I saw the term “Photoganda” for the first time yesterday and when I heard what it was referring to, I felt compelled to write about it here on my blog. “Photoganda” is related to an apparent upswing of support Donald Trump has gained after Saturday’s failed assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. It specifically identifies the powerful images from the event by photographers Evan Vucci and Doug Mills as the reason for the upswing. From what I can find Axios used the term “Photoganda” three days ago when they wrote an article about the photographers who documented the incident (It is a short but good read). Axios reported that unidentified photo editor(s) were calling for media outlets to stop sharing the images of a defiant and wounded Trump because they felt the images are giving Trump an unfair advantage in the Presidential campaign right now. From there other new outlets starting using the term. The term is very attention getting but problematic in concept. If there are certain individuals trying to devalue the importance of the photographs from the assassination attempt for the benefit of their own political interests, and they actually coined the term “Photoganda” then I have a serious problem with them. It is a dangerous term especially as we are entering an era of more AI imagery where people may already be starting to question the authenticity of documentary images.
When I heard of the assassination attempt, I immediately turned on the TV and most channels were showing the same 3 minutes of tape just before the shooting until Trump was driven off. Being a photographer with several decades of law enforcement experience I focused on lots of different details in the video. First the security tactics and response but then I noticed the two photographers who moved forward immediately after the volley of shots to document the incident. Early on I thought about authoring a post about the photographers based on their movement during the event and when I saw the images they captured I wanted to showcase them as photographers because it was obvious that these images would become iconic and most likely Pulitzer worthy. Those photographers received immediate media recognition so the need for post became less of an issue. Then the “Photoganda” dialogue yesterday motivated me to pick up the pace to author this post.
I’ll address the newly created term “Photoganda” first. It obviously refers to Propaganda which is defined as: Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Everyone agrees that Evan Vucci’s photograph of Trump with blood running down his cheek, raising his fist, with the flag in the background is factually correct; There are no claims of AI elements or manipulation. Most people also realize the image is a huge gift to the Trump campaign. The image instantly became iconic and no matter what your political beliefs are I think everyone can agree that Vucci and the other photographer were in the right place, at the right time to document something historical, but none of the photographers in Pennsylvania crafted images with the intent of creating propaganda. Even if they wanted to, they didn’t have time; they couldn’t prepare their shot (excuse the term) because none of them knew what they were about to witness, and they had limitations on their positions where they could photograph from, plus they all captured the same events just from different vantage points. If you look back to World War II there are plenty of great examples of Propaganda, the evil Nazi Joseph Goebbels was a master propagandist who comprehended the power of images, especially newsreels, to manipulate public opinion. US General Douglas MacArthur was aware of the power images had too, producing news reels of him returning to the Philippines and preferring photographers to photograph him from a low vantage point to visually increase his stature. We can also examine Joe Rosenthal’s photograph of the flag raising on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima, which at different points in history has been accused of being carefully crafted, or possibly staged. Rosenthal earned a Pulitzer for the image which has become an unofficial second logo of the United States Marine Corps and is recognized worldwide still to this day. I heard TV commentator Jesse Watters have a humorous take on the “Photoganda” issue when he said “They take the photographs, we disseminate them, the public consumes it. If you don’t want to be part of the process, make pottery and sell it by the side of the road”. The images we are seeing in the media of the attempted assassination of Trump are just outstanding press or photojournalistic photographs. Sure, they could eventually be used in a propaganda form, most likely an unlicensed item, but as they are being shared now, they are not propaganda.
Donal Trump after failed assassination attempt. Photograph by Evan Vucci - AP Chief Photographer in Washington DC
Evan Vucci is AP’s Chief Photographer in Washington DC, and he captured the above image of a bloodied Trump the flag in the background (In the video of the incident I believe Evan is wearing a plaid shirt and a baseball hat). I assume he will win another Pulitzer for this image. New York Times Photographer Doug Mills, who was wearing a grey sun hat in the videos is another Pulitzer Prize winning photographer that captured some incredible images including the one below. Both these two photographers were moving about immediately after the shooting positioning themselves to get their images. Doug was directly below Trump photographing when the Bullet struck Trump’s ear. Doug told CBS News he made a burst exposure with his Sony camera and that one of the frames captured the bullet. He mentioned his camera was capable of 30 frames per second, so I assume the camera body was an Alpha 1, unfortunately he didn’t state what his shutter speed was for the exposure. I would expect his shutter speed was over 1/800th of a second so if the bullet was travelling around 2000 feet per second at that point the length of the line in his image would be consistent with how far the bullet traveled while the exposure was being made. It is an incredible capture one that Harold Edgerton would be jealous of. Doug said an FBI Forensic Specialist inspected the RAW image file and confirmed it documented the bullet in flight immediately after it had struck Trump. In watching the CBS interview of Doug Mills he spoke about former New York Times Photographer Ron Edmonds who photographed the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. Doug said they worked together for 15 years and that he had talked with Ron several times about photographing the Reagan event. Ron told Doug in situations like that “to go forward don’t go backwards” to get the best images. Ron was also a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer and he unfortunately passed away last month.
