In My Opinion -Prosecuting Nick Ut
Documentary, “The Stringer” and in defense of Nick Ut
Updates:
I reposted some of the discussions here from my Facebook for the photojournalism community.
GoFundME for Nick UT:
“Support Nick Ut’s Fund to Fight His Defamation” https://www.gofundme.com/f/justice-for-nick-ut-help-fund-legal-battle?fbclid=IwY2xjawIn4ghleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfCYrBt_utqtikivZIKe_KVe1s409wlWOBjMNc6kl6woxWSxuogUJkgVgA_aem_WJITO9G1MlwzgiDhbCfmrg
*Nick Ut’s Lawyer is not making a dime but they need to do other hires, experts, expenses, and court fees.
February 19, 2025:
My Opinion: The quagmire is that everyone says to wait for the film, easy to say, but this is no longer in the journalism realm of publishing it -debate- move on to the next story. It’s Hollywood’s lucrative distribution deals. No longer in the editorial realm but COMMERCIAL! So in an attempt to pump their product, to ADVERTISE, the filmmakers are saying a lot of things seen as character assassination — their narrative- on a global stage. And Nick does not have the same megaphone!
Last I heard, Nick’s lawyer said they don’t have access to the evidence(film). In a court of law, you get to see the evidence that’s against you. Not here. But the filmmakers are trying him very publicly for their “profit”
I can’t help to think, did the filmmakers think this would be an easy road to Hollywood distribution and underestimated the grassroots support of a lone elderly little guy (especially in the US )?
February 16, 2025, The plot thickens…
It looks like a former AP writer Mort Rosenblum has been peddling “Robinson’s narrative” too. The Screengrab below is from Carl Robinsons blog.
Contrary to Rosenblum’s statement last week, that he was “reluctant to weigh in” yet he endorsed Gary Knight’s film. And Knight posted on his Facebook, I’m told, as if to say it was an independent and credible opinion.
Hmm…It appears Rosenblum was NOT so reluctant but an active peddler of Robinson’s narrative for many years and has been “musing”with Robinson. It’s known Knight-Lyon-Rosenblum are very tight!
Comment:
“I note Mort says he remembers a courier dropping off the ‘stringer’ film which contradicts Nghe’s own account that he personally delivered it. More confusion.” Mark Dodd.
Feb 13, 2025, Nick Ut’s attorney James Hornstein responds to Santiago Lyon:
James Hornstein — In response to Santiago’s recent post, as Nick Ut’s counsel, the following issues should be considered by those who read his post.
Santiago Lyon is a member of Gary Knight’s VII Foundation Board of Advisors, the entity that produced the film. It is a blatant conflict of interest to advocate for the position of the filmmakers without disclosing that bias.
As far as we know there are no eyewitnesses in the film who were on the road at Trang Bang that day who saw the “stringer” take any pictures much less the famous shot? By contrast, Nick Ut’s entitlement to the credit is supported by credible independent eyewitnesses on that road that day — David Burnett and Fox Butterfield as well as the statements made to Kim Phuc by her uncle who was on the road that day.
The same is true regarding the events in the AP photo office that day. The only eyewitnesses to the events in the office that day that we know of fully support Nick Ut’s credit for the photo. Apart from Robinson, we have not located a single witness to the events in the office that day that corroborate Robinson’s claim or corroborate the existence of any “stringer’ who dropped off film that day.
Santiago Lyon must have been aware from his conversations with one or more eyewitnesses who refused to be part of the film that their published statements contradicted the major premise of the film. The published information from David Burnett who witnessed the events on that day in the road in Trang Bang and afterwards, in the AP office published in the Washington Post and elsewhere stating that nobody other than Nick Ut could have taken the photo are left out of the film demonstrating it’s one sided predetermined “investigative” conclusion.
Filmmaker Fioana Turner heard directly from Fox Butterfield that he clearly saw Nick take the picture in Trang Bang and he was in the AP office later that day to witnessed Faas congratulate Nick after Faas came out of the darkroom with Nick’s image. Again — not revealed in the film.
As to Index supposed analysis after 52 years with an incomplete set of data on the alleged tv footage of someone running toward Kim Phuc, the analysis is based on incomplete data that proves nothing.
