Am I the only one...

bdcolen

Who finds these two things so godawful appalling that I don't know where to begin? There are ethical standards, and there are ethical standards. And I know we all at times do things for money we might rather not talk about. But...

First this...

And then this...

I am ready to burn my copy of "Inferno." Am I overreacting? Discuss.:wink

P.S. This post has nothing to do with the general subject of war, "just war," people in the military, people who support the military, or anything other than journalistic ethics, and the ethics of the world's most prominent, self-described "anti-war photographer" and his friend and fellow VII founding member.

eoren1

BD-
I followed the first link which was interesting but slanted and made me think. Then I followed down to the comments and found a link to Ron Haviv's blog:
http://ronhaviv.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/ron-haviv-response/
He points out that the image used in the Ad was doctored by Lockhead to add smoke, etc and turn tire tracks into an ad for their product. I think taking that very important point into account changes everything.

As for the second link, I recall hearing an NPR piece about this article that included the author. I won't try to summarize the piece but it should be read/listened to before commenting on that second post:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/151058724/a-look-into-the-world-of-syrias-first-lady

Put that blowtorch away...for now...

bdcolen

eoren1 wrote: »

BD-
I followed the first link which was interesting but slanted and made me think. Then I followed down to the comments and found a link to Ron Haviv's blog:
http://ronhaviv.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/ron-haviv-response/
He points out that the image used in the Ad was doctored by Lockhead to add smoke, etc and turn tire tracks into an ad for their product. I think taking that very important point into account changes everything.

As for the second link, I recall hearing an NPR piece about this article that included the author. I won't try to summarize the piece but it should be read/listened to before commenting on that second post:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/151058724/a-look-into-the-world-of-syrias-first-lady

Put that blowtorch away...for now...

Sorry, but when anti-war photographers sell their images to weapons manufacturers for use in ads selling weapons, there is no justification. Added smoke? Altered the image? They couldn't have done that without his having sold them the image.

As to Nachtwey...watch the documentary war photographer. Listen to his chest beating. Then ask yourself how, under any circumstances, he could have done a shoot of the Asad family for Vogue. All he had to know was that it was for Vogue and he or a six-year-old could have predicted the outcome. The Asads are the Asads. All that is new in Syria is the level of the repression and fascism. Would Nachtwey have shot Hitler, Eva Braun and the dogs for Vogue? Sorry, but that transcript with the reporter makes my skin crawl.

eoren1

I have to disagree on the first point, from Ron's blog explaining the situation:

"A fourth image is a stock photo of tracks in the desert. My commercial agent sold the landscape image as stock to Lockheed Martin, which exercised its right to add smoke and text."

It does not sound as if he had any role in the selling of the photo or depiction of it as a war shot. It's stock photography. Is he not allowed to sell an image of tire tracks in the desert if he thinks the buyer might then change it to a deplorable ad for a GPS guided missile?

As for the Syrian photos, I recalled the NPR piece more from the reporter's perspective and did note her comment on the photo not depicting his blond haired child. I thought that was despicable at the time but confess that I did not know about the background of the photographer until you mentioned his name. I assumed it was one of their staff photographers not one with a long history as a war photographer. That does change matters.

Sam

I think your over reacting to your first example. As pointed out that was a stock image.

In the case of Asad, why are you surprised? There are few who have real thought out convictions and stick to them. Many rationalize their actions. Like an attorney who knows his client is guilty yet tries every trick in the book to fee a child molesting killer.

Man is an incredibly complex convoluted creature with some capable of astounding intelligence, honor and achievements. Unfortunately it seems more fall into the category of selfish, sociopath, nasty little monkeys.

It would be wonderful if the more of the first group had the rains of power and influence than the the second group.

Those who have no honor will never understand. Those that do don't need any explanation.

Sam

bdcolen

Sam wrote: »

I think your over reacting to your first example. As pointed out that was a stock image.

In the case of Asad, why are you surprised? There are few who have real thought out convictions and stick to them. Many rationalize their actions. Like an attorney who knows his client is guilty yet tries every trick in the book to fee a child molesting killer.

