OT: Most memorable news photos in last 10 years.

K

Kin Lau

Guest
After reading Brett's "Most reproduced photo" thread, it struck me that most of the photos mentioned were news photos from quite some time ago. Eg "VJ day kiss", "Flag raising at Iwo Jima", "Vietnamese girl running from Napalm", "VC execution".

Even Steve McCurry's "Afghan girl" would be considered a PJ shot.

But in the age of video, are there any really memorable _photos_ from the last 10 years or so? I'm just thinking strictly PJ pics, not adverts or publicity shots.
 
I remember seeing a photo of some firemen on the rubble in NYC after 9/11 that was on the cover of most newspapers..... Also one with much smoke still and the carcus of one of the towers standing in the air.
 
Who took the image of a young boy kneeling and hunched over, dying of starvation, who walked for miles to an aid station with vultures hovering in the background?
 
The Air France Concorde on fire shortly before crashing was poor quality but had a huge impact at the time - I remember it vividly because it was one of the "shots of the year" in the Amateur Photographer magazine that I bought on a flight to Glasgow to take my mind off my fear of flying....

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w000725.htm
 
I would have to go with one of several of the WTC shots - but I am biased. I was there that day and many of the images seared in my mind are real - not photographic.

As to Keith's question - I do not remember who, but I believe it won a Pulitzer. Also, the photographer did state that immediately after taking the shot he took the child in his arms and delivered him (actually I thought it was a girl - but that's a moot point) to an aid relief station (i.e. wasn't a case of a cold-hearted photog taking the pic and then moving on looking for the next one!).

I would also suggest that a 10-year time frame is too short to determine what will be iconic - since icon photos are, by definition, images that have withstood the test of time.
 
That photograph always haunts. It was taken by Kevin Carter of the "bang-bang club." It did win a Pulitzer and he later commited suicide because of it.
 
The ones that come to my mind most readily also seem to be from the rubble of the Towers. Firefighters emerging from a mountain of black smoke. Giuliani on foot arriving at the scene with his entourage; and later, speaking.

Sometimes it seems as if everything I have looked at since has had a backdrop of black smoke and rubble.

Does this qualify?: The whole sordid collection from Abu Ghraib.

Also unwelcomely vivid is the shot of the US soldier and a group of Iraqi civilians that ran on the front page of the LA Times and turned out to have been a composite of two shots.

The Central Park gates. Not a specific photo, though. (also the Somerville gates parody)

"Mission Accomplished", with the Full Getup.

One particular photo of a fatigued Monica Lewinsky, as well as the oft-seen rally hug shot.

I don't think I want to remember more right now.
 
Yes, that one seems to have good standing as a possible icon - although I wonder, Keith, if you and I feel that way because we both live in NYC and both read the NY Times?

Do any non-NY'ers know of the image?
 
copake_ham said:
Yes, that one seems to have good standing as a possible icon - although I wonder, Keith, if you and I feel that way because we both live in NYC and both read the NY Times?

Do any non-NY'ers know of the image?

I didn't, until now, although now that I know it I'm surprised that I hadn't even heard about it.

BTW, the documentary "The Death of Kevin Carter" is nominated for an Academy Award. http://www.kevincarterfilm.com/

EDIT: For you NY'ers there are two screenings in Manhattan this weekend (I don't know how public). Check the web site.
 
Last edited:
George, the iconic image for me of Spetember 11, is the smoking rubble and partial structure of one of the WTTs that was reproduced on the cover or the inside of the New Yorker.

The image attached isn't the one, but it is the closest I could find.
 
Last edited:
Maybe too new to be iconic, but some of the photos out of Iraq-including Michael Yon's photo of a soldier cradling a child-stick in my mind as well.
 
I've been thinking this over. Even the lack of responses is somehow indicative of the truth of the matter -- in the digital era, in the 24-hour-news era, in the global-village era when anyone with $1,000 can jump onto a plane to almost anywhere, there are fewer iconic images because we're flooded with so many more pictures and video clips, so what becomes iconic is kind of a kaleidescope of impressions. It's not a single Abu Ghraib photo, it's several. It's not a single Iraq invasion photo, it's several photos and film clips.

Iconic photos up through the mid-1970s were very quickly recognized as such. The raising of the flag at Iwo Jima was not considered iconic by the photographer -- he was worried the editors wouldn't use it -- but it quickly captured the public's imagination in an era when still photographs were how most people related to distant events. ... Most images now recognized as iconic were widely reproduced shortly after being captured and often were prize-winners recognized by the public at a time when the majority consumers of visual information looked at newspapers and magazines. This lasted through the late 1970s, early 1980s.

But I think today's visual public would be hard-pressed to recognize, say, the last three Pulitzer photos in a multiple-choice test.

King's March on Washington produced iconic images. The assassinations of the 1960s produced iconic images. Vietnam produced iconic images. The Kent State shooting produced an iconic image. Steve McCurry's Afghan girl was iconic through the sheer force of her eyes and youth and emotional turmoil. The Challenger explosion produced an iconic image... the snaking smoke trails that lead to a non-existant spaceship ... but this was a transitional iconic image because it exsited both in a still photo and in television footage.

