gaza situation, photography, editorial responsibility

Hmmmm...it's certainly not a photo that reflects the reality of anything.

It is A sort of reality...in that, unless the shot was completely set up and posed for, it reflects the oddity of such moments of stillness and beauty in the midst of horror, and is quite an amazing image.

I'd be interested in the text around it, and what other photos were published.

Strange, osso, it reminds me of Manet's Luncheon on the Grass. Which has a posed quality, too

... I would describe it as a skillfully executed propaganda piece. It is quite beautiful actually, if you divorce it from the the reality of the situation (war). But as a "news"/commentary photograph, the sentiment is as partisan as a good political cartoon.

If you read the magnum photography posters' comments, one of them said that -
oh, wait, I'll quote it instead of paraphrasing:

Quoting Martin (I figure it is Martin Parr, but not sure) -
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


There was another comment that struck me, also quoting.

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


another quote -

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


Anyway, I find all the comments from various viewpoints to be of interest and generally well written. (I think the commenters are all serious photographers, but, again, not positive.)

AN open question to anyone in this thread:
Raise your hand if you actually served in combat?!

Does everybody here have to be so bloody cynical?! I'm certain these soldiers are human beings and so wouldn't appreciate being strictly considered as pawns (rightfully) in some kind of paranoid propaganda campaign.

Being a combat veteran myself, I can appreciate the moment of rest between the acts of combat captured in this photograph. Regardless of the reasons their government sent them into the Gaza territory, this photograph on the individual level of the soldier is authentic.

If this was a press release from the Israeli government to cover up or drown out some kind of massacre then I would be suspicious. But since it's from the New York Times, a neutral and legitimate source of journalism, I'd give the photographer the benefit of the doubt.


Um... yes it's the reality of a soldier. Not every minute of a soldier is action. This is more accurate of the time spent then any 2 hour John Wayne war movie can depict.

I think it's a lovely picture. I actually like pictures like this. We've all seen painting and photos of the destruction and aftermath of battles, but this humanizes soldiers. It make them people just like the rest of us. At rest, appreciating the beauty that surrounds them instead of the faceless and unfeeling soldiers they must be at times.

Absolutely agree with the tsar. The only thing which makes the photo look 'doctored' or 'phony' is its unusually good quality. The colors of the countryside stand out brilliantly against the drabness of the uniforms. It's a really terrific shot, more like the work of a studio artist than a news photog. But that doesn't make it posed or fake in some sense. Take a look at those soldiers again, their faces, positions of hands, attitudes of relaxation etc. etc. Not a solitary thing that looks false to me. Reminds me of typical times of respite in the field.

Can't raise my hand as a combat veteran, tsar, but I served in the Army for over eight years, including active reserve time. That's a great shot of a typical afternoon.

That is because they used the burn tool.
I can see the edges along the truck where they did not.
This is a photoshop enhancement. And it served its purpose well. The person who took this shot wanted that contrast to happen.
A quick swipe of mouse and boom . High contrast colors.

If I saw the photograph in isolation, say at an exhibition, I'd probably agree with you, tsar. Or if it was presented as one study out of many presented photographs showing soldiers' lives at war, perhaps.
I had to go back to osso's first post to refresh my memory about the context in which the photograph was published on the front page of the NYT. And I agree with this reader's comment.:

Yes, that's why I said it reflected a reality.

Too many shots like that and I'd be damn well suspecting propaganda, though...given what was likely visible even from where they were resting.