Man is an incredibly complex convoluted creature with some capable of astounding intelligence, honor and achievements. Unfortunately it seems more fall into the category of selfish, sociopath, nasty little monkeys.

It would be wonderful if the more of the first group had the rains of power and influence than the the second group.

Those who have no honor will never understand. Those that do don't need any explanation.

Sam

Well, Sam, I guess I am slightly less cynical than you are, and still believe that there a such things as standards, and some people who live by them. James Nachtwey tells everyone who cares to listen that he set out to be a war photographer to try to end war by brining home its horrors to people. He calls himself an anti-war photographer. He claims to have great empathy for, and identification with, the victims of war, tyranny, and poverty. Rent and watch the documentary "War Photographer" if you haven't seen it, to get a sense of who and what Nachtwey has portrayed himself to be. For him to photograph the Asads in this glowing way is utterly appalling.

As to the first, stock or no stock, one has control - especially when one is as prominent a photographer as Haviv. And the client could have gotten a good shot of tracks anywhere - obviously they wanted Haviv's image because it was Haviv.

bdcolen

eoren1 wrote: »

I have to disagree on the first point, from Ron's blog explaining the situation:

"A fourth image is a stock photo of tracks in the desert. My commercial agent sold the landscape image as stock to Lockheed Martin, which exercised its right to add smoke and text."

It does not sound as if he had any role in the selling of the photo or depiction of it as a war shot. It's stock photography. Is he not allowed to sell an image of tire tracks in the desert if he thinks the buyer might then change it to a deplorable ad for a GPS guided missile?

As for the Syrian photos, I recalled the NPR piece more from the reporter's perspective and did note her comment on the photo not depicting his blond haired child. I thought that was despicable at the time but confess that I did not know about the background of the photographer until you mentioned his name. I assumed it was one of their staff photographers not one with a long history as a war photographer. That does change matters.

Not " a war photographer," but "the war photographer," the man considered by many to be his generation's Robert Capa. Until now.

Quincy T

As I read more about this, I continue to ask myself: 'How do two men who have covered war and hardship for so long, and know as much, if not much more, about war and hardship than most combatant Marines I've met, end up under the bus for things like this?' I don't know a great deal about either person mentioned. I believe I have seen James Nachtwey's work elsewhere for sure, but I can't put the name to an image. I know they are obviously, both, hugely influential photographers. Therefore, it's difficult for me to simply come to this abrupt conclusion that Ron Haviv is a co-conspirator to some kind of ultraviolence committed directly by Lockheed Martin. I understand that they are an arms manufacturer, but, and forgive me if this is my own naiveté and youth shining through, I don't get why this is such a major problem. Firstly, they took a stock image of his and reused it for their own purposes, but, as Ron mentions in his blog post, there is a requirement for defense.

The point in the article that disturbs me most, is the phrase "The problem is that sometimes their weapons don’t just kill hostile forces. Sometimes they kill civilians. And sometimes they are talented young photojournalists like Namir Noor-Eldeen. Shot down in Iraq by an US Apache helicopter almost certainly using Lockheed Martin technology." Well of course civilians are killed. We aren't playing laser tag. My cousin wasn't hit with a paintball grenade when he lost his legs in Afghanistan. It's war. I guess, since I am a Marine, perhaps I have some bias, but take that with a grain of salt, because I do my best to educate myself on the realities of the world that exist well beyond the scope of what is on CNN today. I have a great deal of faith in the big-picture officers currently charged with conducting our mission in a very complex conflict, and I keep that faith with them because I literally and closely work with them on a daily basis, and agree wholeheartedly with their mindset. It's not one that is geared toward violence and certainly has nothing to do with the ulterior motives a lot of people perceive.

Perhaps there is something at a much higher level than those I've mentioned dictating the actions of the former, but I doubt that. The short version of that part of my post, is that I don't disagree with war from my perspective, therefore, I don't have a huge issue with a photographer who covers war also supporting the methods by which we conduct war, particularly if it's an advertisement for a method which results in less death. Whether that's true or not, I won't/can't say, but now you have my thoughts on that. Does it make it OK that civilians died? Of course not. At all. Is this a reality, which is not entirely avoidable? Yes, if you live in a utopia I suppose, but I don't like the implication that U.S. military actions which cause civilian deaths are some sort of harbinger for the end times and that our leaders are bent on evil schemes of globalization. You have no idea, if that's your opinion, honestly. Zero clue.

