The Terror of War—Was Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" photo taken with a Pentax camera?

Michael Markey said:
This on Facebook today :

Dave Burnett​

3h ·

Facebook - log in or sign up
This week’s announcement by World Press Photo (WPP-Holland) that they are “suspending” Nick Ut’s credit for the “Napalm Girl” photograph, the now famous picture of young Vietnamese children running for safety, presents what feels like a whole new level of irrelevancy to what was once a powerful, honest guardian and arbiter of photojournalism. As discussions grew over the winter about a new documentary film which claimed to reveal who 'really' took that now famous photograph, there has been a terrible and unfortunate swirl of confidence in journalism itself. I would point out that while I declined to be interviewed in a film whose purpose was quite clear at the outset, neither have I been offered a chance to see and view the final version of the film on my own. The filmmakers, having carefully reached out to groups like World Press Photo during the early marketing phase of the film (which was eventually shown at the Sundance festival in Park City) doubts and discussions began to arise in some quarters about who took the picture.
Four months ago I was the recipient of a note from Joumana El Khoury, the current Executive Director of World Press Photo (whose Press Photo of the Year prize I was awarded in 1980, and on whose Jury I have served several times, twice as Jury Chair) , advising me on January 15 that they felt a need to find out more information about the "true authorship of the photograph," and that they needed to hear from me by January 20, ‘in order to take your statement into account of our decision.’
My response, was to question what kind of journalistic principles would lead them to feel that a decision about a situation that was 53 years on, had to be finalized in five days. I was aware of their supposed determination to create their own research and come up with an answer. Yet since January I have not heard a single word from WPP, and I have come to understand that they have not reached out to Nick Ut or his representatives either in that time. We two, Nick and I, are among the very few still living who were in the Press Corps that day in Trang Bang and while in the heat of the moment, no one spends conscious time monitoring what others do around them in a breaking news situation (no, we are, as photographers, trying to make pictures which tell that day’s story…) my memory is very clear - as it remains on many indelible aspects of my time in Vietnam, on that day of many crucial things. I have previously written on my experience that day, and have not wavered from my story in all these years..
When it became obvious that a stream of civilians were running away from the village center, towards the road on which the press corps was haphazardly assembled, Nick Ut, and Newsweek stringer Alex Shimkin, who were standing next to me, began racing down the road towards the oncoming children. In those next few moments as the children neared, Nick Ut made that picture. In my recollection, no one else was even remotely in a place to take that picture.
Later at the Associated Press office, I had my film processed, edited and printed by the AP darkroom crew, and sent pictures to the New York Times. In those minutes of waiting for the prints to be done, the AP darkroom chief emerged with the first ever 5x7’’ print of what would become known as “the horror of war.” There was never a moment when I doubted that Nick had made that picture, and while in one of my conversations with film producer Gary Knight, he said he had proof that Nick couldn’t have taken the picture, I responded by saying, based on my recall of how Nick had run down the road, ahead of everyone else, “that no one BUT Nick could have taken that picture.”
I still haven’t seen the film “The Stringer,” which strikes me as very uncollegial since Gary called me several years ago to talk about Trang Bang, and asked to see my pictures of that very day, early on in his narrative - before it became clear to me that he was attempting to show that another photographer had made the picture. I would like to see their analysis, but some things are very clear to me, and one of those is that in a desire to become part of the cabal which is embracing this film, World Press Photo is stumbling over its own journalistic shoes as it struggles to remain relevant and of interest in the wake of their own egregious ethical and intellectual lapses.
David Burnett/ New York. May 17, 202
Click to expand...
He said things I would have said here already.
 
I’m a little late in this thread, but I've always understood the "napalm girl" photo was captured with a Leica M2. I understand there has been recent controversy over its authorship, but I personally find these claims hard to believe.
 
It seems a discussion between those who were there and those who were not. And while eye-witness accounts can be blown apart in court I'd hazard the opinion that the present photojournalist witness has the more valid recollection than someone who was not there and is associated with a film promotion. But that is just my cynical view. As usual, YMMV.

This will continue to be of interest as it unfolds. Mr. Burnett's testimony is pretty solid.
 
I'm seeing
boojum said:
It seems a discussion between those who were there and those who were not. And while eye-witness accounts can be blown apart in court I'd hazard the opinion that the present photojournalist witness has the more valid recollection than someone who was not there and is associated with a film promotion. But that is just my cynical view. As usual, YMMV.

