soldiers and tanks or scenes from Sderot or Ashqelon

Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on January 14, 2009

Buccolic feeling? It's not that easy. You have seen this picture, looked at it, contemplated it and then from past experience with images referenced it "buccolic". I looked at this picture, too, contemplated it for some minutes (before I read anything) and then from my past experiences with images referenced it quite differently. The postues of the soldier, the composition, the lines of the field in the backgrond: very much a renaissance painting. Having been forced to and having forced myself to look at those other pictuers you mention - dead, wounded civilians, smoke and fire over Gaza houses - I see the helpnessnes, the being so tired, the again caught up in the meaninglessnes of war of - no not just IDF soldiers: humans, humanity. Precisely because it is the brief pause of the cease fire, the picture has a tint of horror. It hit me right in the stomach. I guess that's why it is such a good picture: you see from your point of view, I from mine. And this difference is very much what this war is about. (I live in Switzerland and I have read the NYT maybe three times in the past 10 years. I don't know anything about where they stand concerning Israel/Palestine).

Comment posted by Nik on January 14, 2009

Well ...I just got to my room and Moises told me : " hey, in your blog they're discussing my picture" . Moises is here as many of us. He is crashing in my room tonight to share expenses. I read all the comments. It is very difficult to be here in Israel and not be able to cover the conflict from inside Gaza. (As you know, we have no full access neither in Gaza nor with IDF. Only yesterday a colleague got inside gaza after 18 days of war). I just come back from another frustrating day chasing the emptiness/surreal/ border of Gaza. All day we have to play cat and mouse with the military police that are threatening to get us arrested (we almost were, twice) ) for being in the operational military territory. If we could and had access, we would photograph everything, no doubt about it. When we are confronted with a situation like the one in Moises' picture (which is kind of difficult to find it in so short range) we have anyway to document it. What we do after is just send our "experiences" to the media. The other day we found a group of soldiers just 500m outside of Gaza, they just came out of combat inside Gaza, this it was the mood ... what I can say..... honestly this is the situation, someone is laughing someone is tired, someone is re-thinking . Believe me if I could be on the other side I would take different pictures probably. But we can't forget that many Palestinian photographer are doing an amazing and difficult job published as well as a cover on NYT dec 29 and jan 5 . I can't say so much but yes there is a bucolic/tragic feeling sometimes opposite of what happening inside Gaza for sure but this is what is the story as well. why highlights this images rather than other ? I don't know , I'm too surrounded by news in this moment to understand now this paradox or maybe I'm too scared to realize what I'm doing here ....
but read this also : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11pubed.html?pagewanted=1
too complex and delicate this argument and maybe too little and insignificant comparing the event by it self.
.. alex

Comment posted by alex majoli on January 14, 2009

Hi Chris and Alex and all,

It's so difficult to divorce such a debate from the the politics of the situation. But I agree with Chris that this is much more of a debate about how the media chooses to portray a certain event/situation. It seems that Chris's investigations highlight, on the part of the NYTimes at least, that there is a definite theme to their coverage: "total of 26 pictures/ 19 are of the Palestinian suffering. The rest are either pictures of soldiers and tanks or scenes from Sderot or Ashqelon'. So Palestinians are the only ones that suffer, while Israeli's are the only one's who cause suffering.

Now, as Alex rightly points out the photographers supply their images to the media, how that images is used is up to the media. So, to me the question is: Why can't we have a mass media that sets itself out to be neutral? Why can't they simply portray events, as much as possible, as they happen. Let people make up their own opinion. Inform opinion, but don't dictate it. As I said before I'm not for/against either side, and I really don't see how anyone who isn't there and actually involved, can be so vehemently partisan in their opinions. Surely the fact that HUMANS are being killed at the whim of the zealots on both sides, is what we should find so repellent. How about reporting that way!....(hope that didn't sound like a rant).

Jason

Ps. How are you Alex? I did a workshop in Cadiz with you in 2004. I thought Libra Me is fantastic.

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on January 14, 2009

Sorry Christopher Anderson, i’m very wary of so boldly disagreeing with you as i’ve learned loads from what you’ve shared on this blog. Maybe i’ll find out i’m correct to be wary, but i’m not wary from reading your point about the concept of a single image and the concept of a vacuum consideration.

let’s examine the day that disgusts Alessandra and many others.

on this day there were 60 seconds in every minute and like any other day there were 60 minutes in every hour, if you quickly do the math of that 24 hour ‘representative day’ there was 86,400 seconds available to capture with a photograph.

considering most images take far less than a second to collect, there are far more than 86,400 photographs that were possible on this representative day, but let’s just assume there are 86,400 photographs to take this day.

one of those 86,400 seconds there was a soldier swallowing a bite of food, another second might be a soldier exhaling the smoke from a cigarette, one of those 86,400 seconds was a person pulling the trigger of a rocket launcher, and one of those 86,400 seconds was the sudden change from life to death for some innocent children.

some might think on this day there were two seconds that were most important to either photograph or photograph something that provided evidence that those two seconds took place, but if we’re trying to communicate a ‘representative day’ what’s the chance of drawing those two seconds out of a bag of 86,400 possible representative images?

if we want to ‘represent’ the day-in-the-life of conflict on this day, how does a photographer decide which of the 86,400 ‘candidate’ images to release the shutter on? Let’s assume they collected 1,000 of the possible 86,400 frames. Christopher, that’s only 1% of all the images that were available, that means 99% of the images of that representative day went uncollected.

how did the photographer decide what 1% of the day to record? How did they decide the 99% of the day to ignore? What motives did the photographer have in mind? We know this is a photographer dedicated to the NY Times, so we know the audience as does the photographer. Was the photographer thinking about the readers? Was the photographer thinking about the photo editor that would eventually decide what percent of the images were published? Was the photographer thinking about making a pretty picture? Was the photography thinking about making a pretty meaningful picture?

whatever the motives of the photographer, the 1% of the images the photographer did decide to collect were probably a combination of all of these, as we should assume they are trying to record all information that is ‘important’ to the readers.

now we come to the photo editor of the NY Times. They can pick only one image to place on the cover of the NY Times to see. How did they decide from all the images they have available from this photographer and possibly others to pick this single image this day?