As for this other image, with James Nachtwey, I haven't looked into that as much. But from what you're explaining B.D., I am inclined to agree with you. There are certain cases that require no special ability to understand, and this sounds like one of those. It reminds me of a few other instances, not of photojournalists, but of others, where there is really no way that a person can be "taken out of context". Perhaps this is one of those cases, and in this case, it's simply saddening to see that someone who has covered war so thoroughly, apparently, and has sympathized with the human condition so much is now involved with something like this. That just makes it more complex to me.

I hope I don't seem apathetic by saying "this is a complex issue", but I think that watching the story the public gets, and simultaneously seeing the complete and honest story that exists right in front of my eyes with stark differences in this line of work has taught me to be incredibly careful about how I judge things.

Sam

bdcolen wrote: »

Well, Sam, I guess I am slightly less cynical than you are, and still believe that there a such things as standards, and some people who live by them. James Nachtwey tells everyone who cares to listen that he set out to be a war photographer to try to end war by brining home its horrors to people. He calls himself an anti-war photographer. He claims to have great empathy for, and identification with, the victims of war, tyranny, and poverty. Rent and watch the documentary "War Photographer" if you haven't seen it, to get a sense of who and what Nachtwey has portrayed himself to be. For him to photograph the Asads in this glowing way is utterly appalling.

As to the first, stock or no stock, one has control - especially when one is as prominent a photographer as Haviv. And the client could have gotten a good shot of tracks anywhere - obviously they wanted Haviv's image because it was Haviv.

BD,

Perhaps I should have said I do understand your disgust with Nachtwey, based on his self described portrayal of an avid anti war photographer. I personally couldn't photograph the Asads for a propaganda piece.

It's really easy for people say whatever they want, but when the brown stuff hits the fan watch what they do, not what they say.

I have a hard time believing Haviv has the ability to both sell stock and oversee every use and / derivative use of every image he has in his stock portfolio. Also have great difficulty in thinking the client would gain anything by the use of Haviv's name. Only a relative few would get any connection at all.

Sam

Quincy T

Sam wrote: »

BD,

Perhaps I should have said I do understand your disgust with Nachtwey, based on his self described portrayal of an avid anti war photographer. I personally couldn't photograph the Asads for a propaganda piece.

It's really easy for people say whatever they want, but when the brown stuff hits the fan watch what they do, not what they say.

I have a hard time believing Haviv has the ability to both sell stock and oversee every use and / derivative use of every image he has in his stock portfolio. Also have great difficulty in thinking the client would gain anything by the use of Haviv's name. Only a relative few would get any connection at all.

Sam

Since Sam sums it up better than I do probably, I agree with this assessment in its entirety.

RyanS

The issue with Haviv's image is this: He knows it is doctored to appear more dramatic. He knows that it does not represent what he really saw. He knows that it is used by a weapons manufacturing company to advertise a weapons system. Knowing all of this, he decided to post the advertisement as an example of his best work. It appears in his portfolio. it is still there. There is no text indicating the image has been doctored. The image is a lie.

Someone who claims to be a photojournalist can "lie" in one picture for commercial gain, and then say he isn't lying in another image taken where not lying is what is commercially valuable. So here is the big question: Do you still have faith that the photographer isn't going to lie when he shows you images in the future? At the end of the day it is all about trust. As long as news organizations trust Haviv when he claims an image represents reality, he'll have work. And as long as the general public can't tell the difference, they'll click the little ads on the newspaper's website to generate revenue for them.

richardman

Nachtway already got some flack a while ago for providing either Time or Newsweek with a "glorified" photos of some army personnel for cover...

We don't know what the circumstances were for him taking the job. May be it's simply Cognitive Dissonance, or may be he needed the money, or may be he didn't care, or may be he think the shoot will change the world for the better and soften Assads, may be pigs will fly.

