According to a report from Semafor and other media outlets, Patrick Witty, who has worked for National Geographic, The New York Times and Time, amongst others, has been tapped for the job of Chief Photographer, though Witty hasn't replied to queries confirming the role.
In 2017, Witty left National Geographic after coming up against a storm of allegations of sexual misconduct from female coworkers. His troubles didn't end there. The Columbia Journalism Review's Kristen Chick did a deep dive into Witty's actions dating back to 2015 when he was a photo coach at the Eddie Adams workshop, a photojournalism seminar that has unfortunately been plagued with sexual harassment scandals even post-Patrick Witty. Witty was not asked to return as a coach for the workshop.
So, while there's a lot of outrage over the hiring of someone so problematic to represent the nation's highest office, there's a question that's also worth considering: Who's trolling who here?
On the surface, Witty's hiring would appear to be trolling the general, law-abiding public. But a closer look at Witty's X (formerly known as Twitter) feed makes one wonder how closely he has been vetted, considering his expression of views often at odds with those of the current administration.
For example, everyone knows how much of a fan Trump is of former president Barack Obama. Here's Witty amplifying a photo from Pete Souza, Obama's Chief White House photographer:
Clearly the best #ObamaAndKids photo ever. By the one and only @petesouza pic.twitter.com/S4XRWJUCjk
— Patrick Witty (@patrickwitty) February 20, 2016
Currently, Daniel Torok has been handling White House photography. The photos from the official White House Flickr feed are mostly credited to him and Molly Riley, but it will be interesting to see as new photos come in, if Witty's name is amongst them.
Personally, I feel like any photographer coming after Pete Souza has some big shoes to fill in this role. He was able to photograph with such grace and compassion, something that can sometimes be lacking in White House photographers since. What are your thoughts on Witty as the official White House Photographer? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
White House photo used with permission, courtesy of Sam Levitan, www.samlevitan.com.
Of course it did. Why wouldn’t it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Trump was proven guilty of rape and 34 other felonies, not to mention millions in fines for charity fraud, money laundering, tax fraud, bank fraud, running a scam university, running a fraudulent charity, hiring undocumented workers...
We elected him anyways. Guilty is a good thing for half the country.
We elected him anyways because us real Americans know those were trumped up charges. And many of the ones you mentioned are what the Democrats are doing. So don't get it twisted. Unlike the useful idiots for the Democrats, we don’t' believe what the mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CNN, etc) spews. And, as fate and an actual fair election would have it, Trump won by a landslide + the popular vote. 312 vs 226.
If I had it my way, he'd be president for the next thousand years.
If Trump had his way, he'd gladly oblige... and that's the scary thing about him.
I find it sad that Fstoppers allows people to lie like Mark Sawyer. Trump was not convicted of rape. Period. You are a liar. Yes he has 34 felonies. But they will be removed because it was done illegally. Wait and watch.
FStoppers. How about a few moderators doing some fact checking on multiple sites to bring some respectability to your comment sections.
That's true, but he was found libel for sexual assault. Among all his other crimes. Also his company was found guilty of tax evasion, and his entire family is barred from participating in any charities. He's a model citizen.
David, “liable” isn’t “guilty,” but I get that legal definitions are hard for you. Meanwhile, Biden’s got Tara Reade, Clinton actually settled a harassment case, and somehow, you’re only outraged when it’s Trump.
His company’s CFO dodged taxes—big deal, like half of D.C. politicians. The charity case? A settlement, no admission of wrongdoing. But sure, let’s pretend that’s worse than Biden’s influence-peddling family empire or Clinton’s laundered millions through a foundation. Keep coping.
Who decides which comments are a lie, and which are truth? For you to say: "But they [felony convictions] will be removed because it was done illegally" is your opinion. Where are the facts to support that comment? What was illegal? The charges were brought, trials were delayed and delayed and delayed, Trump's team of attorneys agreed to the selection of jury members, and the jury of his peers made its decision. That's pretty much how our judicial system works. And, of course, as is always the case with Trump, it'll get tied up in appeals forever. Or he'll have his own hand-picked justice department do something to try and fix it, as they're doing in a case with Tina Peters here in Colorado. I don't believe what you say, nor would I consider it particularly respectable, but you certainly have the right to say it.
Donald Schwartz: "I find it sad that Fstoppers allows people to lie like Mark Sawyer. Trump was not convicted of rape. Period."
The judge and jury disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-r...
But guess who the liar is?
we get it. You've got TDS.
Trump Diaper Smell? No, that's on you.
