Public Eye
April 13, 2006 11:09 AM

Case Of AP Photographer Raises Questions About Possible Links To Terrorists

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Media Issues
(AP Photo/Bilal Hussein)
Yesterday, we brought you the story of Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein, the Iraqi CBS News cameraman who was imprisoned for a year on suspicion of insurgent activities before being released for lack of evidence. Now Michelle Malkin brings word of another Iraqi working for a Western news organization who may have been detained by the US military. The details are still sketchy, but Malkin received a tip that Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was captured in Ramadi, Iraq, "with a cache of weapons." In response to her inquiry, the AP's Jack Stokes wrote an email that "[w]e are looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time."

It's too early to draw any conclusions about Bilal Hussein, but his story, especially on the heals of the release of Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein, illustrates of the challenges facing Western news organizations in reporting from Iraq, as well as those facing the US military in differentiating between journalists and enemy combatants. Since December, 2004, conservative bloggers have been raising questions about how some photojournalists were able to capture certain horrifying photos, since to do so they have to be in extremely dangerous situations. One photo they've focused on is an AP photo depicting terrorists executing Iraqi election workers in broad daylight, a shot credited to an unidentified stringer.

The AP's photos won a Pulitzer, and Bilal Hussein was a member of the winning team. Writes Malkin: "Hussein's photos have raised serious, persistent questions about his relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were/are staged in collusion with the enemy." Some of Hussein's disturbing photographs can be found here, including a shot of insurgents standing over the body of Italian national Salvatore Santoro, guns drawn. Malkin has others, including close up shots of combat. "It's clear the photographer wasn't fearful at all for his own life," she writes.

At this point, it's impossible to know Bilal Hussein's relationship to the people he was photographing. Maybe they wanted images they considered to be propaganda to be disseminated, so they gave access to the photographer, even though they had nothing in common ideologically. Maybe they considered him their ideological brother, and he pledged his allegiance to their cause. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.

Stay tuned.

Add a Comment
by preports April 15, 2006 7:30 AM EDT
Insurgent propagandists hired as stringers will continue to fool international audiences so long as major media outlets publish their work. Most pictures taken by these stringers are staged well after the incident occurred. Some of the pictures are taken during insurgent attacks, indicating the stringer was tipped off or actually embedded with the insurgents, which makes that stringer an insurgent. Mainstream media must become more responsible. People appreciate good journalism from both sides if their reports and photos are both morally obtained and accurate. Keep in mind that propagandists incite violence, recruit more insurgents and garner support from other extremist organizations. Respected media outlets have a responsibility to report the truth and not propaganda. Printing of propaganda by major media is only supporting the insurgency which will only cause the war in Iraq to linger.
Reply to this comment
by one_american April 14, 2006 3:13 PM EDT
peterbaldwin, obviously your for anything the media does that helps your cause. Funny you should talk about glib pseudo-intellectuals; that's exactly what you are. You want to ignore the fact that there are people who side with the terrorists who are actively staging propaganda for consumption of the American Press. You don't have a problem with that, but I know you have a problem with the U.S. Armed Forces buying space in foreign newspapers to show factual accounts of positive stories about our troops. That makes you a complete hypocritical moron, in my book. Face the facts: you and people like you are going to have to face your hypocrisy sooner or later; it may as well be right now.
Reply to this comment
by peterbaldwin-2009 April 13, 2006 11:50 PM EDT
Goodness. Do we have to listen to the Anchoress's glib, pseudo-intellectual gibberish the comments section now? The unibomber's use of the New York Times did not make the paper complicit. The Vietnam photos of the girl napalmed running and the Saigon police officer blowing out a guys brains had immeasurable effect on world opinion regarding the morality of the war and perhaps contributed to shortenening the war. Back in those days, reporters were recorders of events whose biases were not pondered because they were not armed combatants. With imbeds standing up in turrets with the cameras rolling, reporters became an integral part of the American war effort, and, therefore, legitimate targets. Another Bush fiasco.
Reply to this comment
by one_american April 13, 2006 10:14 PM EDT
alphaa10: Your completely wrong, as usual. But I'm not surprised you don't get it at all if you think the press is doing a "splendid job". You must be a MSM journalist, or blind as a bat (or both). I'm not advocating control of the press, just the opposite. It's individuals like yourself that dictate the propaganda that the press dishes out, to the exclusion of the truth or any other side, chanting "freedom of the press". Wake your silly #*% up and smell the coffee!
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 April 13, 2006 8:37 PM EDT
The press, in general, is doing a splendid job-- especially under these circumstances. Any journalist with the assignment to get the video/photos and facts about a dangerous situation absolutely must convey the message to both sides he is there as a member of the press, not a military observer. That crucial difference makes possible inside access to photos and facts simply out of reach, otherwise. The key element that provides access is both sides want to tell their side of the story. If ideas clash, if they are tainted with propaganda, that will be exposed and contrasted by the other account. In a Western democracy and the open marketplace of ideas, not to mention our legal system, that is our crucible of truth. Only totalitarian rule has a conflict-free press. That is why the PRC and other dictatorships would support One_American, who shares their wish for control of the press. And their defense of censorship? They say, "We want to make sure our press tells the truth."
Reply to this comment
by one_american April 13, 2006 4:53 PM EDT
This brings up a very good point about the news services engaging in willful propaganda. The reason that so many anti-American stories are so prevalent in the world and predominant in the U.S. media is because of the AP, Reuters, et al. The MSM becomes the mindless parrot for these stories, without bothering to fact check or to question the content. Why might this be? Probably because it's easier, and costs less that the MSM doing the work themselves, but really- at what price? The Anchoress (www.theanchoressonline.com) has a very good handle on this problem. She states: "The harm and destruction being wrought upon this nation and others by people who have moved far beyond their commission to simply supply the facts of any given story is becoming incalculable - politically, socially, societally, militarily. Our press is out of control, or - more correctly - under the control of something malicious. Without a free and honest press, we are in trouble. And we are without a free and honest press, these days."
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Public Eye

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...