 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Santiago Lyon, Director of Photography for the Associated Press, tells the "story behind the photos" of the murder of election workers in a Baghdad street.
The photos made front pages around the world and one of them was part of the package of AP's coverage of Iraq that won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography.A reasonable explanation - but one that begs the question why now, and why not when the photos were first released? At that time the only explanations given were from an unnamed AP source quoted in Salon and an email to another web site. From Salon: "The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name". If not as complete that's at least consistent with the current version, but note the followup email from Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, to Jim Romenesko at Poynter Online: "Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures."How did the photographer come to be in one of the most dangerous parts of one of the most dangerous streets in Baghdad at this particular time? He had been tipped by another journalist that "something happened on Haifa Street." Immediately he headed out the door for a car trip to Haifa Street. He found a burning car and photographed it about 300 meters from what would later turn out to be the execution scene.
The photographer then walked toward the intersection where the executions would later take place to photograph the wreck of another recently burned car that he spotted nearby. Soon, he noticed about 20 people arriving and directing traffic away from the intersection, looking unofficial and "very unusual." Anticipating a problem, the car that had brought him there was put near a bridge for a quick getaway, if necessary. He left his photo equipment in the car and walked up to one of the people directing traffic to inquire about what they were doing. He was told "none of your business." He walked back to the car. That's when he heard an explosion. The concussion was powerful enough to break glass in the car.
The photographer turned and saw the group holding two people at gunpoint on the street. One of the attackers was armed with an AK-47 rifle and another with a handgun. The photographer grabbed a camera with a 400mm telephoto lens and photographed the next events from beside the car. The gunmen shot two men in succession. The second shooting was obscured by passing traffic, with many passing cars now fleeing the area. The photographer got back in the car, which inadvertently went down a circular street that just went under the foot of the bridge and returned to the same intersection. He took the occasion to shoot several more photos from the car. Then he left the scene for good.
Given the reasonable explanation AP now presents one wonders why the earlier comments, which certainly indicate a much cozier relationship between the photographer and the murderers, were ever released. Of course, AP owes no explanation of it's practices to anyone anywhere, but why not tell as much of the truth as possible from the start?
Update: Wretchard has more. And Powerline comments here and here.
Not everyone thinks the current AP version is reasonable.
The NY Times notes the story here
More Others think it is reasonable, and note multiple possibilities.