well they did decide, and they did decide that this was the most important information for the readers to absorb from this day. They decided to ignore the other candidate images and amplify this image, they decided that this was the only information that was important for us to see this day.

does this decision raise questions about the pro-Israeli influence in America? Is it just a random grab from all those images that were available? What was influencing the photo editor to ignore all other images and select this one? Who was influencing the photo editor? Who was influencing the NY Times?

make no mistake about it, every single day when an institution as influential as the NY Times selects the cover image, they are deciding what’s most important for us to absorb, what’s most important for us to see. They can also sell papers with evidence of those 'tragic' seconds easier than these 'relaxation' seconds, so it's not really relevant to bring commerciality into the equation.

so, if this cover page image is being sold to us as ‘representative‘, then please tell us they are going to grab the cover image from a gold-fish bowl. Then we’ll swallow the image that comes out knowing it was just chance. But if you are going to consciously select the cover image (as was actually the case), then i find it very puzzling to select an image that seems a less important image for us to see, for us to absorb, considering the day.

this is just my opinion of course and it's not taking a side, it‘s all about the responsibility of the media. This is just an unsolved puzzle for me with regards to using this image when other images that seem much more relevant were certainly available and could have been used without impacting the appeal of the paper by the readers.
..

Comment posted by Joe on January 14, 2009

Sorry to Alex and Moises, Alex your posts came up after i made my post. I see the futility in your wishes to document everything and i sympathise.

i hope you correctly feel i've never doubted you are collecting all the images that are available to you. I'm just puzzled by the pole-position image choice of the NYT considering the other images that could have featured in that spot.

Comment posted by Joe on January 14, 2009

Hey Joe, you do not offend me, don't worry. that is the point here: to have a discussion.

Read the article that Alex suggests. It is VERY important for this discussion.

Here it is again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11pubed.html?pagewanted=1

Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on January 14, 2009

In answer to Alessandra's question. Because thats what their readers want to read.

Jan 7th www.guardian.co.uk headline

Gaza’s day of carnage – 40 dead as Israelis bomb two UN schools.

The front page picture is of four young palestinian men running with a look of terror on their face carrying a young man that is either dead, close to it or really badly injured.

Both papers cover the same news, but give different aspects a difefrent focus.

you the reader decided which newspaper you buy right?

I think if you want an objective opinion you need to buy at least two papers.

Comment posted by Richard Payne on January 14, 2009

Thanks Chris, it’s good to see passionate energy over here again.

The article confirms the sensitivity not only to maintain statistical vigilance over the ratio of polarised images to deaths, but even scrutiny of the single words used in the text for fairness. So the images and the words are examined closely, nothing is left to chance; we should assume everything is deliberate. I don’t envy the razor’s edge that the NYTs must walk, but that’s why they get our subscriptions.

My concern is ‘not’ over the imbalance of message of sides. What puzzles me is why the most newsworthy image, evidence of the deaths, was not in pole position that day, instead an image of lessor importance. Ironically, what if the media is so hand-cuffed to maintaining their stats, that a tragedy on one side was not represented because ‘it wasn’t their turn’

And I don’t think I’m being petty, front page images are an irrefutable stat, probably the easiest stat for us to cite later, should a stat get in the way of the most important thing we should see in the front page everyday?

Comment posted by Joe on January 14, 2009

Sorry I made a mistake the NY Times article was not from the same day as the guardian. Thanks for pointing that out to me hotel bravo. i stand corrected.

Comment posted by Richard Payne on January 14, 2009

Thanks Chris, it’s good to see passionate energy over here again.

the article confirms the sensitivity not only to maintain statistical vigilance over the ratio of polarised images to deaths, but even scrutiny of the single words used in the text for fairness. So the images and the words are examined closely, nothing is left to chance; we should assume everything is deliberate. I don’t envy the razor’s edge that the NYTs must walk, but that’s why they get our subscriptions.

my concern is ‘not’ over the imbalance of message of sides. What puzzles me is why the most newsworthy image, evidence of the deaths, was not in pole position that day, something far less newsworthy was. Ironically, what if the media is so hand-cuffed to maintaining their stats, that a tragedy on one side was not represented because ‘it wasn’t their turn’?

and i don’t think I’m being petty, front page images are an irrefutable stat, probably the easiest stat for us to cite later, should maintaining a stat get in the way of the most important thing we should see on the front page everyday?

I'm not going to lie, i've read some things that just don't compute lately, like the Rice, Bush, Olmert fiasco. The more you tug at that, the more doubts get and you start to be skeptical of everything.

Comment posted by Joe on January 14, 2009

The photo, without a title, has absolutely no meaning to me whatsoever. It could represent any number of things, for one: four reservists voting who will go into the field to pick some veggies for dinner after the war games have ended for the day. Eugene Smith where are you?

Comment posted by Emil Ihrig on January 14, 2009

so much about balance in the media.. and so little about balance in the conflict itself..

i can understand the need for balance in reporting and i do not envy any photo ed who has to make quick choices daily about how to present something as disturbing and tragic as war.

here in norway one paper did make the brave decision to show one of the series of photographs of dead children in the rubble of the u.n. school.. and it kicked up a terrific discussion.. and it needed to kick up a terrific discussion.. and it made people think about how Israel came to be and how the Palestinians have been treated since.

is the new york times really ready to embroil itself in such a fierce debate while the u.s. government backs into a corner whistling, ´show me the way to go home´..?

i have great sympathy for the dejected soldiers above and, as with someone earlier, i have also met many israeli soldiers on the spring break in india.. some who go awol and many who do not.. the memory of one of them strikes me still... that he would never go back to israel after what his officers had asked him to do.

on the tv news over here we have also seen Israeli teens gathering on a hill overlooking gaza, drinking coffees as they watch the bombing while one of them smiles to camera stating that she is a fascist and wants to see gaza cleared of Palestinians.. a view not entirely alien to the israeli governments of past.

and so.. as goliath bears down on david, are we going to make sure they both get sympathetic press?

ever had a big man choking you? makes you want to punch..

and this photograph is a soft solution for a no-doubt stressed and snowed under editor... it´s the visual equivalent of a Valium during a headache and does not represent the war in itself.. only the dejected and sorrowful loss of control of reality which conscripts must endure for the sake of men in suits.

