A photojournalist wins Picture of the Year award of the October 7th massacre. Is he a terrorist? An artist? Or both? Is it journalism or propaganda?
In March 2024 Ali Mahmud won an award for a photo he produced depicting the limp body of a woman, recently raped, possibly by the same men who sat above her body in the back of a pick-up truck, all of them holding automatic firearms, leaving the site of a festival where 364 people were murdered.
This was deemed as “art”. This was considered the best of “journalism.” It was granted by a review panel at the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute, connected with the University of Missouri School of Journalism.1 While the judges made their decision in late February, news of the award did not filter out into the media till late March, stirring outrage from some, disgust by others, concerns regarding ethics from other journalists, topped with a law suit from the parents of the victims against AP and Reuters.
So are these pictures of a massacre art? Art is creative. But good art stirs up many questions. The Mona Lisa, for example. What’s she smiling about? What is she thinking? Who is Mona Lisa? And how is she related to the artist? Artists would add to that the matters of technique: the perspective, the background, the symmetry, the proportions, and the type of paint that Leonardo Da Vinci stirred up on his palette. Good art leaves us with questions. And good art tells us something about the artist.
What sort of questions, or thoughts, are conjured up by the sight of evil, a photograph that shows Palestinian warriors celebrating their accomplishments, an achievement that places them in the same subset of human history as the Mongols? Is this what evil looks like? Is this what Palestinians value? Do they find joy in murdering innocent people? Is it a victory to kill unarmed civilians? Is rape an apparent virtue of Islam? Ironically, for the young men who thought they had accomplished their mission, the question that is barely considered is whether this helped the Palestinians in any way.
But what needs to be added is who is Ali Mahmud? It is a question, apparently, that the review panel of the Missouri School of Journalism failed to consider, or have not explained. There is nothing on the website about the photographer. So what we are left with are more questions. Tough questions. How do you become an “embedded” photographer (aka journalist) within a gang of murderers? How does Mahmud see his photographs? Why did he take the pictures? Was he elated? Was he documenting a personal celebration? Is he an Islamist? Is he a member of Hamas? These questions matter because it sheds light on another question: “What is Journalism?” What is the difference between “good photography” and propaganda?
Even his name is a bit illusory. It is a very common name. Attempts to find anything about the man on the Internet is near impossible. Only one photo is published on the AP website that uses the spelling Ali Mahmoud, and it is not the award-winning photo. Many news sites will provide links for photographers and writers, advertising their work. None here. It is clear that he is in Gaza. He is passionate about his work and it is good work. He cares enough to place himself in considerable danger.
No doubt who Ali Mahmoud is will be part of the court hearings that will be emerging. The National Jewish Advocacy Center is suing AP. The AP may win the argument, but in the process evidence may be produced clarifying how and why Ali Mahmoud just so happened to be at the site of the massacre.
And then there is the question about the victim. Another irony. The victim is not the concern of the elites of photo journalism. Evidence is emerging that the victim is not what AP places into the narrative. This woman may not by Shani Louk. Several other photos are associated with this incident, far more graphic. What is lacking in the photo are the tattoos that Shani Louk had on her body. She was a tattoo artist and, logically, had embellished her skin to better reflect her craft. Hair is also considered inconsistent with that of Shani. Evidence indicates she may have been beheaded onsite. This woman, who is presumably alive in this picture, is being kidnapped.
The Gut Reaction
What I personally find worth considering is my own gut reaction to art. We all have this innate response when we first see or hear an object of art. The regional library in Columbia, Missouri has two works of art that has stirred up considerable controversy. The oldest is dubbed the “flying French fries”, a clear indication of what many held as a gut reaction. Today it stands alone in the parking lot across the street from the library, where “La Colomba” is superseded by this colossal monstrosity I presume is “Don Quixote”. My initial response was “junkyard.” It was unveiled shortly before my move to Alaska in 2003 where the art in Juneau is unique, colorful and readily identifiable. There is this thing in front of the Alaska State Library called locally as the “high heel”. When viewed from a certain angle it looks like a shoe. But the why-for of the thing still mystifies, requiring an explanation. It is then that someone better informed tells you it is a glacier. Then there is what I call the “flying turd,” the tubular, metallic sculpture resting in the Seattle airport.
So it is with photography. A good photograph readily communicates. And my immediate reaction was disgust. It subliminally affected my opinion of the award granted by the Missouri School of Journalism. So capturing for eternity rape and murder is award-winning? In my posting on the controversy, the reactions were basically in agreement – immoral and inappropriate. If anything, it affirmed the belief that the Missouri School of Journalism and journalism as a profession had lost its moral compass.
Yet …
Yet we need to consider another award winning work of art produced in 1935. Triumph of the Will was (and still is) considered to be an historically significant film, actually winning an award. It’s director was Leni Riefenstahl, considered one of the finest directors of her time. While despising all that National Socialism stood for, you must admit that there is considerable value in capturing that moment in history, making us wonder how it was that millions of people could have been intoxicated with such hate and evil.
There is another side of me that agrees with Shani Louk’s father, that there is probably some “good” that comes out of this photo. It forever shows to the world the evil of Hamas and all its ilk: Hezbollah, Iran, Bashar al-Assad, the Houthi rebels and Islamic fundamentalists. It is evil, nothing less. Without photographers we may have never had documented the Holocaust, the murder of millions in Poland and Ukraine. Like Hamas, the Nazis had this idea that what they were doing was good and noble, and worth documenting. But back then they did not have the Internet and social media. We would not learn, or believe, what was beyond imagination in the 1940’s. What happened in World War II only came to light as the Allies penetrated Germany. It only took hours for the world to learn of October 7th, 2023. The imagery was raw and unfiltered.
What will be hopefully debated in the coming months is whether the practice of “journalism” demonstrated by Ali Mahmoud and others is “ethical.” According to the Jewish News Syndicate, this matter is being brought up by a group called HonestReporting. I almost feel sorry for those poor devils in the Reynolds Journalism Institute. Have they become complicit in an unspeakable crime, duped by propagandists, endorsing unethical conduct, essentially compromising their very mission?
Some are more frank.
Minister Benny Gantz, a member of the war cabinet set up to oversee the conflict, said in a post to his X (formerly Twitter) feed: “Journalists found to have known about the massacre – and still chose to stand as idle bystanders while children were slaughtered – are no different than terrorists and should be treated as such.”2
Don Surber, of whom I first learned of the award controversy, had a phrase, “never write when you are angry.” How true. So it was I took several days before putting pen to paper. My initial response of disgust, anger and evil, were somewhat mitigated. But it still left in judgment whether the Missouri of School of Journalism should have awarded the photographer. If Mahmoud is in any way tied to Hamas, they just got pimped!
In the least, the Missouri School of Journalism owes to the world a frank discussion on whether photographs submitted by “journalists” embedded in a terrorist organization, are really reflective of the profession. While it may be true that their photographs are professionally superior, it must be asked, “To what end?”
Resources
“Shani Louk’s father defends award for photo of daughter’s abduction as ‘good thing’”, The Times of Israel, by Michael Horovitz, March 31, 2024
“Associated Press Defends Image of Murdered Nova Reveler in Hamas Truck After Award,” The Wrap, by Benjamin Lindsay, March 29, 2024.
“Photojournalists covering Oct. 7 attacks raise ‘ethical questions,’ watchdog says,” Jewish News Syndicate, by David Swindle, November 8, 2023.
“Parents of Supernova festival victims sue AP and Reuters for NIS 25 million in damages,” The Times of Israel, by Jeremy Sharon, March 5, 2024
“Hamas-shielding AP went too far“, by Don Surber, April 1, 2024
1It can get a bit confusing, but there is an Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism located in Reno, Nevada, and a Donald W. Reynolds Foundation which provides funding for education and research in journalism.
2“Israel demands clarification from global media over photographers during Hamas assault,” The Times of Israel, by Stuart Winer, November 9, 2023
© Copyright 2024 to Eric Niewoehner