How News Outlets Obtained Images of Hamas’ October 7 Terror Attack Is Soaked in Controversy Matt Vespa
I understand there’s a debate regarding journalists getting involved in the stories they cover. The number one rule is that you don’t become the subject. It’s a debate that’s been around for years, namely regarding the photojournalism of war-torn or poverty-stricken nations, which comes with horrid photos of death and destruction. For some, it could be disturbing that these reporters take pictures of extremely malnourished children in Africa and then go about their way, but that’s the ghoulish side of the business.
Then, there’s having knowledge of a massive terror attack and doing nothing about it. Photographers from major publications, like The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, and CNN, were embedded with Hamas on October 7 and followed the terrorists into Israel. There are some serious questions, though Honest Reporting, an outfit that tracks anti-Israel bias, goes so far as to accuse the photographers of potentially being complicit in a terror attack (via Honest Reporting):
On October 7, Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions.
What were they doing there so early on what would ordinarily have been a quiet Saturday morning? Was it coordinated with Hamas? Did the respectable wire services, which published their photos, approve of their presence inside enemy territory, together with the terrorist infiltrators? Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets? Judging from the pictures of lynching, kidnapping and storming of an Israeli kibbutz, it seems like the border has been breached not only physically, but also journalistically.
Four names appear on AP’s photo credits from the Israel-Gaza border area on October 7: Hassan Eslaiah, Yousef Masoud, Ali Mahmud, and Hatem Ali.
Eslaiah, a freelancer who also works for CNN, crossed into Israel, took photos of a burning Israeli tank, and then captured infiltrators entering Kibbutz Kfar Azza.
[…]
Masoud, who also works for The New York Times, was there as well — just in time to set foot in Israeli territory and take more tank pictures.
Ali Mahmud and Hatem Ali were positioned to get pictures of the horrific abductions of Israelis into Gaza.
Mahmud captured the pickup truck carrying the body of German-Israeli Shani Louk and Ali got several shots of abductees being kidnapped into the Strip.
[…]
Reuters has published pictures from two photojournalists who also happened to be at the border just in time for Hamas’ infiltration: Mohammed Fayq Abu Mostafa and Yasser Qudih.
They both took pictures of a burning Israeli tank on the Israeli side of the border, but Abu Mustafa went further: He took photos of a lynch mob brutalizing the body of an Israeli soldier who was dragged out of the tank.
[…]
Let’s be clear: News agencies may claim that these people were just doing their job. Documenting war crimes, unfortunately, may be part of it. But it’s not that simple.
It is now obvious that Hamas had planned its October 7 attack on Israel for a very long time: its scale, its brutal aims and its massive documentation have been prepared for months, if not years. Everything was taken into account — the deployments, the timing, as well as the use of bodycams and mobile phone videos for sharing the atrocities.
Is it conceivable to assume that “journalists” just happened to appear early in the morning at the border without prior coordination with the terrorists? Or were they part of the plan?
Even if they didn’t know the exact details of what was going to happen, once it unfolded did they not realize they were breaching a border? And if so, did they notify the news agencies? Some sort of communication was undoubtedly necessary — before, after or during the attack — in order to get the photos published.
Meredith O’Connor, a former photo editor for CQ Roll Call, shared her thoughts on the piece, given her experience in this field. She took some exception with the article’s framing about accusing these photojournalists and their respective photo departments of being complicit in the attacks. Still, she did note that egregious ethical breakdowns were present:
The world of news photography is heavily reliant on freelance photographers. A person could be selling photos/working on behalf of AP one day and Reuters the next.
Reuters, AP, Getty and other news outlets also frequently hire photographers as full-time employees and their pictures are owned by that news org, and then sometimes syndicated/licensed for other outlets to use with credit.
Note: More news orgs should hire photographers as full-time employees.
Anyway, to call a freelance photographer who sold photos to Reuters a “Reuters photographer” is not precisely accurate, because Reuters (at least, as far as I know still) has full-time photographers.
[…]
Here is a question I have:
When did these photos appear on the wires? What time were they published/uploaded into APs database?
There’s some incredible technology now that allow photographers in the field to upload photos directly in to AP/Reuters/Getty/et al. databases. Minutes after a photo is taken it can be available for distribution.
So, if a photo was published while these events were still happening, that would mean these photogs were uploading to AP/Reuters from the field, not editing/publishing later. Timestamps on publication would answer that.
[…]
Reuters having the lynching of an Israeli soldier by terrorists as their “photo of the day” is a grave breakdown in ethical photojournalism. War is not pretty, and we should see real images, but elevating it to that status is deeply disturbing.
I am willing, however, to hope that this is an automated thing, not a curated thing, and that this means this photo was getting lots of traffic/downloads/buys. If it was an editorial choice, that is a problem.
The questions I would ask AP/Reuters if I thought they would answer me:
When did you receive these photos? When were they uploaded?
Did an editor review these photos? When? And who was it?
What is the nature of your contract with these photographer
Were you given a heads-up that these photographers were going to this before they went?
How was this described to you if you were?
I have a TON of respect for the photo desks of these outlets. I’ve personally talked to and worked with several of their editors and photographers (all domestic) in my time in the business. I am very hesitant to accuse these photo divisions of complicity with terrorism.
This scandal (and it is a scandal) should cause reflection inside these orgs and prompt editorial clarity on freelance photographer use in this complicated war zone. I hope it happens.
It’s another thing to explore, though maybe these shortfalls could have been foreseen, given the anti-Israel bias that’s permeated newsrooms. The damage the media is doing propping up the likes of pro-Hamas activists and their allies in Congress is also troublesome, though that part was expected. Yet, some of the photos of the photographers mentioned with members of Hamas raise some serious questions.
Comments are closed.