Comment posted by david bowen on January 14, 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7828577.stm

Comment posted by WTF on January 14, 2009

WTF - Thats a hardcore video by the bbc.

Comment posted by Richard Payne on January 14, 2009

you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows @ the nyt or magnum :-)

Comment posted by dougford on January 14, 2009

If there is one army in the world that works on all levels (strategy of battle & siege, media, diplomacy, psychology) with equal perfection, and understood war as a whole, it's the Israeli army. They know perfectly well that media is an active tool, and I would even dare to say the most effective tool, to lead a war. I'm referring this to this quote:

"Best policy in war--thwart the enemy's strategy,

second best--disrupt his alliances through diplomacy,

third best--attack his army in the field,

worst strategy--attack walled cities."

-- Sun Tsu, Art of War

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a picture book example for that: Israel clearly is well aware of the first two points, and quite an expert in them. The first one has got directly to do with media. The second is the situation one can observe in the Middle East (Arab countries officially being alliances, but they're bound to economic and political ties with Europe and US, and therefore not acting). Worse enough, they also act on the last two points.

Anyways while leading this extremely important discussion one should just bear in mind that we're talking about one of the most sophisticated and well trained armies on the globe, supported by the powers that own relevant media, and (still) have the stronger economies.

Still, each one of us is responsible for looking into media beyond the ones we know, and like a puzzle, one can put together the bits and pieces of "truths" that are scattered around and within every report (next to all the biased statements). One article or one picture can never portray truth, it contains maybe some facts. To get a bigger picture one has to proactively search for other reports, from other countries, etc. With the www this is easier to do than ever. If you read the NYT, take also a look on the Al Jazeera website, once you watch the British news, look at what the news say in France, Italy or Germany. How is the war covered in Egypt? How in Greece? All of them are biased, but once you roughly know them all, you can navigate at least a little bit better...

Comment posted by Niloufar on January 15, 2009

Moises and Alex,

You and many others photograpgers do great job anyway. This is very difficult conflict.For many it is hard to judge or take a side. I think Israel made many "medial" mistakes what is very important in our global world, and blockade of Gaza does not improve it. And very important is what Alex said " But we can't forget that many Palestinian photographer are doing an amazing and difficult job"
http://www.dziennik.pl/foto/article296733/RAEL_PALESTINIANS_JRL132.html

Good work, take care there.

Comment posted by marcin luczkowski on January 15, 2009

No place for wondering. It's a fact the Israel controls the majority of the US media. Someone mentioned 6000 rockets on Israel. Really? And what was the death toll? 4? Please...

Comment posted by Gjorgi on January 15, 2009

i believe that in the 8 years of rocket attacks there have been 12 israeli deaths..

i think the Palestinian toll broke 1000 yesterday.. 1/3 children.. the bbc video posted above reports on doctors treating children for bullet wounds to the head and BACK, and states some appear to have been shot at close range.
___________________________________________________________________________

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."

-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
___________________________________________________________________________

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."

-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

Comment posted by db on January 15, 2009

Hey Doug Ford,

"you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows @ the nyt or magnum :-)"

really? Are you familiar with the years of work by many Magnum photographers that document the suffering of the Palestinian people? Have you payed attention to the fact that this discussion was brought up by a Magnum photographer on this site? What is it you think that Alex Majoli is doing right now by trying to get into Gaza to report what is going on?

Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on January 15, 2009

NYT / Pravda . Most people new that Pravda was full of shit and could think for them self. Many people think NYT is the thrut......and that is more dangerous.

http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2009/01/pilger-israel-gaza-palestine

Comment posted by Gogg on January 15, 2009

I'd love to read the discussion but someone put up a link which stretched the page out so badly that it's just not feasible.
Any chance of a fix so that people dont have to scroll repeatedly to read every single sentence?

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on January 15, 2009

What I find overwhelmingly surprising is the control israel has in world politics, banning coverage of foreign journalists in Gaza. The media in the united states continues to bombard the public with their pro israeli stance (sadly the image above quietly serves as propaganda) the problem is that many people in the US blindly favor and don't question israel's motifs to stop not only Hamas but rather eradicate civilians who live in Gaza and are not able to find refuge.

Comment posted by indoxia on January 15, 2009

Dear Chris,
.
The reason I paid attention to this photo was because it was on the front page.
The front page differs from all other sections or slide shows).
I think it's where the reader expects to find the most important news of the day, and the choice and size of images and text are not arbitrary- the whole layout has an influence over how a reader will respond to it.
Most readers are busy with their lives and problems and don't bother to go into a web slide show.
I don't believe I examined it on a vacuum, disconnected from the days story, but mentioned a little context assuming also that readers of the blog would be informed.
Even if the news of the bombed building in Gaza was only known after the first edition, I do think the cease fire (four soldiers taking a break) does not represent any part of what is going on there. Hamas members taking a break would have been equally strange.

I'm not mentioning the Times because of that one photo, but from its subtle semantic history during the Iraq war, which they initially supported.

I truly wish I am mistaken, and that I capriciously zeroed in on that image.
and that in the near future I am proven wrong.

Comment posted by alessandra on January 15, 2009

The conflict is really the farthest thing from the essence of this photograph. It's meaning resides in it's unmistakeable non-belligerence. There is none of the ubiquitous smoke rising from buildings in the background. Quite unexpectedly, there is a lethargy associated with the image based on my reading of the bodies and their relation to the surroundings. An attitude that makes me wonder.

And therein lies the the power of the image. we must assume that the PE at the NYT would be looking for and use a 'powerful image'. So why this one? Or maybe it's better to ask, 'why not this one?'.

With public opinion focused on the David vs. Goliath realities of the invasion, a simple, 'peaceful', 'bucolic' image that counteracts that disproportionate reality is in fact, quite useful for the agenda of a newspaper that might want to influence public by placing it prominently on page one.

It says: These are young men who need a rest--to pray, to talk on mobile phones, to just chill. It says: These are not disciplined, killing machines hell-bent on destruction. Au contraire. It is a powerful image because of what it shows and what it doesn't show.