... I remember one of my classmates, upon graduation, went to work for Lockheed Martin or one of those weapon makers and he said, "if I don't do it, they will hire someone else, and I rather they have someone competent." Who knows, may be that's what Nachtway was thinking.

So I highly respect his (other) images and he as a photographer, and a bit less of him as a person.

jhefti

I think for someone like Nachtwey whose moral and ethical stance is a tagline of his work--perhaps there just to sell his product--this kind of behavior is deserving of all the scorn and ridicule it gets. It reminds me of certain televangelists who preach one more code, but practice quite another.

Regarding Haviv, there is more gray in my view... I know my work appears in lots of stock image repositories, and I don't even know when someone buys it, let alone have the ability to exercise control over what they do with it. All that said, I don't think I would put up a doctored image of mine as a featured work, regardless of the moral and ethical color of the product it was used to sell. It reminds me of how I feel when I see physicians endorsing pharmaceuticals or weight loss products that clearly overstate the product's benefits (if indeed the product has any proven benefit).

seastack

Yeah, I just don't understand either decision.

I am not a fan of duckrabbit, which appears to be the one that initially raised the Haviv issue or at least gave it traction. Duckrabbit seems to go looking for famous photographers to malign while taking a self righteous point of view with little nuance. They (duckrabbit is a group although I believe most of these issues are raised by one individual member) did a hatchet job on Larry Towel that was, in my opinion, greatly overblown, unnecessary and unfair.

All of that said, Haviv in my opinion doesn't have any business selling stock, or allowing his agent to sell a stock image, to an arms manufacturer. I don't understand that. After all he has seen, I can't understand that. And in this case duckrabbit was correct to bring it up. Joerg Colberg wrote a clear and excellent post on the issue and has it right when he says, "If you're taking money from arms manufacturers you're in bed with the wrong people."

The Nachtwey propaganda photos depress me greatly. I was a student of his in a workshop. I have had nothing but the upmost respect for him and his integrity, and the personal toll his life's mission has taken on him. I don't understand that at all. The fact that the photos were taken just before the uprising began doesn't help at all. I wish he would explain this, or say it was an awful lapse in judgment but I haven't found a statement from him regarding this. Damn, say it ain't so.

damonff

The article from Vogue:

http://www.presidentassad.net/ASMA_AL_ASSAD/Asma_Al_Assad_News_2011/Asma_Assad_Vogue_February_2011.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vogue-profile-on-assads-wife-disappears/2012/04/25/gIQAgMWthT_story.html

http://www.theworld.org/2012/04/vogues-profile-on-asma-assad-removed-from-the-web/

bdcolen

RyanS wrote: »

The issue with Haviv's image is this: He knows it is doctored to appear more dramatic. He knows that it does not represent what he really saw. He knows that it is used by a weapons manufacturing company to advertise a weapons system. Knowing all of this, he decided to post the advertisement as an example of his best work. It appears in his portfolio. it is still there. There is no text indicating the image has been doctored. The image is a lie.

Someone who claims to be a photojournalist can "lie" in one picture for commercial gain, and then say he isn't lying in another image taken where not lying is what is commercially valuable. So here is the big question: Do you still have faith that the photographer isn't going to lie when he shows you images in the future? At the end of the day it is all about trust. As long as news organizations trust Haviv when he claims an image represents reality, he'll have work. And as long as the general public can't tell the difference, they'll click the little ads on the newspaper's website to generate revenue for them.

Perfectly put.

bdcolen

Quincy T wrote: »

As I read more about this, I continue to ask myself: 'How do two men who have covered war and hardship for so long, and know as much, if not much more, about war and hardship than most combatant Marines I've met, end up under the bus for things like this?' I don't know a great deal about either person mentioned. I believe I have seen James Nachtwey's work elsewhere for sure, but I can't put the name to an image. I know they are obviously, both, hugely influential photographers. Therefore, it's difficult for me to simply come to this abrupt conclusion that Ron Haviv is a co-conspirator to some kind of ultraviolence committed directly by Lockheed Martin. I understand that they are an arms manufacturer, but, and forgive me if this is my own naiveté and youth shining through, I don't get why this is such a major problem. Firstly, they took a stock image of his and reused it for their own purposes, but, as Ron mentions in his blog post, there is a requirement for defense.

