Eddie Adams was an American, Pulitzer-Prize winning
photographer and photojournalist. He was born on June 12, 1933 in New
Kensington, Pennsylvania. After a long, successful career he died in Manhattan
on September 19, 2004 at the age of 71 (Grundberg). From Korea to Kuwait, and
11 other wars in between, Adams is well known for his war photography, but he
found success with portraits of high-profile celebrities and politicians as
well. “He remains one of the most published photographers in the U.S., with his
work gracing the pages of newspapers and magazines like TIME, VOGUE, VANITY
FAIR, and PARADE. His career spanned journalism, corporate, editorial, fashion,
entertainment, and advertising photography” (“Who is Eddie Adams?”). A few of Adams’ more famous images include Mother
Teresa cradling an armless baby orphan, individual portraits of Fidel Castro,
and Anwar Sadat, and a portrait of Arnold Schwarzenegger with a yellow rubber
duck.
Adams received over 500 awards during his
photographic career. Among them, the Pulitzer Prize was awarded to him for his
photograph Street Execution of a Vietcong
Prisoner:
Hal Buell, former head of the Photography Service at the
Associated Press, is quoted as saying, “No war was ever photographed the way
Vietnam was, and no war will ever be photographed again the way Vietnam was
photographed” (Adler). At the beginning of World War II, photographs were being
censored in the United States in an effort to keep photography from undermining
the war effort, but images of war eventually did help to gain U.S. support for
the war (“War Photography”). Perhaps this successful use of photography during
war is why photographers in Vietnam had such incredible access. “All a
photographer had to do, says Buell, ‘is convince a helicopter pilot to let him
get on board a chopper going out to a battle scene’” (Adler). Photojournalists
and war photographers do not enjoy this same access in more modern times.
“The black and white photographs created by Eddie
Adams have both aesthetical and informative value. His biggest strength was
close-ups and portraits that depict each wrinkle, spot, and emotion on the face
of the portrayed person” (Farah). This proves to be very true in Street Execution of a Vietcong Prisoner.
In the photograph, South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brig. General Nguyen
Ngoc Loan is seen tensely gripping a revolver that is pointed to the temple of
a man whose arms appear to be tied behind his back. The General’s finger is on
the trigger, and the man’s face shows that he is bracing for the inevitable at
the very moment the bullet enters his skull.
The photograph was shot on the streets of Cholon, the
Chinese section of Saigon, Vietnam in 1968 (Adler). Just two days prior to the
photograph, the North Vietnamese communists launched the Tet Offensive causing
fighting to break out in the US Embassy compound in Saigon. Adams was covering
the Vietnam War for the Associated Press when he took the iconic photograph. He
had this to say about the moments leading up to, during, and just after the
photograph was taken:
They walked him down to the street corner. We were taking pictures. He
turned out to be a Viet Cong lieutenant. And out of nowhere came this guy who
we didn’t know. I was about five feet away and he pulled out his pistol.
[General Loan] shot him in the head and walked away. And walked by us and said
‘They killed many of my men and many of your people’” (“Saigon Execution”).
The prisoner was executed for murdering a South
Vietnamese Colonel, his wife, and their six children. Adams got to know General
Loan after the photograph was taken, and he held much respect for the man. Because
of this photograph, “…Adams is recognized by many who lived through the Vietnam
War Era as the photojournalist who helped end a war, though apparently not in a
way that he intended” (“Ongoing Discussion: Media’s Impact on Opinion”).
He was quite shocked by the reaction of the
photograph. In a multimedia interview with Adams published on Newseum.org,
Adams describes his confusion with American’s demonstrations and upset over the
image: “…because in a war, people die in wars. And what I ask people a lot,
too, is if you’re this man… the General… and you just caught this guy after he
killed some of your people, you know, it’s a war. How do you know you wouldn’t
have pulled that trigger yourself?”
Adams began his career as a war photographer as a
Marine Corps Combat Photographer in Korea in the early 1950s (“Who is Eddie
Adams?”); Street Execution of a Vietcong
Prisoner was shot in 1968. Adams had as much as 18 years of combat
experience from behind his lens. His years of experience in war zones hardened
him to the tragedies of war. On the other hand, the US Government’s previous practice
of censoring photographs from war softened the American people’s views on war.
When the only images you see from war are the glorious victories, and the
already dead, viewing an image of suffering or death in action is a bit much to
endure.
Either way, the photograph of a prisoner’s close-up
execution caused much controversy in the United States. “It was held up at
demonstrations by members of the intensifying anti-war movement and became one
of the two or three iconic photos that symbolized the war for many people”
(Adler). This use of his photograph plagued Adams until the day he died. He
“felt that the photo was taken by reflex and wasn’t particularly good, and in
fact overshadowed some of his other work that he thought was better” (Zell).