And contrary to Alessandra's belief, I think it does represent most directly, a 'part of what is going on there'. It may not be the most dramatic image, but the power exerted by it on the front page of the NYT is unmistakeable and very intentional.

Comment posted by Keith Dannemiller on January 15, 2009

Look at these staged photos coming out of Gaza

http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/gaza/index.php

Comment posted by Frank on January 15, 2009

@frank , yeah right! Who is not allowing journalist inside Gaza? Who is bombing the hell out of Gaza? Have you been to Gaza (before this war) and seen how it is by yourself?

Comment posted by Gogg on January 16, 2009

Thanks for this discussion. It's a new perspective on the situation and media.

Chris, Alex, and Moises, may you all stay safe.

I've always been rather surprised that we hear so much about this conflict in the news. Why is it so much more important in my news time that all the other conflict situations in the world? Is there peace in Darfur? Every little blip on the screen creates a media furor. I understand why the US media has so much play because of their close associations with Irael, and this explains to a large degree why we hear so much about it in Canada due to our close relations with the US and that we read and watch a lot of US media. It's such an intractable situation. Both sides are right and both are terribly wrong. Both sides are media savy and use it to their advantage. But really, how's someone in Kansas really supposed to make a difference in this issue. Is it not their own issue to solve? Is it possible for the media to comprehensively explain the complexity of the situation with generations of pain and suffering on both sides? I pray that they can one day have leader enlightened enough, people fatigued enough with constant strife, negotiators as skilled enough to find peace in Israel and Palestine and Gaza---a peace like they found in Northern Ireland.

Yes, Israel has a right to defend themselves, but I can't help but side with the great body of a suffering and oppressed people. The Palestinians have been held in an open-air prison, economically and politically subordinated. If Palestinians have no way to improve their lives and raise themselves from povery, will it not lead to acts of desperation, a people with nothing left to loose? The media loves to tote death tolls, but for every 1000 there's probably 2000 crippled and maimed, 5000 injured and many more psychologically damaged by living in a war state and losing relatives. Can there every be peace and security in Israel without the Palestinians having land, without them having means to make an economy, a state, or to feed their people? If Israel keeps it's policy of assassinating leaders it just means there will be fewer and fewer people who have the power speak for and to negotiate a peace. It will fracture the problem but not solve it. It only seems like Israel disproportionate response is to create a deterrent.

Here is a well-written article by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim who served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state's legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions.

Comment posted by Ian on January 16, 2009

Thanks for pointing this out Agirlphotographer. I didn't see that in Firefox. I just fixed it, the site should not be stretched anymore.

Comment posted by Martin Fuchs on January 16, 2009

It's not at all surprising that the NYT would choose to use a photo of the Israelis like this. A more apropos photo of Israelis would be to show the carnage, maiming and mahem that the terrorist rockets fired from Gaza into Israel cause. If those rockets weren't raining down on Israelis, there would have been no incursion into Gaza and no need for the Israelis to be lounging around during a 'cease fire'. As always, the news is not balanced - but then again, neither is Magnum.

Comment posted by Hasifleur Wagibigit on January 16, 2009

Before any more accusations are thrown at Magnum I want to make clear that my post is a personal one, and does not necessarily represent the viewpoints of any or all magnum members. It only reflects my views.
The notes posted on this blog are not sent to other members to be approved or not, so all responsibilty of each post is its authors'.
.

Comment posted by alessandra on January 16, 2009

The notes posted on this blog are not sent to other members to be approved or not...

Alessandra, is there any way you could pursuade some more of the members to be so bold so we can have a place to think so hard about things so meaninful... please...

Comment posted by Joe on January 16, 2009

Wow, have been away....and I am a bit bewildered by many of the comments (especially from photographers) and not sure I understand Alessandra's concern...in fact, it is an EDITORIALLY powerful photograph, for exactly what is not in the image...more about that later...

First, it goes without saying that Moises is one of our generations finest conflict photographers, bar none. Does moises ever shoot a bad image? ;)) Moreover, his work and his remarkable books (one sitting 1 meter behind my left shoulder as I type this) are not only visually powerful but deeply thoughtful and conscientious. To view this photograph as merely a simple, bucolic, toss-away photograph I think does a disservice to both Moises body of work and the nature of conflict photography to begin with. Instead of a bucolic image, i see a photograph rife with tension. Not only in it's iconography but more importantly in it's EDITORIAL IMPACT.

As Alessandra asserted, on the day this image ran on the front page, "... January 7th, while these soldiers rested, 30 corpses were found under the rubble of a bombed building in Gaza, among them four starving children next to their dead mothers,,," and many of the commentators here have commented that this is a travesty with regard to photojournalist or editorial decision making. I would argue the entire opposite. The horror that is at the moment raining down upon Gaza is made even more acute because of images just as this. The silence, the casual nature of the photograph howls at what is missing (bloodied, death-riddled Gaza). It is this juxtaposition, between this photograph and the reality of Gaza that makes Moises photograph so incredibly powerful and from the editorial (or historical) perspective, mercilessly powerful. Contrary to those who see this as a 'soft' image, to the contrary, Moises photographs in actually sharpens the horror and the desperation that exists in gaza: these soldiers appear unaware of the extent of what is happening. If they are, even more horrific is the silence gained in the photograph. Each of us knows that images are now being taken of the tremendous devastation taking place in Gaza (yes, Palestinian PJ's are working there, and hopefully the images will get out), we've all seen and come to expect that conflict work should/must be about the carnage and death and despair: necessity to witness, absolutely. However, Moises and the others are currently PREVENTED from entering gaza, so in lieu of this how is an intelligent and dedicated reporter to respond: to photograph the world in front of him/her. Because this photograph is diametrically opposite of the death and blood and carnage and collapse that Gaze is currently undergoing, it actually gains not only in it's metaphorical power, but in versmilitude: these young soldiers are a world away from the horror being inflicted and experience. It is because this is NOT a photograph of the trauma of the war (of which moises knows very well), it's editorial impact about the war is all the more poignant and frustrating. This is the finest, most thoughtful kind of editorial work i know. And Moises has always been in the center of the conflict's he's covered. This is not a 'soft', pro-israel photograph, but a strong, vital, acute observation of a moment that given the reality a short distance away from these soldiers, makes this photograph that much more profound, maddening and powerful.

