Guardian

UK Media Watch prompts Guardian to replace inappropriate photo of Samir Kuntar


Earlier today, we posted about a wildly inappropriate photo chosen by Guardian editors to illustrate a story about an airstrike which killed Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese-Druze terrorist who brutally murdered several Israelis, including a 4-year-old girl, in Nahariya in 1979.

We sent the following tweet to the Guardian’s picture editor:

tweet

After a couple of hours, and more than 50 retweets, the editor, Fiona Shields, tweeted back the following:

Here’s the new photo:

new photo of Samir

They also added the following addendum at the bottom of the article:

addendum

Many thanks to those of you who retweeted our concerns.

13 replies »

  1. Well done, Adam. But it still begs the question – who at the Guardian chose that first picture, and why?

    Any reputable organization would fire the person involved.

  2. The Ziocon occupation entity (ZOE) had no right to execute Mr Kumar without a trial. That picture showed him with kids because first at foremost he was a family man.

    The fact that Mr Kumar “participated” in “an attack that killed” a few children (much like some people were killed in attacks Jack the Ripper “participated” in) doesn’t mean he didn’t love and care for children himself. That he was loved and admired as a hero in Lebanon and that their Prime minister hugged him and showered him with kisses is just further proof that Mr Kumar was just an OK guy, a militant who did some acts of militancy like the bashing a child’s head. Shit happens. Militancy happens.

    But we must never rush to judgment and we must respect that each culture is different and beautiful and unique like a delicate little snowflake. Except the Ziocon occupation entity (ZOE) who are just mean bastards.

    • Your late unlamented by civilized people, of sami kuntar, pictured above bookended by two young boys, foreshadowed his 72 virgins future.

    • . The late Primo Levi wrote, “that to confuse murderers with their victims is a moral disease, or an aesthetic affectation or a sinister sign of complicity; above all it is a precious service rendered (intentionally or not), to the negators of truth.”