Mickey Mouse caused quite a stir, particularly in his starring role from a 2006 photograph of the effects of the second Lebanon War.
The New York Times revisits this image that previously obtained significant criticism for a perceived one-sided view of the conflict. Without giving any context on the origins of the doll, the photograph provided the impression of “inhumane” Israeli military actions against Hezbollah that resulted in civilian casualties. The two-part NYT interview with the photographer discusses the caption and whether photographers have a duty to provide all the facts surrounding an image.
Often, photographs provide a very partial view of a given situation, such as was the case with the Mickey Mouse photograph. The one sidedness of these visuals is on some level the nature of the beast.
Moreover, it’s particularly apt regarding Israel. Israel embraces openness and democracy. The value system embodies democratic ideals, such as freedom of the press. Only on rare occasions that could compromise Israeli security, Israeli courts impose gag orders on the local media (such as preventing stories on the Israeli nuclear program, the pending Shalit deal, and the strike on a Syrian nuclear facility).
Conversely, Israel’s enemies do not embody these same values and employ the same openness. Hamas does not promote freedom of the press and the Palestinian Authority regularly, in the past, imposed restrictions on the press and threatened publications with articles critical of former President Yasser Arafat.
The discrepancy in transparency leads to the dual images available regarding Israeli military actions. The press significantly easier access to images critical of Israel while reporters must often use clandestine means to obtain information and images in oppressive societies.
Photo from the New York Times.