Walski Forgery

The images shown were taken place in March 2003, right outside the city Basra, Iraq. Earlier that month, Britain invaded Iraq with the help of the US in an effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Neither the US nor Britain thought the invasion was going to evolve into a “fully fledged counter-insurgency operation.” Basra was the scene of some of the heaviest fighting during the 2003 Iraq War. British forces took the city on April 6, claiming the city for the Allied Powers in Operation: Iraqi Freedom (Basra). Even though sources indicate that only 11 British troops were killed in the actual Battle of Basra, heavy fighting was still occurring throughout the time period until as late as 2005 when a deteriorating British defensive was left to deal with a “ramped-up offensive on its own” (Battle) (Ucko). It can be noted that, “almost all of the 168 British soldiers killed in Iraq since... 2003 were killed in the Basra region, typically in suicide bomb attacks, roadside bomb explosions, mortar and rocket strikes, and ambushes” (ISA Staff).British troops were based in the Basra Palace, a complex of four palaces on the banks of the Shaat al Arab waterway that once belonged to Saddam Hussein. The base has been under almost daily mortar and rocket attack by Iraqi militia forces (Fidler). Pictured by Brian Walski, British troops manned a checkpoint at Al Zubayr Bridge as Iraqi paramilitaries opened fire. Civilians had gathered at the checkpoint, hoping to flee the besieged city of Basra, which made the task more difficult for the soldiers as they were trying to protect the crowd and defend themselves at the same time (Magnier).

Brian Walski, a Chicago native, took this photo, along with many others, in March 2003 near Basra, Iraq. After a 14 hour day that was part of a frustrating nine week trip to the Middle East, amidst British and Iraqi shots being fired, a battle-tested Walski made the decision to blend two photographs together to create a more compelling composite image (Brian). After “playing around a little bit,” Walski said, “that looks good.” He proceeded to send the altered image to the LA Times where it was then posted on Newscom. Newscom is a photo sharing system owned by Tribune News Corporation. Shortly after, many newspapers ran the image. It was not long before the duplication of a person in the bottom left corner of the image was spotted and reported. The duplication occurred when Walski was combining the two images around 10 p.m. after 14 hours of shooting footage in an intense environment. Originally, the image was a product of “messing around” on the computer and was not meant to be sent in, but an exhausted Brian Walski made a “lapse in judgement” and sent the image in to the LA Times. Brian Walski was fired on April 1, 2003, and the Times released an editor’s note shortly after (Lucas).

Brian Walski was wrongly fired over the “incident.” Although he did blend the two images together, it is clear that the content of the image doesn’t change. The blending actually causes an enhanced view of the picture to be seen. Just as journalists often due to their stories, Walski enhanced the image to further indicate the real events taking place on that day outside of Basra (Meyer). The altered image shows a moment that conveys the British role in the battle for Basra from the perspective of third party, watching as the events unfold. Initially regarded as a “great image,” by Thom McGuire, the Courant’s Assistant Managing Editor for Photography and Graphics, doctoring the image only enhances the truth of the image when it is put into context: a British soldier telling Iraqi civilians, in their defense, to take cover. When combined with a caption, newspaper title, and a related article, the altered image presents a more dramatic version that captures the reality of the moment. In the alteration, the soldier is looking directly addressing the citizen who flees towards the soldier for protection from the crossfire. This direct contact reveals the soldiers genuine effort to keep the civilians away from harms way. Alone, the other two images do not fully portray the soldiers aid for the people's desperation. (Flybring 20-22). Though Walski was fired as a direct consequence of the image, no other large consequences, outside of the LA Times’ reputation to be “tarnished,” resulted from the alteration of the image. There is no record of Iraqi militant groups becoming outraged after seeing the picture, nor was there a noted public outlash of the citizens of Basra.

From one of the original photos, the man is looking imploringly at the soldier. It appears that he wants some help or has some concerns with which the soldier can deal. Also, the soldier can possibly be looking at the tank in the background so his attention is on the movement of the heavy machinery. Or the soldier could be looking at the man since the man is the only civilian standing up so the soldier's attention could have been switched to the civilian. Either way the soldier is looking, he is seems to be at ease which draws away the idea that the civilian standing up is being told to sit down by the soldier. From the other original picture, the man is not even looking at the soldier but the soldier is looking in that general direction with his hand in the air. We can deduct that the soldier's attention is towards something in the distance. The man standing up could also be looking at the same thing since his head is not turned towards the soldier. This picture then complements the other original picture by not contributing to the fact that the soldier and man are in a predicament. However, the final picture shows an overall message that the pictures show the truth of the moment where the man wants help but the soldier has to stick his duty and be on guard to help his fellow soldiers. But apart, the angles of the faces show how the soldier and man are not in a situation where the soldier appears to ready to fire on a man who needs help.

From this first original photo, there should be noted a certain discrepancy that does not validate the combined photo. These groups of photos were taken during a great deal fired shots back and forth from the British Army and Iraqi paramilitaries. Throughout the day, Walski “captured another 150 shots of panicked civilians escaping the fighting,” (Johnston). All of these civilians were worried for their lives, just as many of us would be in this situation. After the returning back home, Walski gave an interview to David Walker where he stated “We were sleeping in our car. It was the most intense kind of--we didn't have any place to stay. There was no safe haven of any kind where you could kind of relax and get a good night's sleep. It was constant tension,” (Flybring 10). With this type of information at hand, the original photo can be seen from a different angle. The altered photo concentrates merely on the soldier’s interactions with the civilians , enhancing the truth behind the soldier's role in this situation in providing safety and guidance to them. But the consequence of the alteration is that it does not fully reveal what is happening in this moment that is driving these citizens to plead for help. It takes away from the bigger picture of what is going on in the battle around them.

“Within seconds, paramilitaries in pickups opened fire on the British forces. From another direction, mortar shells rained down on the British, whose Challenger tanks returned fire” heavier firing going on in the area, not only gunfight, which the altered photo only displays. By taking out the tank from the photo, consequently, Walski neglects to inform the public of the battle actuality taking place around them. As the British military struggle to maintain control as the Iraqis were firing artillery from the center of the city at British troops, said British spokesman Col. Chris Vernon, while the British confined their artillery to the city's outskirts, trying to identify clear military targets, especially tanks, and avoid civilian casualties (De Vries).

"The Iraqis work in groups of two or three driving white vehicles and dressed in civilian clothes. They have no position, they're moving and use the slums to our left and right, making it difficult to fire back" (Magnier). The British troops were surrounded in all different directions in which they had to protect the civilians while also struggling to survive themselves. Clearly underestimating the chaos in Basra, the initial approach in invading Basra was a “soft” approach (Ucko). In attempt to maintain peace the British troops were regularly shown walking around in berets (Fidler). Third parties claim that the British Army was left to fight with one hand tied behind its back (Ucko). As the people were “caught in the crossfire, panicked refugees surged toward the British, who struggled to defend themselves and control the crowd at the same time” (Magnier). The truth in the moment is that these British soldiers served to protect Iraqi civilians even as they struggled to protect themselves.

Altered Image

Photo 1

Photo 2