Where Did Reunion Photo Come From?

Call them the shots seen ‘round the world. They were the before-and-after photos that ran in thousands of newspapers last Sunday.

In one was a frightened and tearful Elian Gonzalez confronted by a gun-toting federal agent in riot gear. In the other was a smiling Elian reunited in a loving pose with his father, Juan Miguel.

Having the two compelling images was an editor’s dream: Here were both sides of a controversial story--the apparent heavy-handed tactics by the government, and a seemingly happy ending with ecstatic father and son. Like many newspapers, The Times used both photos side by side at the top of Page 1. Editors believed that using both images would serve the interests of fairness and accuracy by showing the two sides of the story.

But fairness was in the eye of the beholder. Many readers didn’t trust the reunion photo because Elian’s Miami relatives proclaimed it a fraud, and because of its source--it was widely reported that the photo came from Elian’s father through his attorney, Gregory B. Craig.

The Times credited only “Associated Press” for the family photo, which some readers saw as misleading and a sign of bias. Said one reader, reflecting the view of several: “For the newspaper of record to attribute that photo to AP is gross and misleading. It leaves the impression that the photo was freely taken by a member of the press, which definitely and very significantly was not the case.”

The photo reportedly was taken by one of two federal agents who accompanied Elian from Miami and who were invited into the family’s quarters at Andrews Air Force Base. Gonzalez reportedly snapped a shot of his two sons, then handed the disposable camera he had purchased at a drugstore to one of the agents to take a family shot. An associate of attorney Craig then had the film developed at a camera shop and gave the two photos to the AP’s Washington bureau.

Fred Sweets, assistant AP bureau chief for photos, said, “I examined the negatives. They were authentic.” The AP transmitted the photos with the credit line “AP Photo/Photo courtesy of Juan Miguel Gonzalez,” with the words “family handout.”

The Times used none of that language, and our reader critics are right to say we blew it. The photo’s origin was part of the story and should have been included in the caption or credit line. Other locally circulated newspapers did a better job crediting the photo. The New York Times used the photo in full frame, which included Gonzalez’s wife and infant son, and ran the credit, “courtesy of Juan Miguel Gonzalez via Associated Press.” The Orange County Register used “courtesy of Juan Miguel Gonzalez/AP.” The Daily News said “family photo,” and the Long Beach Press-Telegram used “photo courtesy of Juan Miguel Gonzalez.”

Newspapers have a great deal of leeway in crediting AP photos. The AP is a not-for-profit cooperative owned by its 7,500 U.S. newspaper and broadcast members, with 8,000 international subscribers. The AP gets its photos from staff and freelance photographers and its member newspapers and includes all credit information when it transmits photos. Individual newspapers decide how to credit AP photos.

AP freelance photographer Alan Diaz, who shot the dramatic photo of the armed federal agent, was almost universally credited by name along with AP. It is The Times’ style to not include the photographer’s name with agency photos, “except in extraordinary circumstances or if the photo is extraordinary,” said Times deputy director of photography Steve Stroud. Clearly both applied in the Diaz case, especially since he became part of the story. Thus, The Times credited that photo to “Alan Diaz/Associated Press.”

Times editors on duty April 22 recall discussing the two credit lines between editions, wondering if the reunion photo should have had a photographer credit, but there was no photographer named since it was a handout. Stroud, who was not on duty at the time, agreed that that for the sake of credibility, The Times should have had full disclosure and named Gonzalez as the source of the photo.

In addition, the roiling debate that ensued over that photo’s veracity should have prompted a full Times story reporting the origin of the reunion photo along with AP’s judgment as to its authenticity. The photo was authentic, but by not reporting the facts surrounding its origins and use, The Times left dubious readers to dwell on wild theories and unfounded claims that the photo couldn’t be legitimate.

This is one photo that truly was worth 1,000 words, and The Times should have had someone write them. Before now.