Mark, quoting the Washington Post to prove a political point is like citing a Marvel script to confirm the existence of Iron Man. You’re not presenting facts. You’re regurgitating partisan editorials wrapped in clickbait headlines and pretending it’s a courtroom transcript.
Let’s be clear. Trump was found liable in a civil case—not guilty in a criminal court. The difference matters, even if your side gave up on objective truth the minute Trump came down that escalator. The judge didn’t say he “raped” anyone. The jury didn’t either. Stop pretending that headlines from Democrat mouthpieces override actual legal language or standards of evidence.
Also, spare us the fake pearl-clutching over Trump’s mean tweets and “30,573 misleading claims.” Biden can’t get through a sentence without rewriting history or confusing which decade he’s in, and your crowd thinks it’s just charming. The real issue here is selective outrage. You don’t care about truth—you care about power, and you’re just mad Trump isn’t taking orders from the usual gatekeepers.
You don’t debate. You defer to headlines and reheated talking points. That’s why your side panics whenever someone steps outside the approved narrative—because deep down, you know your entire argument is propped up by media spoon-feeding and TDS.
The Washington Post has won the Pulitzer Prize 76 times. Fox News? Zero. But Fox did pay a $782 million dollar fine for lying about the 2020 election. Liars support liars, and yes, I'm talking about you AND Trump.
Mark, your entire argument hinges on the idea that Pulitzer Prizes are some divine marker of truth and moral clarity. That’s cute. The Washington Post winning 76 Pulitzers doesn’t mean they’re infallible. It means they’re good at pleasing the kind of people who hand out Pulitzers. You’re confusing peer recognition with objective credibility and that’s your first mistake.
Now let’s talk about Fox. Yes, they settled the Dominion case. But let’s be honest, every major media outlet has settled lawsuits. Settlements aren’t confessions. They’re legal decisions based on risk, not guilt. And if we’re judging media honesty by fines and retractions, CNN, MSNBC, and yes, your Pulitzer-winning Washington Post would be on a milk carton by now.
You drop the “liars support liars” line like it’s profound. It’s not. It’s projection. The same crowd that clutched their pearls over Trump’s tweets spent four years defending a guy who couldn’t finish a sentence without a teleprompter, gaslit the public on inflation, tried to redefine recession, and told people the Hunter Biden laptop was fake while the FBI already knew it was real.
You think awards make lies go away? That’s your standard? Cool. Enron won “Most Innovative Company” six years in a row from Fortune Magazine. How’d that turn out?
You want to have a conversation about truth? Start by stepping outside the media echo chamber and stop treating legacy media like scripture. Because parroting headlines and waving around Pulitzers doesn’t make your argument right. It just makes it rehearsed.
No arguing with a Trump troll. You just can't accept reality. You don't trust ANY media, you don't trust ANY judge or jury, you can't accept that January 6 actually happened, you just gleefully lie, lie, lie.
only because of how New York law is... In most other states, it would've been a rape conviction. In most state, any unwanted penetration is considered rape. But in New York, it has to be a penis in order to be rape and the jury couldn't determine whether it was a penis or his fingers. Because they couldn't determine that, they had to arrive at sexual assault.
Vu, you clearly skimmed a headline and decided to cosplay as a legal expert without doing even the most basic research. Let’s clear this up before you embarrass yourself further.
First, the case you’re referencing wasn’t a criminal trial. It was civil. That means no one was being convicted of anything, and the standard of proof wasn’t beyond a reasonable doubt like in a real criminal courtroom. It was preponderance of evidence, basically who the jury believed more. There was no forensic evidence, no criminal charges, no police investigation, no DA pressing the case. So trying to compare this to how a rape charge would be handled in most states is completely irrelevant. You’re comparing apples to air.
Now about your anatomy-based legal theory. You’re claiming the jury had to decide between a penis or fingers and couldn’t figure it out, so they downgraded to sexual assault? That’s not how trials work. There wasn’t some CSI-style lab session going on. This wasn’t a science experiment. The jury simply wasn’t convinced the accusation met the legal definition of rape under New York law, but believed something inappropriate likely happened, so they landed on sexual assault instead. That’s it. It wasn’t a mystery. It was a compromise decision.
But the way you’re spinning it, you make it sound like they were standing around arguing about body parts like a bad episode of Law and Order. What actually happened is the jury made a narrow judgment based on limited testimony and no physical evidence. That’s not some smoking gun that proves Trump’s guilt. It’s the result of a civil process designed to favor accusers even when the evidence is weak.
So please, spare us the legal mythology. Your comment reads like it was pulled from a Reddit thread and filtered through cable news outrage. It’s not helpful, it’s not accurate, and it’s definitely not the mic drop you thought it was.