As far as we know, the Index analysts did not have the statement from David Burnett that he saw Nick Ut and Alex Shimkin sprint out ahead of all others from behind the concertina wire when the napalm dropped, to be first among all the assembled media to be in front of all others as the fleeing victims approached. Clearly this is a key fact that impacts any valid analysis of the events of that day.
Nor did the filmmakers or the Index analysts take into consideration or reveal Kim Phuc’s statement regarding her uncle and her parents’ eyewitness accounts that fully corroborate Nick Ut’s often published accounts of that day?
Missing from the “investigation” is any proof that the alleged “stringer” ever published a single picture before or after the famous photo he now claims 52 years after it was published. Not a single picture other than the famed photo he tries to take from Nick Ut is offered to show his skill.
Gary Knight clearly set out to “prove” Carl Robinson’s false claim. It’s a one-sided, unfair and biased “investigation.” It is not up to the standards of ethical journalism where accuracy and objectivity are the cornerstone, demanding integrity and putting aside the preconceived version espoused by only one witness.
Although we have been briefed on the film’s content by several people who have seen it, we would value the opportunity to look at it ourselves. It’s not available to the public. Nick’s legal team has formally made a request to Gary Knight to see the film but has not received a reply.
The film is an unfair attack against Nick Ut and yet, it seeks to shield and justify itself by asserting a narrative of colonialism and the exploitation of the Vietnamese people including the economic exploitation of Vietnamese stringers by their white bosses in power during the Vietnam War. The premise is insulting and unfounded, especially when Horst Faas is not here to defend himself. It is important to remember that Nick Ut is the only Vietnamese to ever win a Pulitzer for his honest and powerful work during the Vietnam War. This slander will not stand.
Comment:
“People increasingly value documentaries without questioning that, today, drama often takes precedence over the story itself. Controversy is pursued for its own sake. Santiago Lyon exemplifies this tendency, never missing an opportunity for a cheap shot. During the #MeToo movement, he criticized the entire photojournalism industry for not employing more women — despite having been in a position to hire them himself and largely failing to do so. Now, he is slandering Nick, disregarding his years of leadership at AP” Andre Liohn
February 12, 2025 :
Bravo Mr Noblet! Well said! I don’t know Mr Noblet but I am told he is a former AP bureau chief in Chile and a Nieman Fellow, perfectly calls out the hypocrisy of Lyon/ Knight/ VII Foundation. Someone sent me this.
Comments:
“Ironically reading Lyon’s post defending the film and why he believes it’s unlikely that Ut took the photo, he never mentions the firsthand account of David Burnett as eyewitness to the event itself. While Burnett did interview for the film and reinforce his stance Nick took the photo. Lyon seems to ignore it and rather utilize ‘reconstructed footage and photos’ which at this point is merely a guess of the situation as the supposed proof Ut didn’t take it.” Matt Gade.
“Kevin (Noblet) is a superb journalist, and someone who gets it done! Just like Horst Faas, who the film apparently alleges deliberately mis-credits Nick’s photos. Anyone who worked with Horst would know he would not do that.” David Tenenbaum former AP staff photographers
February 12, 2025:
My opinion: So Santi Lyon, former AP photo director, now with corporate job at Adobe, posted a message today on FB. Someone sent it to me.
As the details of their narrative comes out and it is questioned, forensic analysis is what they are now emphasize.
In one sentence of the post it refers to their forensic analysis. Note the words used “SUGGESTED” and “PROBABLY” are not descriptions of confidence in a 100% ironclad conclusion!
Excerpt from post: “Instead, they suggested, the true author was probably another photographer present in that first line of journalists, adding “The person you’re calling the stringer is indeed right where the photographer should be to have been able to take the ‘napalm girl’ photograph.”
The issue isn’t if any of us have seen the film, we haven’t and presently can’t. But common sense indicates, a forensic analysis with a partial roll of film or clips of videos 50 years later, where you don’t have the TIME STAMP to accurately reconstruct a timeline to movements in still images, as you would with digital metadata. Additionally, BECAUSE we photographers are always on the move and in fluid situations, we run as we take photos. So I question how accurate their counter-story is. They SUGGEST their findings have PROBABILITY I suggest it reflects UNCERTAINTY.
