War photographers routinely put themselves in grave danger to document the violence of war and conflict. This excellent video talks about the legacy of those photojournalists who have been injured or lost their lives and how others are using their skills to teach young people about photojournalism.
In this story for CBS Sunday Morning, Ted Koppel looks at the lives and legacies of Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros, who were killed in 2011 by a mortar targeted at photojournalists. Koppel also takes time to speak with filmmaker Greg Campbell and journalist Sebastian Junger about what it's like in battle zones and with Mike Kamber, who helped create the Bronx Documentary Center. There, he helps teach children about photography and photojournalism. Junger went on to create RISC (Reporters Instructed in Saving Colleagues), a free program that teaches journalists first aid techniques that can be applied in the event that one of their peers is injured in the field. The video is well worth taking nine minutes to watch, and it's an excellent reminder that the images that help to show us what's happening in war zones are captured by humans who put their own lives on the lines to create them.
Exactly. Nowadays it seems like most people think that you have to be on one side or the other, but a true journalist/photojournalist doesn't have sides, they just document.
Great video! Thanks for sharing.
The first journalism school was established in France and is only nine years older than the American school (thanks Google!). What does the relatively recent phenomenon of such schools have to do with journalism becoming corrupt, let alone left-leaning? Seems to me that with the establishment of journalism schools practitioners were seeking to became more professional and less corrupt, n'est pas?
"...graded on a leftist curve.." - what does that even mean??
I've heard this rhetoric so many times, and it is ALWAYS from baby boomers... often drop outs who never went to uni, and are maybe just a little jealous they're not very well educated?
William, you'd be so much happier bathing in the cascade of confirmation bias in the Fox News comments section. It's okay. We'll be just fine. I hate to see you suffer here. If you hurry you can still be join the men's chorus in time for the holiday "Lock Up Killary" performance. Go my friend. Be free.
Might I suggest talking about the actual articles then and not veering off into tired political cliche?
I like to have discussions about subjects without them permanently archived (and searchable) for the rest of my life. It's not worth it. Some people might decide whether or not my opinions are worth listening to depending on the contents of my portfolio and that's okay. If it really matters to them, I'm sure they can infer what they need to based on the content of my comments. Anonymity is worth more than promotional value.
Here's a question (that I don't have an answer to): when you romanticize war photographers, do you romanticize war?
I don't think so. War photographers are usually there to portray the reality that IS happening. I personally feel wars have never brought in peace or achieved the objective it was started for; but we need to tell stories of such war photogs to ensure that people don't take news they get as granted or more importantly value news brought by these fellows rather than arm chair social keyboard warriors.
I thought the video was more about lauding their courage and sacrifices, not romanticizing their lives.
Isn't lauding courage and sacrifices exactly what we do when we romanticize?
I suppose it could be. I guess I was thinking more of a scenario where they're sipping cognac from a crystal tumbler in between taking photos wearing a jaunty smile. And then sharing a romantic interlude with a beautiful correspondent from the BBC before riding off in their turbo charged Land Rover.
Too much James Bond? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Since none of the photographers kill anyone and most of their footage is seriously upsetting and harrowing, hardly love.
Don't call me 'love', that's seriously patronizing. I don't think you understand the question. To romanticize the job of war photographer doesn't require them to kill anyone or for their footage to be non-upsetting. What I am asking is this: if we characterize the job of war photographer as something heroic, is that just one more way of making war seem glorious rather than a disaster? This could be the case even if the photographs themselves show the true nature of war.
There's nothing a war photographer is going to distribute into society that could compete, especially here in the United States, with the constant barrage of military worship we're exposed to from our government, commercials and TV media. Try to go one day watching the news watching a soldier return home from service surprising a child who hasn't seen their parent in months to oohs and awws and never do they question, "Is this worth it?"
I am not suggesting that photographers are romanticizing war (even if their work has often been used as propaganda). I am just wondering if romanticizing the job of war photographer is just one more embodiment of of what you are calling military worship.
If anything I think it has the opposite effect. These wars would happen anyways. This is an antidote to propaganda.
Some great documentaries about some of the guys mentioned in this video (both of whom were killed on the job):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK-ATX2k9YI
(Available on HBO also)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7VSRQtBecc
(Available on Netflix)
Another excellent one that can be seen for free is this one:
https://archive.org/details/wphoto
The story surrounding the Kevin Carter vulture image is another good case study. He later took his own life after having seen what he saw.
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/watch/the-vulture-in-the-fram...
Another case study is how the reporting from Vietnam helped spur the anti-war movement in the 1960's. It was often called "the first televised war" and people were shocked because it was the first time they saw war uncensored like that vs. the heavily propagandized newsreel footage they'd seen during WWII.
"By seeing the war on television, the anti-war advocates argued that the war was unnecessary, and hundreds of thousands of “American boys” were not dying for a noble cause."
https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2018/01/25/vietnam-the-first-televis...
Salute to every photographer, journalist who braves these conditions to bring the true story to us. Wish we all have 1/10th of their bravery to fight fake and disrupting stories in our own societies.
Check out the new documentary on Netflix called "Only the Dead" its an amazing look into how intense war can be even if you're not the one doing the shooting.
There is an amazing documentary on Netflix about Hondros
Name of said documentary?
It's just called Hondros
https://www.netflix.com/title/80190924
Conflict photographers are the new agenda makers, and i don't think i'v ever seen an article or a movie talking about what conflict photographer actually do to world politics, because usually they give us only one side of the conflict and sometimes don't get the full picture because of that. and that is what i think makes public opinion be easily biased.
But in most scenarios, photographers can't be on both sides of a conflict at the same time, usually due to issues of personal safety (e.g. there weren't a lot of Western photographers showing the war in Iraq/Syria from ISIS's point of view), so they will of course only be able to present it from one point of view.
True, but i think if you don't try to explain the internal politics of a conflict to your viewers than you only give them half the information. unfortunately we see this a lot in the media.
OK, but that has more to do with the ways news organizations present complex and long-running geopolitical events and less to do with photojournalists themselves. Also, I think the extent of the problem varies depending on how and where you get your news from. Mainstream TV news (with its 24-hour rolling coverage) is the worst because current events are presented in short, context-free bursts (and the presenters are typically not journalists themselves).
There are many excellent documentaries about war photographers. This is a particular favourite, interviewing photographers responsible for some of the best images from the war in Vietnam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLrPc_81TeA&t=906s
I don't know if you guys have seen Joey L's recent stuff (Kurdistan, etc), but he's trending in the direction of a conflict photographer. Medium format too (like Hetherington). Man seeing Tim's name up on the journalist memorial at the Newseum in DC was pretty moving.
What I'd like to know is why are the civilian shooters credited and not a mention of the military shooters who routinely go into battle. I realize I'm a bit biased, but I've been shot at, mortared, arrested, all in the service of my coutry documenting what the US military does.
Soldier first :)
I first came across works of photojournalists way back during the Vietnam War and saw and felt the sufferings of people and the military being directly affected by the horrors of war. Then came the time as a young Naval officer when I was involved in helping the hundred if not thousands in their exodus from their country after the fall of Saigon. The work of those photojournalists in a lot of ways led to our compassion for the victims of war. Last month I came across an article in FujiLove Magazine - PHOTOGRAPHY TO WAGE WAR OR TO WAGE PEACE?" by MATTHEW WILLINGHAM. Mr Willingham survived the time he was in the Middle East. I salute all photojournalists who, by and large, convey the horror of wars to the rest of the world for they, armed only with cameras, are equally courageous as the combatants.