Mark, your comment is a masterclass in leftist delusion. Trump was never found guilty of rape—that’s just a flat-out lie. The civil case against him resulted in a liability ruling for defamation and sexual abuse, which is not a criminal conviction. As for the 34 felony counts, they’re all the same bookkeeping charge stacked to sound more dramatic. A misdemeanor turned into a felony by a Soros-backed DA—nothing more than lawfare. Meanwhile, Biden’s family is raking in millions from foreign oligarchs, but you conveniently ignore that.
Your list of so-called “frauds” is a joke. The charity case was a settlement with no admission of wrongdoing, Trump University was a business seminar that ended in a settlement, and hiring undocumented workers is a practice most businesses have been guilty of—including liberal darlings like the Clintons. But sure, let’s pretend Trump is some unprecedented criminal while Biden tanks the economy, fuels global chaos, and opens the border to millions. Trump got elected because he delivered results, not because people think “guilty is good.” If that were the case, the Clintons and Bidens would be worshipped as saints.
I guess you know more about the law than the judge who heard the case. Now tell us you know more about large format film photography than Ansel Adams. Whaaah! Whaaah! Whaaah! Yup, you're a Trumper.
https://newrepublic.com/post/174448/judge-e-jean-carroll-case-yes-donald...
Mark, parroting headlines from activist rags like The New Republic doesn’t make you legally literate. You’re proudly waving around an opinion piece as if it’s a court ruling. Trump wasn’t criminally convicted of rape. Period. The case was civil, not criminal, and the jury found him liable for sexual abuse—not rape under New York law. That’s a legal distinction with real meaning, no matter how badly you want to blur it for political gain.
And your smug fallback—“the judge said so”—proves you didn’t read the ruling. The judge clarified that Carroll’s claim technically didn’t meet the statutory definition of rape under New York Penal Law, even though the media spun it otherwise. So, unless your law degree came in a cereal box, maybe spare us the lectures on jurisprudence.
You’re not defending truth. You’re playing semantic games to score partisan points. If the facts were on your side, you wouldn’t need headlines dressed as verdicts.
Trump was found guilty of sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll for raping her. The jury decided it, and all you have is Trumper whining. We all know how Trump treats women:
Mark, once again you’ve confused Daily News tabloid covers and cherry-picked soundbites with critical thinking. You’re not making an argument. You’re parroting headlines fed to you by the same media complex that told the country the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo, that inflation was “transitory,” and that the border was “secure.”
Let’s get your facts straight, since the truth clearly didn’t make it into your talking points. Trump was not “found guilty” of rape. He wasn’t even charged with a crime. This was a civil case with a jury ruling based on testimony alone, no evidence, no investigation, no criminal proceeding, and the standard wasn’t beyond a reasonable doubt. It was whatever the jury found more likely than not. That’s not a conviction. That’s not guilt. That’s a glorified opinion from a group of people who watched a courtroom soap opera with no burden to prove anything.
But you want to use that and a 2005 hot mic recording as if it’s the Rosetta Stone for Trump’s guilt? Come on. That clip wasn’t a confession. It was crude, it was bragging, and it was about how some women respond to fame. It’s not a policy, not an admission, and certainly not a piece of legal evidence. But in your world, it’s all you need to label someone a predator, because facts take too much effort.
You’re not arguing for victims. You’re regurgitating propaganda and calling it moral clarity. You’re doing the DNC’s PR work and acting like it’s some grand act of justice. You’re not thinking for yourself, Mark. You’re repeating what legacy media has trained you to say. If the headlines changed tomorrow, so would your opinion.
So until you’re ready to have an honest conversation about truth, standards of evidence, and what words like “guilty” and “conviction” actually mean, maybe sit this one out. Because all you’ve offered here is recycled outrage with a headline for a backbone.
Trump is on tape making the "I just grab 'em by the pussy" comment. Everyone's seen it. You're just spinning lies to cover for the convicted rapist. If you were a decent person, you'd be ashamed of yourself. But no, you're a Trumper, no decency at all. Why don't you also tell us that "Hitler did some good things"?
That’s not what happened to me. I was assumed guilty until I proved my innocence.
It should surprise nobody that the Trump administration would hire someone on the sole basis of loyalty... with competence and integrity as incidental qualifications for the job. At least a photographer can't do much damage... unlike the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
I don't know much about that photographer, but, definitely we got an upgrade for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We now have a man that knows health instead of man that thinks he's a woman.
"This guy hired by the Whitehouse has been accused of sexual misconduct."
MAGA: "Yes, but have you considered hating trans people?"
Black Z Eddie wrote: "I don't know much about that photographer, but, definitely we got an upgrade for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We now have a man that knows health instead of man that thinks he's a woman."