The filmmaker cohort are gloating using words like “proud”, “morals”, “racial justice” describe this film (explain how this is racial justice when you are defaming an Asian photographer?) Note: in their self congratulatory tour they have yet to address accounts of the on-the-ground eyewitnesses — — journalists of impeccable reputation — Burnett, Butterfield, Lord. Their recitation of the facts hasn’t shifted in more than 50 years and differs from the film narrative.
Comment:
“It’s funny that Robinson criticizes Nick Ut for “going Hollywood” and the star of the documentary is some forensic analysis that’s more at home in a TV show like, say, Bones than in real-world photojournalism. To me, it’s a terrible thing that colleagues are putting more faith in some sort of fancy technology than in the words of photojournalists that were in place and witnessed the whole situation. In this era of fake news, the honesty of those who report is the ultimate barrier, if we put that in doubt then nothing is true anymore. Pretty dangerous business this whole stringer thing.” Patricio Murphy
February 12, 2025, Nick Ut‘s Response:
“A humble message of gratitude to all my friends worldwide who have always put their faith in me, cared for me, loved me and backed me up and my work through this recent difficult time.
As a photojournalist, I learned from the best in the business during a very difficult time in my home country, the country I still love, Vietnam.
My older brother was a photojournalist and he was a very dedicated and hard working employee at the AP. He was my very first influence. When he was tragically killed while covering the Vietnam War…..
No one else ever came forward claiming that my image was not mine, no one ever confronted me about my photo and this is also the first time I heard the story that it was a stringer’s film. All film was labeled and marked with each person’s name at the office before developing and matched by the label to the envelopes with the photographers names. Our system at the AP Saigon was fail-proof when it came to which negatives belonged to who.
I took the photo of Kim Phuc, I took the other photos from that day that show her family and the devastation the war caused. No one else has the right to claim that I did not take that specific or any other photo attributed to me because I am the creator of all the work I’ve done since day one. My career spans more than 50 years and, although I am now retired from the AP, I continue to create impacting images for the world to see. “
Rest of Nick’s Statement: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DGxgfhTBY/
February 14, 2025, Insight into VII Foundation’s Secrecy:
Insight into how Gary Knight and VII Foundation operated in secrecy and Gary Knight less less-than-truthful answer when asked about it.
Image one: Gary Knight does a workshop with Nick Ut and Jim Nachtwey in Vietnam in March 2023. Robinson also makes a trip to Vietnam at the same time with the VII Foundation filmmakers. They are all there in Vietnam.
(Workshop photo by Nguyen Gia Phong. Posted with permission)
Panel Two: Robinsons in his rambling blog posted a few days ago, says he did a three-hour interview in secrecy with Knight in April in Vietnam, Robinson is told to avoid downtown and not to run into Nick. Wow!
Panel Three: A month ago, as this controversy broke, Patrick Witty questioned on Threads if Knight talked to Nick about the allegation at the time of the workshop in Vietnam 2023.
Knight contradicts Robinsons in reply “ I hadn’t met Carl and assessed and examined his accusations when I last saw Nick. That came a week or so later, and I then tried to contact Nick to no avail.”
As others have pointed out, a picture that’s emerging, this was never a journalistic investigation but a laying of traps to meet their conclusion (NDA was one of their tools). Knight and Lyon are big on marketing themselves and judging others on “morals” so how do you morally do a workshop with a person you are already working to defame? Robinson also brags he had a “strategy session” with the filmmakers. WOW!