As to the NYTimes images. I see no bias there whatsover. Just as Chris mentioned, this is one image in a river of images that the Times has been running. Documentation and journalism requires context, requires the information of time and place, requires relational facts, and taking one photograph out of the context of the other work run at the Times, let alone not considering the photo in light of what the image very well may be saying by what it does NOT show, does the work a great disservice. Though I too felt incredibly angry and disappointed by the Times decision to support the early stages of the Iraq war, I have yet to see the Times, at least in the photographs it publishes or the photographers who work for them, support any agenda but the coverage. It seems an odd and fairly depressing scenario that others have accused the Times (and by extension Moises?) of being less than ethical in their/his mandate to report.

Also, i was completed confused Joe by your numerical analysis. First, time is a random abacus and just because we quantify time (seconds, hours, days, months, years etc) does not mean that that time is negotiable nor does it mean that time can be qualified and subjected to merit based on the amount. To reduce life or moments and the value of an image to the clicks on a watch, or the speed of a shutter snapped, is not only antithetical to what makes up the value of a photograph, but more importantly the value of the lived life. You make a felonious argument when you suggest to Chris (or Moises) that "of the possible 86,400 frames. Christopher, only 1% of all the images that were available, that means 99% of the images of that representative day went uncollected..." etc etc etc....images are not commensurate with the time on a watch...images, like moments in life, are not subjected to a calculus of figures by an instrument of emotional, experiential, historical counter. To argue that in a given day, a photographer only is able to shoot a certain percentage of 'valued' images and that this photograph fails that test because it wastes the already pale opportunity to capture important information is a pretty odd and un-photographic (or epistemological truthful) argument. what makes a photograph valuable is the value therein contained (and this also is subject to a spectrum of values and contexts and ideas). You may not find the photograph important or meaningful, but to suggest it's value is even less because of the anemic time a photographer has to capture life, and that the photograph does not rise to the apogee of greatness, is a very odd argument indeed...no offense joe, i like your hunger for thinking, but as a photographer, this argument is particularly hollow...

and lastly, one of the most profound images of the war in lebanon, for me, was an image that did not directly show death and destruction...it was Paolo's image of the father shouting with his children in the wheel barrow (NYC60913) from Double Blind....that image is so profound and meaningful because of what is contained and not contained in it...

and for those interested to learn about Palestinian journalists, can i recommend my friend Kloie Picot's Documentary SHOTS THAT BIND

http://www.kloie.com/Shots_that_Bind.php
\
about Palestinian journalists in Gaza...

all the best
bob

p.s. MOISES/ALEX PLEASE STAY SAFE!....

Comment posted by bobblack on January 16, 2009

Bob, the juvenile side of me just wants to let The Dude respond to your strong feelings towards what I said,…calling me felonious and insinuating I felt anything other than respect for the photographers?…hollow?… well that sounds just as silly as the guy speaking to The Dude.. But hey, you’re Bob so you get all this latitude I suppose ;-)

But I don’t feel remotely offended Bob because from what you’ve written, you’ve not remotely understood my point. But be sure if you made a compelling counter point, I wouldn’t be offended Bob, I would be thrilled. Expanding views are healthy, changed views are gifts. Bob you’ve not thrilled me.

So I’ll make the same point in a more romantic way. Photographers Filter. They make decisions on what to collect and what not to collect. Photo Editors Filter, they make decisions on what to publish and what not to publish from the photographer’s already filtered view. Senior members of the NY Times Filter, they make decisions on what to put on the front page for people to digest and actually for people that don’t even buy the paper to digest, since it’s even there for them to view while they buy a pack of smokes… and they also decide what to bury deeper in the paper or on a web site away from much of the voting / opinion polling citizens.

The image discussed made it to the front page through a great deal of filtering. To think otherwise is just foolish. You’ve also misunderstood the article Christopher’s linked Bob. The crux of the article cements that the NYT is equally statistically clinical in what they show us and what they tell us, they confirm they weigh and measure everything they show and they weigh every thing they say. Sorry it’s not more romantic than that Bob, but as the NYT says, it‘s actually ratios. Are you prepared suggest the NYT is fundamentally flawed for being so mathematical Bob?

Bob you also feel full of emotion when you say this:

and many of the commentators here have commented that this is a travesty with regard to photojournalist or editorial decision making. I would argue the entire opposite. The horror that is at the moment raining down upon Gaza is made even more acute because of images just as this. The silence, the casual nature of the photograph howls at what is missing

I’m sorry Bob, there is no easy way for me to tell you this, but a news paper stand is not the Smithsonian and the paper is not the smile of the Mona Lisa. The American herd is not going to explore enough of the reality to think, oh…. The artist is trying to tell me something by showing me exactly the opposite of what I should feel right now… oh that clever artist

Unfortunately The Dude never said this, so I’ll have to coin it… Get Real!

What’s important is that we should scrutinize everything right now, and we should make it clear we plan to do this so the media feels very accountable for their filtering decisions. There are loads of things that just don’t compute, again the Rice, Bush, Olmert fiasco still doesn’t compute. We should also explore information from people much more clever than us, much more objective, people that examine this under a microscope as a profession, people like this…

Anyway… I agree with you that we are discussing truly talented photographers Bob :)

Comment posted by Joe on January 16, 2009

The post does not question Moses Saman or any other photographers’ work.
I admire and am grateful for all journalists who put themselves on the line trying to get the story told.
And most of all, it is not implied that this photograph shouldn’t have been taken.

As debatable as I realize it is, I am questioning the use of this image, not it’s existence.
The use images are given in the press exceeds the control of the photographer, so I am leaving out the photographer and his or her intentions for this discussion.
The decision on what goes on the front page is an editorial decision, and it is an important one.

There is editorial responsibility, and irresponsibility as we can see from the Times own (too late) apology of it’s incorrect reporting on weapons of mass destruction. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1400990400&en=94c17fcffad92ca9&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND)
This is one quote from their apology: “Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.”

I point to this quote in order to reinforce my point about the importance of the placement of images or text in a newspaper.

The day the above image appeared there was no more information about Gaza on the front page; the context for the image was printed on page 12.