This will continue to be of interest as it unfolds. Mr. Burnett's testimony is pretty solid.
Click to expand...
There are independent witnesses supporting each side, and each side has people "who were there." And all this evidence can be "blown apart" on the witness stand because it's all filled with inconsistencies - on both sides, even Burnett's recent Facebook post. It does seem that people, organizations are adopting a conclusion first and then finding the evidence, premises to support it, instead of objectively looking at the evidence. Shame the photo editor in Saigon did not bring this up earlier, while Ernst Haas still alive, so that he could have the opportunity to explain or refute.
 
Last edited:
steveyork said:
I'm seeing

There are independent witnesses supporting each side, and each side has people "who were there." And all this evidence can be "blown apart" on the witness stand because it's all filled with inconsistencies - on both sides, even Burnett's recent Facebook post. It does seem that people, organizations are adopting a conclusion first and then finding the evidence, premises to support it, instead of objectively looking at the evidence. Shame the photo editor in Saigon did not bring this up earlier, while Ernst Haas still alive, so that he could have the opportunity to explain or refute.
Click to expand...


Kind of makes me wonder. There may be more than one explanation. But only one will be the right one.

Evidence can "be blown apart" and discredited. But it is not all equally changeable. Not all evidence is equally valid. So it must be weighed, each testimony individually. Just go down the list and review the evidence "without fear or favor." The trick is an open mind, to keep an open mind.
 
Last edited:
I just caught this AP article on the internet. If it has been posted, sorry.

apnews.com

Photo group says it has 'suspended attribution' of historic Vietnam picture because of doubts

There's more muddle now to an issue that has split the photographic community. An organization that honored The Associated Press' Nick Ut with its “photo of the year” in 1973 for an iconic image of a naked girl running from a napalm attack during the Vietnam War now says it has “suspended its attrib
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Last edited:
Possibly both took a picture. But only one was published! Stranger things have happened in the heat of war. (And that explanation is not even all that strange - it sounds like an every-day incident to me.)
 
peterm1 said:
Possibly both took a picture. But only one was published! Stranger things have happened in the heat of war. (And that explanation is not even all that strange - it sounds like an every-day incident to me.)
Click to expand...
and thats the problem. the detractors cannot prove anyone other then Ut took the photo, thus they can stick it.

In essence its a reverse of the modern era firing squad. In most countries 5 guys are given rifles, 4 will have live rounds in the chamber and 1 will have a blank. It is to let every member in the firing line have the belief they had the blank.

in this case you can make the case "because the person being executed was so hated by people, every member of the firing squad wanted to prove they fired the fatal shot"
 
peterm1 said:
Possibly both took a picture. But only one was published! Stranger things have happened in the heat of war. (And that explanation is not even all that strange - it sounds like an every-day incident to me.)
Click to expand...

This is sad. WP has stirred up the pot but said they can draw no conclusion. Solomon has cut the baby in half. Great. That has really helped a lot. And there is that nagging doubt in my mind that WP has an ax to grind as does the fellow who was let go from AP.

So if WP cannot make a decision one way or the other who benefits from this? Why did WP raise the question and offer no answer? The Roman law of history is "Cuit bonit?" Who benefits? Deep Throats said it as "Follow the money."
 
The thing that makes this smell the most is that the issue was not raised until after the one person capable of solving the question had passed away. Why wait that long? "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" as the saying goes.
 
boojum said:
This is sad. WP has stirred up the pot but said they can draw no conclusion. Solomon has cut the baby in half. Great. That has really helped a lot. And there is that nagging doubt in my mind that WP has an ax to grind as does the fellow who was let go from AP.

So if WP cannot make a decision one way or the other who benefits from this? Why did WP raise the question and offer no answer? The Roman law of history is "Cuit bonit?" Who benefits? Deep Throats said it as "Follow the money."
Click to expand...
I don't know. I have no dog in the fight. I am just postulating based on my life experience. Life is like that - synchronicity and all that.
 
peterm1 said:
I don't know. I have no dog in the fight. I am just postulating based on my life experience. Life is like that - synchronicity and all that.
Click to expand...


WP just does not "feel" right. I have no evidence obviously. But they created this commotion and then walked away. If they really had a case they would have presented it. They have no case. They waffled. There was a president here who was famous for being "categorically and definitely neither for nor against" things.

They have not generated knowledge, they have generated confusion and doubt. We really need more of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom