The award-winning photo of Shani Louk's brutalized body raises ethical questions about the role of modern photojournalism. Author Judy Bolton-Fasman reports.
Couldn’t agree more. Poor Shani Louk was violated and desecrated twice; once in the original attack and then again by AP, a news organization which has long been anti-Israel.
I want to shout all of this from the rooftops. I am already anticipating my grief on October 7 coming up in a few weeks. It's simmering. I might get a tattoo from Shani's website in her memory to honor her. Thank you for writing this so clearly and eloquently.
Many do not pay attention, but journalistic demonization of Israel and coverage of the conflict has become a profitable business for many, and over the past thirty years (this is only what I observe) has degenerated to the level of advertising online gambling.
You can often see pictures that are published not only by clearly anti-Israeli, but also by mainstream "unbiased" media, in which, according to comments or manipulations and hints, viewers are supposed to see "genocide, apartheid and atrocities of Israel".
These pictures are often staged, often provocative and always taken by collusion of photographers and provocateurs.
The principle is very simple. The photographer pays money, the provocateurs create riots, and sometimes attack Israeli soldiers, police, border guards for hours, provoking a conflict. They deliberately send children and throw stones at patrols, create life-threatening situations to which the military is obliged to react. But even when reacting to prevent the danger that threatens the provocateurs themselves, photographers receive photos that they then use to accuse Israel.
For the last ten years, journalists have not even been in the territories, but have used local "journalists" who are only required to send photos with anti-Israeli comments.
This industry has developed to a scale that is comparable only to the porn industry, with the difference that the most successful journalists in the anti-Israeli industry receive international grants, awards and public recognition. But in terms of moral qualities, it is much worse, because this is a deliberate lie that is sold as the truth.
Thank you for this post. I think, above all, the thing that bothers me most is indeed the photographer's likely involvement, or at the very least, prior knowledge of the attack. And now we also have Bisan Owda nominated for a news Emmy because indeed, being antisemitic seems to pay off, professionally.
As for Shani, there was a petition, which also addressed Nikon as the major sponsor of the award. The petition had huge support from the audience, but the people who could make a difference, i.e. the university as well as Nikon, ignored all attempts of dialogue.
This article is very touching and it educated me. How would any of us wanting want our photo of being assaulted and triumph over awarded?
There is a lot that people don’t know about the cruelty of the attacks on October 7. Trauma alert: there were parents who found their baby in ashes in an oven. It is easy to want to root for the underdog or the oppressed, and there is a place for speaking out for them. But not in a paragraph trivializing the death of Shani Louk. And the fact that that reporter that photo journalist was embedded with Hamas is something to question. Is someone who sit on the sidelines An act of omission, that goes along with a parade of a woman dishonored and demeaned? your article asks many poignant questions and asserts many sensitive matters of discernment
Couldn’t agree more. Poor Shani Louk was violated and desecrated twice; once in the original attack and then again by AP, a news organization which has long been anti-Israel.
Thank you. May Shani's memory be a blessing.
Thank you. This is on the nose.
Thank you for this, and for making us think.
Sigh.
I want to shout all of this from the rooftops. I am already anticipating my grief on October 7 coming up in a few weeks. It's simmering. I might get a tattoo from Shani's website in her memory to honor her. Thank you for writing this so clearly and eloquently.
Many do not pay attention, but journalistic demonization of Israel and coverage of the conflict has become a profitable business for many, and over the past thirty years (this is only what I observe) has degenerated to the level of advertising online gambling.
You can often see pictures that are published not only by clearly anti-Israeli, but also by mainstream "unbiased" media, in which, according to comments or manipulations and hints, viewers are supposed to see "genocide, apartheid and atrocities of Israel".
These pictures are often staged, often provocative and always taken by collusion of photographers and provocateurs.
The principle is very simple. The photographer pays money, the provocateurs create riots, and sometimes attack Israeli soldiers, police, border guards for hours, provoking a conflict. They deliberately send children and throw stones at patrols, create life-threatening situations to which the military is obliged to react. But even when reacting to prevent the danger that threatens the provocateurs themselves, photographers receive photos that they then use to accuse Israel.
For the last ten years, journalists have not even been in the territories, but have used local "journalists" who are only required to send photos with anti-Israeli comments.
This industry has developed to a scale that is comparable only to the porn industry, with the difference that the most successful journalists in the anti-Israeli industry receive international grants, awards and public recognition. But in terms of moral qualities, it is much worse, because this is a deliberate lie that is sold as the truth.
Thank you for this post. I think, above all, the thing that bothers me most is indeed the photographer's likely involvement, or at the very least, prior knowledge of the attack. And now we also have Bisan Owda nominated for a news Emmy because indeed, being antisemitic seems to pay off, professionally.
As for Shani, there was a petition, which also addressed Nikon as the major sponsor of the award. The petition had huge support from the audience, but the people who could make a difference, i.e. the university as well as Nikon, ignored all attempts of dialogue.
https://www.change.org/p/demand-nikon-to-denounce-the-award-given-to-the-associate-press-for-picture-of-the-year
This article is very touching and it educated me. How would any of us wanting want our photo of being assaulted and triumph over awarded?
There is a lot that people don’t know about the cruelty of the attacks on October 7. Trauma alert: there were parents who found their baby in ashes in an oven. It is easy to want to root for the underdog or the oppressed, and there is a place for speaking out for them. But not in a paragraph trivializing the death of Shani Louk. And the fact that that reporter that photo journalist was embedded with Hamas is something to question. Is someone who sit on the sidelines An act of omission, that goes along with a parade of a woman dishonored and demeaned? your article asks many poignant questions and asserts many sensitive matters of discernment