I give the Times credit for this apology. There are probably few papers in the world that would have the courage to admit to such a grave mistake, a mistake that paved the way for a criminal administration to justify a war.
I am not suggesting the NYT is Pravda, as someone mentioned above, and I don’t have any conspiracy theories, but because I believe we are all fallible, and we all have our blind spots I am always highly watchful of the choice of wording and of imagery that is published and the consequences this can have.

During the lead up to the Iraq invasion, anyone who questioned or criticized what was being published and the way newspapers’ and TV news were parroting the governments’ discourse, was ignored, criticized and patronized.
After all, now it seems we were correct: The reporting and editorial choices was sloppy as they admit.

Of course, now we are only talking about one photograph, on one day, among so many others, but details are important, every day counts, especially for the people being bombed.
That’s why I think it is an irresponsible choice of image for a front page, (or really.. any page) particularly when it is not accompanied by any context at all.

It would be fine in an extended photo essay, in a book, in a gallery, but not on the front page of a newspaper while a ferocious attack on civilians is being played out.

The most telling observation I’ve read so far is above on Bobs’ description:
“These young soldiers are a world away from the horror being inflicted” .
That is exactly it. Now I understand better why I reacted so strongly to the choice of this picture. When shown in isolation, and decontextualized, as it was on that front page, it creates the fantasy that these young men are not responsible for the terror seen on the other side. It creates a disassociation between the inflicted and the inflictor.

To say that an image is powerful because of what it does not say is irrelevant when we are talking about the reporting of a war in a major newspaper whose function is to inform, not suggest.

All wars, no matter who carries them out, are only about death, pain, loss, terror, and the end of many peoples’ dreams.
I find it incredibly offensive to state that a subtle, suggestive, artistic picture is appropriate as news coverage in a war – whatever war it may be.

Comment posted by alessandra on January 16, 2009

What a profound (and profoundly disturbing) discussion this has evolved into. I ought to admit upfront that my sympathies are with Alessandra argument and I applaud the keenness of her original observation and her moxie publicly supporting it with a simple and elegant moral observation.

Three quick observations:

One: The NY Times has been profoundly wrong in many of its editorial choices (especially those in new items). As an education advocate and community organizer, I have personally been involved in stories reported on their front page (and propagandized on their editorial pages), where the "facts" were betrayed by the various filters mentioned above. The choices of photographers, reporters and editors (being neither automatons nor omniscient) are always guided by their background assumptions, more often than not at the expense of the unpopular, minority opinion. Of course it goes without saying it's foolish to overlook the expectations of their audience and advertisers, perhaps the most influential filter of them all.

Two: Moises image of course recalls Manet's painting DEJEUNER SUR HERBE http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/dejeuner/manet.dejeuner-sur-herbe.jpg and much that it suggests. Which then recalled Mikhael Subotzky's recent post relating photographs to masterpiece paintings. It just so happens the past few days I've been thinking a little about folks like Jeff Wall (art-philologist) and James Nachtwey (crusader) who use photography as a capital-A Art form to detach and explode the boundaries between manufactured art (including photojournalism) and reality as it is perceived socially, politically, philosophically and, perhaps most importantly, viscerally.

Three: Despite my empathy with Alessandra's argument, I wasn't offended by the artistry of the image --- death, pain, loss and terror have been muses of virtuosity for ages. And I wasn't disturbed by the filtering of Moises' bucolic image which led it to the front page-- obviously the moment existed and is arguably newsworthy. What I find disturbing and offensive is the fact that the Times won't publish an image of its logical counterpart: a grotesquely picturesque street littered with dead Palestinian children.

I have seen images of Israeli property damage from Hamas rocket fire. Has the Times published any (factual) photographs of dead and dismembered children? I have seen many on the internet (including videos), but somehow never, ever on "news" pages.

I am so bored with and suspicious of NY Times news coverage that I no longer read it very closely, preferring to skim it on the internet.

Comment posted by Vern Ballard on January 17, 2009

Joe :))....am on a deadline, so i will try to add some more tomorrow, let me iterate that i always love reading your thoughts and am a fan of your investigation and passion, even when i whole-heartedly disagree...and when i used the word 'hollow' i did not you are 'hollow' but the logic of analyzing the worth of an image (or more importantly a moment) on the scale of acquired 'time' didnt play out, as finessed as it seems...not personal...enjoyed your responses, will write more latter in the weekend...

Alessandra :))...as i wrote Joe, on a deadline today, so i'll try to write more later. let me first say that I know you were not questioning the power or the veracity of Moises' image (or questioning Moises himself) but rather discouraged/upset by the Editorial decision by the times. As i mentioned, although this photograph does not contain the carnage and horror of what is currently going down in Gaza (mostly because of the grotesque restrictions imposed on journalists by the Israeli government), it still can be used Editorially as an example of the horror of the war because of it's absence. In other words, if you look at Vietnam, inc (a book that contains all the imaginable atrocities and infliction of death and suffering during war, and PJG's gaze is unstinting and his moral agency unquestioned), that book often does the same: not only with imagery (juxtaposing horrific images with images of calm) but also with writing: juxtaposing empassioned, brilliant anger with humor ....that is why Inc is the seminal book it is ....

take a look at images from Vietnam, Inc.: PAR94006, PAR94052, PAR94012, etc....these images empower the sense we have of the war because we know what was happening in vietnam AND Griffiths gives us the other unflinching, devastating photographs....i have no doubt that we will see the images from Gaza, get the stories, once the journalists can go in, but in the mean time, how is a reporter and how is a newspaper/station/news source able to convey what is happening....sometimes it is with both....that is how i read the image and the editorial use of it...

i must also say that I am so happy you have brought this topic up...it's great to see the Magnum blog (and maganum photographers) engaged in discussion, important and argumentative (in the best sense) discussion :)))...

and again, please take a look at Kloie's film on Palestinian PJ's/Videographers if you haven't seen it...

ok, more later
running
bob

Comment posted by bobblack on January 17, 2009

ps, i also have been checking in on Al Jazeera too...to get pics...

http://english.aljazeera.net/

Comment posted by bobblack on January 17, 2009

I must say that you are clearly biased towards Palestinians. What would your country do if it were regularly attacked by rockets I wonder? Israel has a right to defend it's boarders as any country does. Gaza is not an Israeli territory anymore, as demanded by Palestinians, yet Hamas continues it's fighting AGAINST CIVILIANS by sending rockets to israeli cities. On the other hand, civialian deaths in Gaze are incidental - did you ever study War Science? Well, I did. Fighting in the built (city) environment is the MOST difficult kind of war (the example we were given in the University was Stalingrad). And, of course, when you are fighting inside the city, civilian injuries are inevitable. Especially because (as the whole world knows), Hamas terrorists are hiding INSIDE the houses of civilians, in schools and hospitals. I realize that poor Palestinian kids are more of an interest to you, but did you ever photograph Israeli children, running to the shelters? You are welcome to do so.