Questions have been raised about whether Adams should
have put the camera down to intervene on behalf of the prisoner. If
photojournalists were to do so, how we would have accurate news? It seems
heartless, but if the world doesn’t know what is going on then they can’t make
changes. Adams’ job wasn’t to fight in the war; it wasn’t to make the war
conditions better for either side. His job was to document the war and inform
the world of what was happening.
“Information can lead to changes in public policy, laws,
funding or perhaps just improved behavior” (Kobré 368). Consider Dr. Martin
Luther King’s reaction to Flip Schulke during the racial clashes in Selma,
Alabama. Schulke was covering the situation for Life magazine and saw Sherriff Clark’s deputies being physical with
children. “He stopped shooting and began dragging the children away. Martin
Luther King, who led the march, called out to Schulke, ‘The world doesn’t know
this happened because you didn’t photograph it. I’m not being cold-blooded
about it, but it is so much more important for you to take a picture of us
getting beaten up’” (Kobre 368).
Adams should not have altered his actions in Saigon
in 1968. His job was to record the events, not to intervene based on his
personal opinions of them. It seems heartless, but it is of the upmost
importance that photojournalists only document the scene. One of the few
exceptions would be the rare situation where the photojournalist is in a life
or death situation, and there is simply no way for his story to be seen
otherwise. Look at the story of LTG (R) Hal Moore and Joseph L. Galloway in the
battle of Ia Drang. Joe was a photojournalist attached with (then) LTC Moore’s
battalion to cover a mission. The mission went badly, and at one point Joe had
to pick up a rifle to fight for his life. Had he not gotten involved in the
battle, his recordings of the war up to that point may never had been told.
When the recorder of history dies, so does the story. He put the rifle down
when he could continue to record the events of the day, and continued to do his
job (Moore).
There is a cliché that goes “if a tree falls in the
woods and nobody is around to hear it, does the tree make a sound?” It is not
the job of the photojournalist to help the tree fall; nor is it the job of the
photojournalist to keep the tree from falling. It is the photojournalist’s job
to show up, document the fall of the tree, and leave.
Photography is a responsibility not to be taken
lightly, especially documentary photography or photojournalism. One person’s
snapshot is another person’s evidence of how life is lived in a particular
area. It is easy to believe that photography should be allowed everywhere, but
this poses many problems. The issue of privacy is big, especially when it comes
to dressing rooms and bathrooms in public areas. Celebrities have to live lives
with curtains drawn and walls separating their homes from the world around them
because paparazzi neglect to allow them a moment of rest otherwise. But in
public, there should also be an educated decision on whether a moment needs to
be documented, and in what manner.
Adams later discussed the iconic image Street Execution of a Viet Cong Prisoner
and said, “The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my
camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People
believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation” (Farah). Adams
is referring to the fact that the photograph only shows what is in the four
corners of the frame. It doesn’t show what happened before the execution, nor
does it show what happened after. But beyond that, the framing of a photograph
can add or detract from the scene as well. What if Adams zoomed in on the
prisoner and removed the General from the frame except for his arm and the gun?
Would the public’s perception of the image change at all?
Image manipulation is not new; the portrait of
President Lincoln posing next to a desk with papers and books on top, an
American flag draped in the corner behind a globe sitting on a checkerboard
floor is well known and often used to depict the former President.
Many people
today may be shocked to find out that this photograph was “Photoshopped” before
Photoshop was even created. The only thing “Lincoln” about this photograph is
the head of the human; the rest of the scene comes from a separate portrait of
John Calhoun, a Southern politician (“Photo Tampering throughout History”). The
manipulation techniques to create this composite took much skill and even more
time. Today, such a manipulation would take little time at all for even the
novice photographer. As such we have been conditioned to question every
photograph, especially those that seem to have a significant affect on the news
and current events. “More often than not, these scandals are either related to
politics or fashion. Does this say something about the deceptive nature of
those two worlds?” (Eisinger).
In May, 2011 the United States White House announced
that a Navy Seal team raided Osama bin Laden’s compound and killed him. A photograph
of the inside of the Situation Room at the White House was later released; it
showed 13 people (two of which were women) who witnessed the raid. A
Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper removed the two women from the photograph when
they published the news, citing their policy of “never printing photos of women
in its pages because it thinks they could be sexually suggestive” (“Hillary
Clinton Removed From Situation Room Photo By Der Tzitung, Hasidic Newspaper”). This blatant manipulation of a photograph to
alter an historic scene was immediately noticed, and further reinforced the
public’s skepticism on modern use of photography.