Donald Trump as gunshots are fired at his campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. This photo appears to show a bullet in the air near Trump. DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES
As I talked about above the motivation for this post was the creation of the term “Photoganda” and the suggestion that some people with political agendas were trying to censor outstanding press images solely because those photographs were not beneficial to their political goals. Censorship is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and it angers me when anyone tries preventing someone else from expressing themselves, in this case especially since these photographers were just sharing factually correct images of an historic event. Another thing I want to mention is I hope Evan and Doug are somehow able to receive some compensation from all the people who I know are all marketing their images in a variety of products. Copyright is also an important thing, unfortunately with so many people using Evan’s image already it will be a big task to track down every one of them. I know both photographers were on a paid assignment but hopefully they can monetize their images beyond their salary that day because I am sure their images are generating thousands of dollars for others. I also want to share Evan’s quote after capturing such an iconic image: “I haven't had a chance to really think about any of that stuff. But apparently, the photo is pretty viral.”
Anna Moneymaker’s photograph Donald Trump after he was shot.
There were other photographers at the rally as well. Anna Moneymaker from Getty captured the incredible photograph of Trump on the ground after being shot through the legs of a Secret Service Agent who is shielding him. In an incident with an adrenaline spike like this, I suspect many photographers would have missed that image; their cameras probably would have focused on the agent’s rear end not Trump. She captured a hard image, in a dangerous environment. Gene J. Puskar who is a Pittsburgh based AP photographer also captured some solid images. Unfortunately for all the photographers who captured great images out that day, the world is most likely only remember the big three images by Vucci, Mills, and Moneymaker images.
We live in a world of reels and video content now, and a biproduct of that I think is often a short attention span for content. We have so much video and still image content from this event, but I love the fact people are focused on the still image. The still image allows the viewer to exam and reflect at our own pace and we need to be reminded of that fact. The capability of today’s cameras to capture detail is incredible. We have never been able to dissect an historic event like this with so many highly detailed images of the event. When I saw the photographs of Trump after he was shot there was no question to the location and extent of his injury, I am still in awe of the detail in the images.
I mentioned above how Ron Edmonds had told Doug Mills to go forward in critical incidents and it reminded me of some of the best advice I ever received studying at Arizona State University. When one of my professors, Bill Jenkins, saw the first few rolls of my Pasadena PD series he gave me similar advice when he suggested I change from a 50mm lens to a wide-angle lens to force myself to get closer to my subject matter. The suggestion was outstanding, and I have used it with most of photographs since. There is an edge you get being in close that takes most photographs to another level. Tactically, from a law enforcement perspective, I was taught early on that often the best way to handle a threat if you are out in the open is to go right at it instead of retreating. I worked with a number of Vietnam veterans in my career including a Green Beret and a Seal, both had incredible insight on how to survive. Obviously a completely different objective but an interesting parallel.
Finally, from a law enforcement perspective I saw some good things that officers and agents did and some bad things. From the protection perspective it was inexcusable to allow the suspect to have gained access to the roof location, and then for the counter sniper team to allow the suspect to fire, especially multiple rounds. After being shot Donald Trump should not have stopped to raise his fist in defiance because it exposed himself it there were multiple threats beside the first sniper. Maybe Trump had gone in to shock by that point, if so it was a strong reaction on his part, but the security detail should have covered him and whisked him to the car. Luckily for Evan that didn’t happen, and he captured the image he did. I will leave it there because there are so many other people scrutinizing what happened there and my primary focus here is on photographs. I am concerned that more press photographers will be able to document similarly chaotic events in the coming months, I hope they won’t have those opportunities, because I know we all need a break from the tension of the last eight years.
Related Articles
Evan Vucci's Trump Image Is a Legendary American Photograph - The Atlantic
In pictures: Trump injured in shooting at Pennsylvania rally | CNN Politics