Comment posted by Dina on January 17, 2009

Dina, this dialogue is mostly about the NY Times editorial decisions. Personally, my sympathy for casualties doesn't discriminate, furthermore I deplore the agents who cause them. Hamas is despicable and so is the Israeli government, only more so.

Israel isn't just defending itself; it has been a tyrannical occupying force. If the USA were still a tyrannic state (as it when slavery was legal) or South Africa when apartheid was, or Germany under the Third Reich, I would support international civil outrage and expect (but not support) violent resistance. And I would hope for unfettered press access.

Also, as a former soldier who directed field artillery, I can assure you the damage from white phosphorous artillery calibrated for air dispersal in an urban area is neither incidental nor collateral; it's intentional terrorism.

To bring this back to photo coverage, I should point out that since journalists are currently "welcome" to roam more or less freely through Israel images of Israelis taking cover are plentiful. In Gaza not only is "unwelcome" press coverage restricted by Israel, but so is access to food, water, shelter and medical treatment, etc.

Comment posted by Vern Ballard on January 17, 2009

Alessandra, I very much appreciate the timeliness of your introducing this thread. All too often we find ourselves discussing such issues after the fact, when feelings have been overcome by intellectual, didactic arguments.

I, like you, reacted viscerally when I saw this photo on the front page of the prestigious New York Times. But I wasn't surprised. As a long time reader, I've seen the Times place its pro-Israel spin on every story involving that country. Especially when it savagely attacks its neighbors, as it did Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza today. But I'm afraid it is simply reflecting the pro-Israel attitudes and actions of the U.S. government. After all, the Senate voted unanimously to support Israel's massacre of Gaza in 2009 and Lebanon in 2006. The bias runs deep.

So my question is not whether or not this was an appropriate image to place on the front page of the NY Times, but whether there are ANY mainstream news sources remaining today that are not in the pocket of their advertisers, the politicians and lobbyists? I certainly know of independent media like Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! who consistently speak truth to power, but mainstream media? None that I can think of.

The sad thing is that, in America anyway, the vast majority of people simply lap up what they see and hear on the nightly TV news. Of course, you and I dig deep to get our news, but we're internet-savy and intellectually curious folks. As for me, I've been gettiing my main news about the situation in Gaza from english.aljazeera.net/, but how many of my fellow Americans would do that?

All this says to me is we must continue to support our independent media. Otherwise "spin" is all we will ever see.

Comment posted by Patricia Lay-Dorsey on January 17, 2009

to Vern:

Israel is NOT occupying Gaza. Hamas is. As it pushed Fatah away (and literally pushed its people from the roofs, remember?)

I appreciate your past experience as a soldier but I must repeat myself, Hamas terrorists are hiding behind women and kids, as well as in hospitals and schools. Therefore, civilian casualities are inevitable.

I have been a soldier in the Israeli army, as most of my friends. All my friends that were in combat units have always received very clear and strict instructions NOT to hurt civilians. Moreover, some civilians are taken to Israeli hospitals. Did you know, for example, that according to Israeli military rules, if there is a doctor in the combat field and there is an injured arab terrorist and an injured israeli soldier - he has to first treat the terrorist? Did you know that? Have you been to Israeli army? How can you even compare its moral values to those of Hamas units?

As to the occupation in general - as it seems to be the point that people like to come back to. I was a big believer in the Piece Process UNTIL the Wye Plantation meeting. Palestinians were made an offer that gives them most of the territories including East Jerusalem. They said NO - moreover, they started the 2 antifada and their guerilla attacks agaist Israeli civilians. I am sorry, I don't believe Palestinian leaders anymore, they are DIFFERENT - they do not KNOW how to live in piece, and the corruption of their leaders is so deep that no matter how high the financial aid is, it is all stolen or used to buy arms, so simple people do not see any improvement in their lives. THEIR LEADERS' BUSINESS IS WAR, how can's you guys see that? Once they stop fighting, they will stop being paid (by Iran, etc) = they will never.

Comment posted by Dina on January 18, 2009

Alesandra (Patrcia,) Great that you have started this

“When the truth is replaced by silence,” the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko said, “the silence is a lie.” It may appear the silence is broken on Gaza. The cocoons of murdered children, wrapped in green, together with boxes containing their dismembered parents and the cries of grief and rage of everyone in that death camp by the sea, can be viewed on al-Jazeera and YouTube, even glimpsed on the BBC. But Russia’s incorrigible poet was not referring to the ephemeral we call news; he was asking why those who knew the why never spoke it and so denied it. Among the Anglo-American intelligentsia, this is especially striking. It is they who hold the keys to the great storehouses of knowledge: the historiographies and archives that lead us to the why.
John Pilger January 2009

Comment posted by Gogg on January 18, 2009

Dina, I don't know what to make of your refusal to engage in a discussion about the photo imagery.

The US is currently occupying Iraq and until the tanks leave Gaza, it's an occupation. And when Israeli's aren't occupying Gaza and the West Bank, they have held it in a state of siege, akin to a large apartheid camp.

In times a war civilian casualties may be inevitable, but civilian and military casualties resulting from illegal munitions and tactics are war crimes--- whether they are used my Hamas or Israel.

As for the Wye Plantation meeting, it ended with an agreement signed by Israel and the PLO. The second intifada was provoked when Ariel Sharon, campaigning for PM, decided to visit an Islamic holy site. Subsequent to that there was the Taba Summit, which came close to a peace settlement, but was discontinued as a result of Israeli elections and never resumed. And now, during another Israeli election, we have another Israeli occupation. This is not to excuse the failures on the Palestinian side, but only to show that Israel often enough is the cause of fault.