The saddest thing about removing Mrs. Clinton from
the photograph is that in doing so, the newspaper removed the compassion from
the scene. While the men look at the images before them, they do so with
unmoved expressions on their faces, and arms crossed over their chests. Mrs.
Clinton’s hand across her mouth, and her eyes showing concern and a little bit
of fear gives the scene a sprinkling of humanity as our government sent a team
of highly trained individuals to seek out and destroy an enemy. Mrs. Clinton’s
presence in the scene shows that we, as a nation, are not cold-hearted
murderers; we do not take lightly the task of taking of lives. The way she is
framed in the image (sitting exactly on the rule of thirds) gives her the honor
of being the focal point of the photograph. Removing that and publishing the
altered photograph goes beyond misleading. It is downright unethical because it
completely rewrites the history of that day.
A less obvious manipulation still had a huge effect
on the public opinion. OJ Simpson, a famous NFL football player, was arrested
in 1994 and charged with the double murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson,
and her friend Ronald L. Goldman. His mug shot ran on the covers of Time magazine and Newsweek at the same time. Time
decided to manipulate Simpson’s face to make his skin darker, and gave a
vignette to the scene creating a more sinister photograph. Newsweek ran the untouched photograph. After noticing the
differences, the public accused editors at Time
magazine of being racist, and trying to sway public opinion before the trial
even started.
Photojournalists and social documentarians have a
tough job. They endure harsh conditions, are expected to not alter the scene
(much less get involved in the scene), and must record history as it is made.
Now, more than ever, their ethics are questioned, their photographs are
criticized, and the repercussions of doing their job poorly are harsh. Their
compensation is minor compared to other genres of photography, and their
biggest competition today is usually not another publication’s staff
photographer; rather, it is the average citizen with a camera phone and access
to social media. With these social and economical conditions, its no wonder
ethical lines are skewed. Nor is it any wonder why the general public is
reticent of believing everything they see in print. I’m sure Eddie Adams would
have hoped, at least in the slightest, that his photograph Street Execution of a Viet Cong Prisoner was questioned and
dismissed as often as many photographs are today. It may have brought him a
more peaceful (emotionally) life.
Works Cited
Adams,
Eddie. Street Execution of a Vietcong
Prisoner. 1 February 1968. Gelatin Silver Print. Adams Photographic
Archive. 28 July 2014.
Adler,
Margot. “The Vietnam War, Through Eddie Adams’ Lens”. www.npr.org. 24 March, 2009. Web. 28 July 2014.
“Eddie
Adams”. www.FamousPhotographers.com. n.d. Web. 28 July 2014.
Eisinger,
Dale. “The 15 Biggest Photoshop Scandals of All Time.” www.complex.com. 16 July 2013. Web. 30 July 2014.
Farah,
Vilie. “The Biography of Eddie Adams: Famous War Photographer”. www.brighthub.com. 8 February 2011. Web. 28 July 2014.
Grundberg,
Andy. “Eddie Adams, Journalist Who Showed Violence of Vietnam, Dies at 71.” www.NYTimes.com. 20 September 2004. Web. 28 July
2014.
“Hillary
Clinton Removed From Situation Room Photo By Der Tzitung, Hasidic Newspaper”. www.huffintgonpost.com. 9 May 2011. Web. 30 July 2014.
Kobré,
Kenneth. Photo Journalism The
Professionals’ Approach. Burlington: Elsevier, 2008. Print.
Moore,
Harold G. We Were Soldiers Once… and
Young: Ia Drang – The Battle That Changed the War in Vietnam. Presidio
Press, 2004. Print.
Newseum.org.
“Eddie Adams”. Interview about Pulitzer Prize Photograph – Viet Cong Execution.
Bio_Adams_1. Mp3. n.d. Web. 28 July
2014. http://webmedia.newseum.org/newseum-multimedia/ws/mp3/bio_adams_1.mp3
“Ongoing Discussion:
Media’s Impact on Opinion”. www.aventalearning.com. n.d. Web. 28 July 2014.
“Photo
Tampering Throughout History”. www.fourandsix.com. n.d. Web. 30 July 2014.
“Saigon
Execution”. www.cah.utexas.edu. The Briscoe Center for American History, The
University of Texas at Austin. n.d. Web. 28 July 2014.
“War
Photography”. www.myeclassonline.com. Photo History II, P01. The Art Institute of
Pittsburgh – Online Division, n.d. Web. 28 July 2014.
“Who is
Eddie Adams?”. The Eddie Adams Workshop.
n.d. Web. 28 July 2014.
Zell, Mark.
“Saigon Execution photographed by Eddie Adams, 1968: Weekly Discussion #22”. www.photo.net. 29 April 2014, Web. 30 July 2014.