Comments:
“The truth is that Gary M Knight & Co. flew under the radar on their stealth mission to blow up Nick Ut’s and Horst Faas’s reputation in the name of “truth.” The real truth is that Nick & his friends aren’t playing ball but are mounting a Spring offensive. Stay tuned.” Dave Kennerly
“Faas was always supportive and direct, unsparingly honest. So were the editors in London and NYC, including Vin Alabiso, the overall photo boss. No one cared that a stringer had taken the photos instead of a staffer — AP was massive and winning a Pulitzer for images the AP moved on the wire (as that set of images would go on to do) was all that mattered. This was not a guy to lie about who took a photo, or deny a freelancer their credit.” Greg Marinovich
Discussions: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CDhfTB9uH/
February 11, 2025, AP did not always credit photos in the 1970s on transmissions:
“We used to say “AP” stood for “Anonymous Photographer” for precisely the reason you state Yunghi! Name credits did not come into use until something like the mid to late 70’s as I recall. And anyone who worked with Horst Faas would know he saw no gray areas: things were right or they were wrong, and he did not do wrong. The idea that he would mis-credit a photo is absurd.” David Tenenbaum, Former AP Staff Photographer.
Other Links:
February 10, 2025, Loeildelaphotographie:
“His claim that his close friend, Richard Pyle, the former AP Saigon Bureau Chief and present there on June 8, 1972, who edited his memoir for him, knew of his claim and had the same knowledge of Horst Faas’s switch in the credit for the picture is absolute bunk. I have email from Richard Pyle to Peter Arnett in 2015, two years before Mr. Pyle’s passing, when Robinson raised this issue to several “old hacks” that Pyle, notwithstanding his admittedly very close friendship with Robinson, characterized the claim as a “strangely reckless story spreading” and that he had told Robinson that the claims had “no plausible merit” . Mr. Pyle further wrote to Peter Arnett that Robinson” for his own mysterious reasons, seems bent on his personal crusade” Nick UT’s lawyer James Hornstein
January 26, 2025, Vanity Fair:
“Photojournalist David Burnett, then 25, was also at the site when Kim Phuc came into view. He declined to participate in the film. His version of events, as related in AP’s investigation, is incompatible with the idea of another photographer having taken the key frame: “Burnett saw Ut…sprint ahead of the others and start taking photos as Kim Phuc and other children emerged from the smoke…. ‘There’s nothing that ever has given me pause to think that Nick didn’t shoot that picture,’ [Burnett] said.” What’s more, Burnett, like Ut, had his film processed in the bureau darkroom that day.”
January 15, 2025:
“At the London meeting, Knight provided an overview of the documentary’s allegations. However, he declined to provide the AP full and detailed evidence of the claims to be made unless the AP agreed to a non-disclosure agreement, which would restrict its ability to discuss the claims. AP declined to enter an NDA about its own image, reasoning that if the image needed to be defended or corrected, the AP should retain the freedom to act on such information. AP would also need the ability to research the claims in an unfettered manner.’”
AP Report: Investigating claims around ‘The Terror of War’ photograph
January 19, 2025:
In My Opinion -Prosecuting Nick Ut
Documentary, “The Stringer” and in defense of Nick Ut
A documentary meant to disprove Nick Ut’s authorship of his iconic Pulitzer-Prize winning image of badly burned Kim Phuc fleeing a napalm attack, appears to be an attempted slander of a beloved trailblazing Asian photographer by a group of white producers (instigators).
This 21st century witch hunt is about one group of white males, accusing a dead generation of white males of a “colonial system” when, in my eyes, they are the benefactors and epitome of the same white privilege.
Hypocrisy is rich!
Now, more than 50 years later, pointing fingers in the name of “truth, justice and morals” they’ve targeted an innocent Asian photographer — 21-years old at the time of the Vietnam War — the sweetest man and beloved, is caught in the middle, in a maligning, slanderous campaign.
I could cry!
This makes my blood boil!
This documentary film effort, about to screen at Sundance, is being led by a group of photographers from the photo agency VII , founded by white (almost all male) member photographers and has been a white organization for much of it’s history. VII Foundation is run
by two founding (white) members, one controversial former-World Press Photo staffer and another, listed as a filmmaker who happens to be the wife of a VII founder, all white.
The project has been shrouded in secrecy and enforces NDA’s for participants or interview subjects. Since when is the pursuit of truth and justice in journalism enforced by NDA’s? (NDA’s were signed “to” Gary Knight and VII Foundation and not to the “frontman” filmmaker).
Nick’s long-time employer, The AP, has not been able to see the doc. It begs the question, are these inactive photojournalists searching for relevancy, looking to cash in with the movie rights from their venture?