You're allowing bigotry to prevail over knowledge and experience. A transgender person is no less qualified to manage health care decisions than anyone else. The person whose picture you posted, Rachel Levine, is trained in psychiatry and pediatrics. With regard to RFK Jr's qualification for the job... you can't be serious. RFK Jr is trained in conspiracy thinking. Besides all the positions he's taken which contradict sound medicine, chief among them vaccines, it must tell you something when Mitch McConnell votes against Kennedy's confirmation. I'd be hard pressed to find a vote in history that he took the side of Democrats. "In a video posted to X, Caroline Kennedy said that her cousin lacks any relevant government, financial, management or medical experience to qualify him to lead the nation’s health agencies — and added that his personal qualities pose even greater concern.”
I think "Black Z Eddie" was booted. I don't know what he said, but his comment is gone, along with his comments on a months-old post where he called me a convicted pedophile who wasn't allowed around children. (I'm a retired high school teacher who still has an FBI Clearance Card). Glad he's gone.
pictures and comments are back
Ed, buddy, you really are something else. You start out sounding almost reasonable—congrats on acknowledging basic biology, I guess—but then you dive headfirst into mental gymnastics defending a political appointee with no real public health admin experience. Rachel Levine was handed a top job in Biden’s clown show not because of qualifications, but because of politics. Being trained in psychiatry and pediatrics doesn’t magically make you capable of managing nationwide health policy any more than knowing how to change a tire makes you a great NASCAR driver.
And then there’s your takedown attempt on RFK Jr. because—oh no—he questions things? Since when did skepticism become a crime? Science is literally based on challenging assumptions, but now if you don’t swear allegiance to Big Pharma, you’re a “conspiracy thinker.” Hilarious. But your grand finale? Citing Mitch McConnell like he’s the moral compass of the universe. That’s the same McConnell who’s been selling out conservatives for years, right? The same guy who rolled over for Biden’s reckless spending? That’s your big argument? Come on, man. At least make it interesting next time.
I can’t make something interesting to someone with a closed mind. You’re trying to defend the indefensible. You’ve taken the liberty of assuming that I hypocritically accept Biden and Clinton’s corruption, but condemn Trump. I get it… it’s so easy to make this a purely Democrat vs Republican two-sided argument with nothing in between. You can rail on the Clintons all you want if it makes you feel better. The 2016 election was one that I hoped both candidates could lose. The 2024 election was a disaster of two really bad choices. I was also around to witness the Nixon mess. At least he had the honor to voluntarily resign. Nothing compares to the extent to which this president lies, deceives, obstructs, and seeks to hold and abuse power. Nothing in my lifetime. Every president has had his dislike for the press. This one is obsessed with controlling it… and that is far more dangerous than any tariff or tax cut. Try to understand that, even if it’s hard to find interesting.
Ed, you opened with a lecture on open-mindedness and then proceeded to unload the most boilerplate MSNBC monologue imaginable. You’re not some centrist sage floating above the partisan muck—you’re just recycling Beltway clichés and pretending it’s intellectual nuance. You call Trump dangerous for “controlling the press”? Have you looked at the press lately? It spent years functioning as the Biden administration’s PR wing while labeling anyone outside that narrative as a threat to democracy.
Let’s be honest—this isn’t about facts, it’s about vibes. You don’t like Trump, fine. But let’s not pretend your dislike makes Rachel Levine a qualified health policy administrator or RFK Jr. a madman. You cherry-pick quotes, elevate Beltway backbenchers like McConnell to moral arbiters, and act like the establishment hasn’t been completely wrong on everything from lockdowns to inflation to border security. And Nixon? The man weaponized the IRS, bugged his opponents, and had a kill list—but sure, he “had the honor to resign.” That’s what passes for virtue in your book?
This isn’t about partisanship, Ed. It’s about competence and honesty. And the current crop of leaders—both left and right—are sorely lacking in both. What you’re defending isn’t moral superiority, it’s institutional rot dressed up in press releases and diversity checkboxes. So maybe stop pretending your side is above it all. You’re not watching from the balcony—you’re just in the cheap seats with a different-colored jersey.
Sorry (not sorry), but I just gotta kick it up a notch when I see a bratty little girl saying retarded stuff. Your comment is not only wrong, but also stupid.
"A man that knows health"
Definitely the most idiotic thing said in this comment section so far.
Oh, Ed, bless your heart. You start off by admitting you don’t even know if this guy was actually hired, yet somehow that doesn’t stop you from launching into a full-blown meltdown about Trump’s supposed hiring practices. Classic. Meanwhile, Biden packed his administration with political cronies, diversity hires, and family members cashing in on foreign deals, but sure, let’s pretend you’re deeply concerned about “competence and integrity.”