The iconic images out of the 1991 Gulf War were, for the most part, the green-tinted night-video footage of bombs raining down on Baghdad. One of the Turnleys, I think it was, caught an iconic image of a soldier's emotionial reaction aboard a helicopter carrying a body bag containing a friend. But this was not a war in which Americans felt a universal sense of loss ... because the losses were so isolated ... so the image hasn't resonated. Too, there was a remarkable image of the close-up of a grey charred Iraq soldier's face grimacing in death on Highway 8. But this also didn't resonate with the public because it was a TV war, with the mistaken perception that death -- what little there was -- had taken place at long distance, as though any death could be considered impersonal. The iconic perception of 1991 Gulf War as having transcended death and personal risk arguably led to some of the hubris and miscalculation of the level of effort required in Iraq 12 years later.

The Bosnian war's iconic moments show how most people experienced it ... the footage of a CNN news anchor on the air live while Sarajevo is shelled.

Paul Watson's October 1993 photo of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu is one of the iconic images of the 1990s. But it was taken under very unusual circumstances that harken back to an older time when our only impression of an event were via still images captured by a very small number of photographers in distant, dangerous places. That's because by the late summer of 1993, most news agencies had decided Somalia was so dangerous that they simply left. That in itself was extraordinary, given the fact that something like 20,000 American troops were still there, risking their lives almost completely outside of the awareness of the public back home. So the battle of Mogadishu took place with virtually no media coverage, and Paul Watson was one of the very few westerners who ventured to walk among Somalis.

There is an iconic image from the World Trade Center, of the gray rubble and firemen raising an American flag above it. It quickly became a U.S. postage stamp. But I think the television footage of the airplane striking the second tower is the more iconic image. And like other recent events, there is a kaleidescope of impressons -- much like the Kennedy assasination -- rather than a single still photograph.

I'm attaching a photo I took a few weeks after the helicopters were shot down in Mogadishu. It's not with an RF and it's not iconic, but it's the closest I ever came to being killed, because a few moments later the crowd started to realize I might be American, and Americans were not at all welcome in that neighborhood.
 
VinceC said:
But I think today's visual public would be hard-pressed to recognize, say, the last three Pulitzer photos in a multiple-choice test.

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that there are SO MANY good images nowadays. Digital photography and delivery has seriously upped the number of pictures that are circulated on the major news wires on a daily basis. Editors have so many to choose from. But sometimes ONE IMAGE does stand out.

I've been in news wire photography for 11 years now and seeing the technological leaps we have gone through via image capture and transmission and with that the increase in the number of images... it is staggering.

Freelancers nowadays armed with a digital camera, a laptop, and a relatively inexpensive R-BGAN satdish (what, are they $400 bucks now?) can go to any hot spot and an editor will be interested in what you have if you are there. Just transmit on spec.

The pure "single image or single photographer" Pulitzer entry is tough, nowadays. Most of the winners and entries of recent have been multiple picture stories by multiple photographers (working for a given paper/agency).

It's also common in the last 10-15 years that the Pulitzer prize in photography (there are two: news and feature) has been given to work that the average public may have not widely seen before. The jury is made up of managers and editors of US newspapers.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the insightful comments everyone.

Vince, your thoughts are what lead me to start this. Paul Watson's picture I think will end up as one of the icons, as will the smoking skeleton of WTC. Paul was/is a photographer for the Toronto Star, our local paper, so I remember that shot very well.
 
Whats even more commendable is Paul Watson, who I met while I was working in Indonesia, is a writer. I also remember that he was physically challenged -- either his right or left hand. After the Toronto Star I believe he went to the LA Times. Journalists should know how to do both. Reporters should carry cameras and photographers should help reporters/news desks with "color" and quotes, if possible, if they are the only one on the scene.

Did anyone see the picture by the Reuters photographer who won 2006 World Press Photo of the Year? He was a Reuters reporter for about 10 years before leaving that and doing photography for only the past year or two.
 
I have not met Watson, but I was told in Somalia that his handicap made it somewhat easier for him to move around. The "one armed man" was not viewed as threatening to anyone.

I've always been both a writer and photographer. I don't really agree with newsrooms that make a hard-cut distinction, since the whole point of the end product is to communicate through a mixture of words and images. On the other hand, with today's news cycle, there often isn't time to do both ... the photographer must rush the pictures to the desk while the writer gets a story out a quickly as possible. Many of the larger publications also have unions to deal with.

One of the reasons I recently left an otherwise very good journalism job was corporate resistance to allowing me to take my own photographs once in a while. I'd go out on international trips, use my own camera to take photographs that well matched my stories, but would have to accomodate a company photographer who always had time on his hands while I needed to be typing up notes and stories, whose otherwise excellent work didn't quite match the stories, and whose presence with a stunning array of huge digital SLRs very often altered the mood and tone of interviews. I tried to explain that it's more efficient to send two people out who both write and photograph. But word-centered bosses never quite bought into it and the photo department was defensive.
 
Vince,

That sounds like the typical "job security" defensive posturing that goes on in virtually every industry. It's too bad that getting the job done, frequenty falls into a lower priority than the "status quo".
 
Back
Top Bottom