One of the most iconic images of the 20th century depicts a young girl, screaming and running naked from a napalm attack during the Vietnam War. Decades later, a new documentary titled “The Stringer” is raising questions about the identity of the photographer who captured this moment. Nick Ut, the retired Associated Press (AP) photographer long credited with the photo, asserts that it is his work. Meanwhile, the AP claims it has found no evidence suggesting that anyone other than Ut took the picture, although the controversy continues to escalate.
“The Stringer,” set to premiere at the Sundance Film Festival next week, has faced significant pushback from both Ut and his employer. Ut’s attorney is attempting to block the film’s release, alleging defamation. After a detailed six-month investigation, the AP concluded that it has no reason to doubt Ut’s authorship of the famous photo, taken on June 8, 1972, in Trang Bang, Vietnam. The image shows Kim Phuc fleeing from the scene, having stripped off her burning clothes, and has come to symbolize the atrocities of the war.
At the time the photo was taken, Ut was just 21 years old and working as a staff photographer in the AP’s Saigon bureau. He received the Pulitzer Prize for the image a year later and has been recognized for his work ever since. Now at 73, Ut relocated to California following the war and continued to contribute to the AP until his retirement in 2017. The film presents a fresh angle on an image that has been widely recognized and replicated across the globe, igniting debate over its historical significance and the identity of its creator.
The film’s creators, Gary Knight and Fiona Turner, describe the situation as “a scandal behind the making of one of the most-recognized photographs of the 20th century.” Knight states that “The Stringer” delves into themes of authorship, racial injustice, and journalistic ethics, shining a light on the often-overlooked contributions of local freelancers in reporting global events. Though Knight was approached for a comment, he did not respond, and representatives from Sundance have also remained silent regarding legal threats from Ut’s attorney, who has indicated potential further action.
Previous discussions between the filmmakers and the AP included an encounter in London, where the filmmakers requested that the news organization sign a non-disclosure agreement before sharing their findings, a request that the AP declined. This refusal has complicated the AP’s own investigation, especially given the passage of time. The chief of photos for AP in 1972 and the individual responsible for processing Ut’s film have both since passed away, and much of the documentation from the Saigon bureau was lost after the fall of the city.
In light of these challenges, the AP has announced its findings ahead of the documentary’s release, expressing readiness to reassess its conclusions if presented with compelling evidence. The organization has spoken to seven witnesses who were present during the incident, all of whom maintain confidence in Ut’s authorship of the image.
Among these individuals is notable New York Times reporter Fox Butterfield, who recounted being contacted by the film’s team but expressed dissatisfaction that his recollections were disregarded. Another witness, photographer David Burnett, confirmed observing Ut photograph Phuc and other children as they escaped the smoke after the attack.
An intriguing aspect of the film lies in its reliance on Carl Robinson, a former photo editor at the AP who initially questioned using Ut’s photo due to standards related to nudity. Despite his hesitations, senior editors ultimately decided to publish the image for its poignant representation of war’s grim realities. Robinson later signed an NDA with Knight and his team, which has limited the AP’s ability to assert its position clearly.
Moreover, there are unresolved questions regarding Robinson’s long-held objections against Ut’s credit. During a 2005 interview, he expressed regret for how widely the photo was disseminated, claiming it disproportionately focused attention on one individual while neglecting broader war casualties. Similarly, former AP correspondent Peter Arnett reported that Robinson insinuated Ut “went all Hollywood,” later expressing reluctance to air his claims while they were still under Faas’s purview.
Hornstein, Ut’s lawyer, suggested that Robinson has a longstanding resentment toward the AP, raising doubts about the motivations behind his assertions. Addressing Kim Phuc’s perspective as well, she has stated that although she doesn’t recall the events of that day, her uncle has often told her that Ut captured the image, indicating her belief in its legitimacy. Ut himself also aided her by providing crucial medical assistance shortly after the photo was taken.
Overall, the documentary “The Stringer” poses questions that have stirred up considerable debate about authorship and ethical practices in photojournalism while intertwining the remarkable history of an unforgettable moment from the Vietnam War.