The point in the article that disturbs me most, is the phrase "The problem is that sometimes their weapons don’t just kill hostile forces. Sometimes they kill civilians. And sometimes they are talented young photojournalists like Namir Noor-Eldeen. Shot down in Iraq by an US Apache helicopter almost certainly using Lockheed Martin technology." Well of course civilians are killed. We aren't playing laser tag. My cousin wasn't hit with a paintball grenade when he lost his legs in Afghanistan. It's war. I guess, since I am a Marine, perhaps I have some bias, but take that with a grain of salt, because I do my best to educate myself on the realities of the world that exist well beyond the scope of what is on CNN today. I have a great deal of faith in the big-picture officers currently charged with conducting our mission in a very complex conflict, and I keep that faith with them because I literally and closely work with them on a daily basis, and agree wholeheartedly with their mindset. It's not one that is geared toward violence and certainly has nothing to do with the ulterior motives a lot of people perceive.

Perhaps there is something at a much higher level than those I've mentioned dictating the actions of the former, but I doubt that. The short version of that part of my post, is that I don't disagree with war from my perspective, therefore, I don't have a huge issue with a photographer who covers war also supporting the methods by which we conduct war, particularly if it's an advertisement for a method which results in less death. Whether that's true or not, I won't/can't say, but now you have my thoughts on that. Does it make it OK that civilians died? Of course not. At all. Is this a reality, which is not entirely avoidable? Yes, if you live in a utopia I suppose, but I don't like the implication that U.S. military actions which cause civilian deaths are some sort of harbinger for the end times and that our leaders are bent on evil schemes of globalization. You have no idea, if that's your opinion, honestly. Zero clue.

As for this other image, with James Nachtwey, I haven't looked into that as much. But from what you're explaining B.D., I am inclined to agree with you. There are certain cases that require no special ability to understand, and this sounds like one of those. It reminds me of a few other instances, not of photojournalists, but of others, where there is really no way that a person can be "taken out of context". Perhaps this is one of those cases, and in this case, it's simply saddening to see that someone who has covered war so thoroughly, apparently, and has sympathized with the human condition so much is now involved with something like this. That just makes it more complex to me.

I hope I don't seem apathetic by saying "this is a complex issue", but I think that watching the story the public gets, and simultaneously seeing the complete and honest story that exists right in front of my eyes with stark differences in this line of work has taught me to be incredibly careful about how I judge things.

Don't get me wrong Quincy - I know the world is a dangerous place, war is sometimes unavoidable, and those of you who serve make it possible for people like me to shoot off my mouth. Additionally, I understand that, unfortunately, without weapons systems, we a all in a world of hurt. However, what we are talking about here is the ethics of photojournalists, and particularly the ethics of two photo journalists whose careers are devoted to war photography, two photo journalists who are celebrated not for glorifying war, but for risking their lives to remind us of its horrors. Nachtwey particularly gives speeches in which he talks of the horrors of war, and in the documentary War Photographer, of which he is the subject, he talks of having dedicated his life to trying to help end war with his photos. And he takes $25k to glorify one of the most savage, evil dictators still alive today? He may be a brilliant photographer - he is a brilliant photographer, but he flunks Basic Ethical Behavior 101.

lensmole

I really can't establish a point of view regarding the ethics of the photo journalists because I don't know what their side of the story is, but I did talk to some people from Syria about 7 months ago and they did describe a savage,evil dictator, who they say is responsible for many monstrosities, and this a been going on for a very long time.

bdcolen

This will make some of you crazy. But in a way, you don't need to know 'their side' of the story, particularly in the case of Nachtwey. Needing to know 'their side of the story' is an example of this crazy idea today that every dispute, every disagreement, every story today has two morally equivalent, factually valid "sides." Well, it t'ain't so. The world is round, it is not flat, even though there are some people to this day who contend it is. And when it comes to journalism, photo or otherwise, there are ethics and standards, rights and wrongs. And no amount of equivicating, no amount of rationalizing, makes violating those standards, makes wrong right. Sorry.