The dwindling cadre of journalists present on that road that day at Trang Bang (and later at the AP) and still alive from the Vietnam War vouch for Nick as the author of the photograph called “Napalm Girl,” and include the esteemed NYT bureau chief during the war, Fox Butterfield and
the incomparable photojournalist David Burnett. Neither agreed to be part of this film prosecution. READ the AP’s thorough investigation of filmmakers allegations. See links at end of this piece.
The leading edge of this campaign is the testimony from former AP photo editor at the time of the war Carl Robinson. A quote from the report: “He (Carl Robinson alleges) was disturbed by Nick Ut’s growing reputation as a photographer “He’s gone all Hollywood, I don’t like that.”
I believe, a slander campaign of an Asian photographer, one of the first to receive a Pulitzer Prize! Nick’s attorney, Jim Hornstein appropriately hints at “future litigation” in communications with Sundance in an attempt to put them on notice regarding showing the doc. An observation yesterday by a colleague hits home “White men and women can’t see brown skin people proud, successful and confident.” The 2021 Asian hate movement, brought to the forefront what a white society has defined for Asians as an equal playing field: Asians are expected to be the “model minority” expected to assimilate.
By all appearances it seems that VII is reeling, so to speak, knocked off their perch as an active photo group, among other things, in recent years rocked by accusations of sexual harassment (2018) by one of its founding members who later had to leave the group. One female photojournalist has alleged she had to endure her buttock grabbed when she was trying to
become a member. With this doc is VII hoping to gain relevance by throwing a respected colleague under the bus?
What I see is VII pretending to champion women and the under-represented in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE (loaded marketing words they have used in the past) but they appear not to practice those
principles, now using the same “colonial system” they all benefited from in trying to sew discord, divide the community and ruin a beloved colleague’s reputation.
Every one of the men who are part of this doc (including a lackluster former AP Photo administrator who I don’t recall being a champion of diversity nor gender? ) were part of the system they benefited from, now cloaked in a holier-than-thou mantle! Yes, they benefited from the white (privilege) culture which Nick Ut came up the ranks in and now
deserves a retirement after 45 years of working his ass off at Associated Press.
Those working with VII, should question their ethics, hypocrisy and self-reflect!
Excerpt from the AP report about Nick:
“Aged 21 when the photo was taken in 1972, “Nick” Huynh Cong Ut had already been working for the AP for six years, first as a darkroom assistant and eventually as a field photographer. Ut was born in the province of Long An in the Mekong Delta. Two of his brothers were killed in the war, which made him exempt from the draft. AP hired him as a young teenager12 to help support his family after another brother, Huynh Thanh My, died in combat on assignment for AP in 1965. Ut was known then to colleagues in Vietnam as energetic and scrappy, and according to Faas, he had developed a keen instinct for news photography working in the busy Saigon darkroom.
Ut would remain with AP for 45 more years until retiring in 2017. He left Saigon in 1975 during the Communist takeover of South Vietnam and eventually settled in Los Angeles. He covered the O.J. Simpson trial, photographed Hollywood icons like Marlon Brando and shot sports events. He remained best known for the “Napalm Girl” image. He has spoken about his work extensively and been regularly featured in articles and documentaries. At no point over the last half-century has his credit for the famous image been seriously challenged.”
Add: VII Foundation Tax filing.
Gary Knight getting handsomely compensated $219,000 in 2023. That is 17% of gross taken in.
Yunghi Kim has been a photojournalist for 40 years. She gives back to photojournalism every year with The Yunghi Grant.
Other Stories on Medium:
- She Traveled the World, Faced Every Danger and Hardship. Now, She is Home and at Peace. A story of Yola Monahkov.
- I walked into Iraq In 2003, at the start of the war on Iraq, I left Turkey and walked for four nights through monsoon-like rains into Iraq.
- Stories highlighting womens role in photojournalism: 10 World Press Photo Awards, 10 Backstories Ten female photojournalists share the stories behind their iconic award-winning images.
- One Piece Of Advice. Ten female photojournalists share the stories behind their iconic award-winning images.