And let’s talk about your pearl-clutching over “allegations.” Witty hasn’t been convicted of anything, yet you’re ready to throw him into political exile. Meanwhile, you had zero problem when Biden was getting handsy on live TV or when Clinton was running a full-time predator operation out of the Oval Office. But sure, let’s hyperventilate over a guy taking pictures in the White House. The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a butter knife.
At least they're consistent.
I love reading political comments. Keep them coming boys!
"Did the White House Just Hire a Man Mired in Sexual Harassment Accusations as Its Chief Photographer?"
Well, they already hired such a man as SecDef, so why not? The president himself set the bar. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Jacques, if we’re going to talk about White House appointments and accusations, let’s not pretend this is a Trump-exclusive conversation. Because if we’re going to play the “who hired who” game and pretend accusations are convictions, then buckle up. We’re about to take a tour through the Biden administration’s greatest hits.
Let’s start with President Biden himself, who was credibly accused by Tara Reade of sexual assault. Remember that? Of course you don’t. Your media outlets buried it faster than Hunter’s laptop. The same folks hyperventilating over a decades-old civil suit against Trump went full radio silence when Reade came forward. No wall-to-wall coverage, no breathless headlines, no late-night hosts pretending to care about women. Funny how that works.
Then there’s Kamala Harris, who spent a chunk of her 2020 campaign slamming Biden for being cozy with segregationists and believing his accusers until she got offered a spot on the ticket, and suddenly none of that mattered. Principles? Optional.
And let’s not forget Eric Lander, Biden’s science advisor, who resigned over workplace harassment and abuse of staff. Or Andrew Cuomo, the golden boy of the Democrat Party until his sexual harassment accusations were too much for even CNN to ignore. Biden called him “the gold standard” of leadership, in case you forgot.
So spare us the self-righteous preening about appointments and accusations. If Trump appoints someone with an unproven allegation, you cry scandal. If Biden surrounds himself with a human resources nightmare wrapped in a political smile, you look the other way. That’s not consistency. That’s selective outrage based on party loyalty.
The truth is, your argument isn’t about morality or standards. It’s about politics. You don’t care who did what. You care who wears the red tie. And deep down, you know it.
Please tell me why we should not anticipate this kind of appointment from the "Felon-on-Chief"? It certainly fits with other appointments.
Oh, Willy, bless your heart. You’re over here having a meltdown over a photographer, as if that’s some major scandal while your side conveniently ignored an entire administration filled with grifters, liars, and people who couldn’t manage a lemonade stand, let alone a government.
And “Felon-on-Chief”? That’s adorable. Trump’s so-called “convictions” are about as legitimate as a rigged carnival game—manufactured by partisan hacks desperate to keep him off the ballot because they know they can’t beat him fairly. Meanwhile, you cheer for a guy who can’t form a coherent sentence and whose family made millions selling out America. But sure, let’s pretend a guy taking pictures is the real crisis here.
Family members and grifters. Are you talking about Jared, Ivanka, Junior, or the convicted daddy-in-law?
Trump's first Chief Photographer Shealah Craighead was as good as Peter. I had her on my Just a Good Conversation podcast we talked about it. President Biden Chief Photographer Adam Schultz couldn't post images of Joe. Where's that story.
This is to Fstoppers: I come here for photography. If you're going to inject politics of ANY kind, I'll stop coming. The comments here so far exemplify exactly how a website can become poisoned, and quickly, by bringing in politics.
If I want politics I'll go to a political website, or X. I come here for photography. If Fstoppers can't do that I'll go elsewhere.
I recently came across an old Fstoppers competition critique from March, 2020. It caught my eye because the theme was "seniors," as in older people, not high schoolers. I wondered how photographers would capture older people. What I found interesting though about the critique was the injection of politics by Lee and Patrick into the video.
To be noted is that two of the community members who made comments for that particular competition, said the same thing you're saying: leave politics out of Fstoppers. But I respectfully disagree. It shouldn't be hard to anticipate political comments when the title of the article speaks to the White House and Sexual Harassment Accusations. Besides, articles of this nature don't appear very often. And just like I pay no attention to articles whose titles stir up controversy over camera brands or sensor size, consider ignoring what you find distasteful. Allow other people to comment on subjects that they find relevant, even if you don't. Just because it's a photography themed site, doesn't mean that every article or comment has to fit precisely within boundaries pertaining to camera gear. Finally... my comment to Fstoppers leadership: if you don't want political comments, create a menu for rules which define the boundaries.