Quincy T

bdcolen wrote: »

This will make some of you crazy. But in a way, you don't need to know 'their side' of the story, particularly in the case of Nachtwey. Needing to know 'their side of the story' is an example of this crazy idea today that every dispute, every disagreement, every story today has two morally equivalent, factually valid "sides." Well, it t'ain't so. The world is round, it is not flat, even though there are some people to this day who contend it is. And when it comes to journalism, photo or otherwise, there are ethics and standards, rights and wrongs. And no amount of equivicating, no amount of rationalizing, makes violating those standards, makes wrong right. Sorry.

I do agree with you on this view for some situations, B.D. There are objective rights and wrongs, and that's what I was saying in my post pertaining to Nachtwey. The entire situation surrounding the Vogue article was just kind of disgusting...the interview "arranger" I guess, said, of Mrs. Assad "she's extremely thin, rich, and well-dressed...of course she's the kind of woman we want to see in Vogue" I'm paraphrasing, but that's nearly the exact quote, and that kind of stuff makes me fairly sick.

richardman

bdcolen wrote: »

This will make some of you crazy. But in a way, you don't need to know 'their side' of the story, particularly in the case of Nachtwey. Needing to know 'their side of the story' is an example of this crazy idea today that every dispute, every disagreement, every story today has two morally equivalent, factually valid "sides." Well, it t'ain't so. The world is round, it is not flat, even though there are some people to this day who contend it is. And when it comes to journalism, photo or otherwise, there are ethics and standards, rights and wrongs. And no amount of equivicating, no amount of rationalizing, makes violating those standards, makes wrong right. Sorry.

I will have to disagree. You are saying that there are objective truths, i.e. the Earth is round, but life situation is more complex than that. I am not defending Natchwey, but for argument sake, what if he really thought that some good would come out of it? How? I do not know, hence I am not defending him. Can such possibility exist? Yes, just because you and I cannot think of it, doesn't mean the possibility does not exist.

What I would love to see is a response from Nachtwey, then we can at least judge his (public) rationales, if any. If he remains silence in the matter, certainly then I would presume he is more "guilty" than innocent.

jhefti

The more I think about the Assad family shoot, the more I think that it does represent an important component of the situation in Syria. True, it does not depict directly the horrors of war; but it does show how indifferent (at a minimum) and sheltered the first family is. I think anyone with an ounce of thoughtfulness will see it for what it is--a propaganda piece--and take it as yet another example of how dictators can fully buy into their own stories. After all, we would not even be having this discussion if this was a shoot of David and Victoria Beckham, because their lifestyle is not a direct consequence of other peoples' suffering.

It reminds me of similar studies of other dictators--Idi Amin and Ferdinand Marcos come to mind--who were very out of touch with the world around them and their respective roles in creating and supporting it.

I guess I have to ask myself who would believe the story of this family that (I suspect) the Assads hoped would be told by these photographs. Certainly no one in Syria; probably no one who pays any attention to the situation there. In this sense, it reminds me of some 'documentary' films that the Nazis made in the Warsaw Ghetto, which were extremely powerful precisely because of the lies that were portrayed.

damonff

B.D.:

You know I love you.

If we did not have photographs of, for example, Mao Zedong we wouldn't be able to gauge his insanity, ruthlessness, and disdain for humanity.

HCB took photos of Gandhi. I think Gandhi is awesome, but does everyone? No. The guy who shot him thinks he sucks.

What if photography had been widely viable during American chattel slavery? Would photographs of George Washington now be seen as a testament to a photographer gone rogue?

Bashar al-Assad is, as far as I know, a pawn of a terrible, genocidal junta. Agreed.

We as a people, humans, need to see what is happening in the world. It makes what al-Assad is doing all the more clear.

We cannot see what we cannot see.

bdcolen

True enough, Damon. But a very important point to keep in mind here is that these were photos not for Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, The New York Times Magazine, but rather for VOGUE, a publication that glorifies the rich and their trappings. It is a publication whose photography beautifies, rather than exposes, it's subjects.