Apparently Israel's leaders are DIFFERENT, too; they do not WANT to live in peace.

To return to the subject at hand. On Dec 30 the Washington Post illustrated its front page with a diptych. In one photograph is an Arab woman grieving her five daughters killed by Israeli missile fire and in the adjoining panel an Israeli woman mourns property damage from a Hamas rocket which landed in her town. Hardly equivalent.

See minute 1:30 in the video on this page: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/zbigniew-brzezinski-calls_n_154211.html.

Also in this video, Brzezinksi tries to reframe the discussion in terms of the actual diplomatic record (rather than political and corporate media propaganda); he further explains the breakdown of the Taba talks (minute start around 6:30).

Comment posted by verninino on January 18, 2009

Gogg:

Yevgeny Yevtushenko was never (not ever) a dissident...in fact, he was cajoled by the powers of the Kremlin and he very much was their golden boy and was given privledges that nearly every other literary figure of the time (let alone political dissent) was denied.........and Yevtushenko had always been among the most "silent" of the "outspoken" Soviet poets of teh 60's, 79's and 80's....until it was fashionable to speak, then Yevtushenko's outspokenness was drowned in the sea of words and much back peddling.......ask irina ratushskinskaya or sokolov or elena schwartz or Sinyavsky and Daniel or Solzhenitsyn, or take a look at what Brodsky had to say about Yevtushenko....let alone contemporary russian poets or writers....

anyway, it is in example of how we must be very careful about the sources we choose to speak about....Vevtushkenko did in fact write some marvelous poetry (Babi Yar, of course) but at a time when poets and dissidents and people were spied upon, tortured, lost at camps in siberia, he is one of the members of the soviet intelligensia that had an honorable history of dissidence....

and why Yevtushkenko spoke about anti-semitism during wwii (babi yar) he never had the courage to speak about against what the regime did to others.....

we must be careful about the truth of things indeed....as Yevtushkenko knows, truth is carried in a black pot by the cooks....

b

of all the people from the Soviet era to speak about dissidence and the horror of silence, he is the one to which we should turn toward the least......

Comment posted by bobblack on January 18, 2009

i meant:

at a time when poets and dissidents and people were spied upon, tortured, lost at camps in siberia, he is one of the members of the soviet intelligensia that did NOT HAVE the courage, either moral or spiritual, to be a dissident...he was content with his 1,000,000 copy selling books of poems and the travel afforded by that by the Kremlin...while others were struggling...

b
..

Comment posted by bobblack on January 18, 2009

http://shahidul.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/complicity-in-slaughter-gaza/

Comment posted by U on January 19, 2009

Dina, the IDF are killing kids. The population of Gaza is 50% children under the age of 15. Its also one of the most densly populated places on the planet. You drop bombs on it and there is more than a good chance that children will die. Same with the rockets going the other way but no where near the same level or carnage.

The photo is of a group of IDF soilders having a pic nic.

Comment posted by richard on January 20, 2009

bruno stevens pics...

http://pa.photoshelter.com/c/bruno/gallery-show/G0000U_9ceyQ7.Aw

Comment posted by bobblack on January 21, 2009

It is a very artistic photo. Art has us think in different ways, often to consider nuances we wouldn't otherwise consider. It makes us ask questions about the people depicted. Sometimes in asking those questions we reveal to ourselves our own assumptions when we realize that we can't actually know what's really happening. That awareness of our ignorance invites us to get more facts. This photo does this for me.

I appreciate the initial post inviting me to consider the photo with greater reflection. I do believe, however, that because it is such a strong piece of art that it is worthy of front page placement with the caption alone. Even in a quick glance it is very provocative to me for the reasons outlined by bobblack.

I'd like to see the conversation sparked by this post be had more broadly and have photojournalists teach the public more about the craft and "reading photos". It would be amazing for there to be a cable show or a YouTube channel dedicated to the events of the day recorded by a photojournalist and to follow a group of citizens deconstructing the images and revealing their own assumptions about the photos.

Comment posted by HCJ on January 21, 2009

@Bob Black
If you are right about Yevtushkenko, it would be a even biggger mistake today, to do what he did, not daring to telling the thrut?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21811.htm

Comment posted by Gogg on January 22, 2009

@Bob Black
If you are right about Yevtushkenko, it would be a even biggger mistake today, to do what he did, not daring to telling the thrut?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21811.htm

Comment posted by Gogg on January 22, 2009

thank you for the link Gogg....powerful, compelling, heartbreaking....

see my link above to Bruno's pictures and kloie's film...

all the best
bob

Comment posted by bobblack on January 22, 2009

Hello!, We have just posted a video clip of our James Bond themed fireworks display which maybe of interested should anyone be requiring to book a firework display.

Comment posted by Surrey Events on January 23, 2009

Thanks for the link Bruno...

Well it's not easy to give have an impartial look to this conflict but I believe that using a bucolic image is something that goes beyond any immagination. People died and a war that hit civilians was fought...
I really do not understand.
Pictures should be used with more reflection.

Comment posted by Vittore Fotografo on January 26, 2009

To all ... thanks for offers ALL your comments you have given me much food for reflection. I photograph, I write, and sit in circles of talk,mediation and prayer with people of multi-faith - circles where people can express ideas, thoughts, possible actions to take out into the community to invite tolerance ... some of these people are involved in working with refugees, on programmes providing shelters, food, some work in 'ordinary' jobs, some have no work - all look for places to STOP and reflect before action is further taken .... this photo speaks of this to me.
Regardless of journalistic leanings, political leanings.
Thank you

Comment posted by bibi on January 29, 2009

The picture in question; Front Page in the NYT; facts; this image is of reserve Israeli soldiers , next to their Armored vehicle who are stationed far from the battle zone; their job is to secure the Israeli communities from infiltrations; those vehicles never entered Gaza ; they patrol near the border, on the Israeli side, mainly in the fields of those communities. Those are the facts regarding this photograph.

Comment posted by Ron on January 30, 2009