約瑟夫·羅傑·奧唐納（Joseph Roger O'Donnell，1922年5月7日－2007年8月9日）是美國紀錄片導演、攝影記者和美國新聞局攝影師。
喬·奧唐納 | |
|---|---|
.jpg) | |
| 出生 | 1922 年 5 月 7 日 賓州約翰斯敦 |
| 死了 | 2007年8月9日（85歲） 田納西州納許維爾 |
| 職業 | 攝影記者 |
| 國籍 | 美國人 |
新聞攝影
編輯23 歲時，作為一名海軍陸戰隊中士，奧唐納用七個月的時間記錄了日本轟炸的後果，首先是1945年8 月 9 日被原子彈摧毀的長崎。，他的部隊成為第一批遭受轟炸的部隊之一。這些照片包括標誌性的「站在火葬場旁的男孩」以及一張教室裡被燒傷的孩子的照片，以及一張被撕破的臉。[ 1 ]陸軍從未批准奧唐納前往長崎，也不清楚他們是否會銷毀屍體或受傷倖存者的照片。為了安全起見，奧唐納向單位隱瞞了自己的行程，並偷偷地將未沖洗的底片帶回了美國。[ 2 ]
戰後，奧唐納搬到華盛頓並短暫經營自己的攝影工作室，然後回到公共工作。[ 1 ]作為一名總統攝影師，奧唐納捕捉到了一些標誌性時刻，例如朝鮮戰爭期間哈里·S·杜魯門和道格拉斯·麥克阿瑟將軍在威克島上的握手，以及約翰·F·肯尼迪總統考慮入侵豬灣事件。由於奧唐納在政府工作，因此他並沒有獲得這些照片的個人榮譽，儘管他在 1968 年從政府部門退休後親筆簽名並出售了這些照片的副本。
五十年來，奧唐納在長崎的秘密照片一直被鎖在他家的箱子裡。根據他自己的回憶，他試圖忘記他所目睹的一切。 1989 年，由於反覆出現的心理健康問題，奧唐納留在肯塔基州內林克斯的洛雷託修女會 (Sisters of Loretto)中。在那裡，他看到了其中一位姐妹製作的原子彈倖存者的雕塑，這讓他想起了自己的箱子並重新打開了它。[ 3 ]他感到如此不安，以至於成為反對核武的倡導者，在日本和美國出版書籍並演講。[ 1 ]散發照片稱奧唐納的憂鬱症惡化，他故意隱瞞了一些最可怕的照片。[ 3 ]
1995 年，當國家航空暨太空博物館準備展出轟炸廣島的B-29飛機「埃諾拉·蓋伊」時，奧唐納的作品引起了爭議。他的照片旨在描繪原子彈的破壞性影響，但遭到了退伍軍人的反對，他們認為這些照片和隨附的文字呈現出不平衡的觀點，忽視了日本的侵略以及原子彈在結束戰爭和拯救美國人生命中的作用。因此，這些照片以及其他被認為冒犯退伍軍人的特徵被從策展計劃中刪除。當年在接受國家公共廣播電台採訪時，奧唐納斷言，根據他的戰後觀察，日本本來可以用常規武器擊敗，從而避免入侵日本造成預期的大量傷亡。[ 1 ]
爭議
編輯媒體刊登他的訃聞後引發了爭議。一些被認為是奧唐納拍攝的照片實際上是由其他攝影師拍攝的。[ 4 ] 1963 年，小約翰·F·肯尼迪 (John F. Kennedy Jr.)在其父親的葬禮上敬禮的照片是斯坦·斯特恩斯 (Stan Stearns)為合眾國際社 (United Press International)拍攝的，而非奧唐納 (O'Donnell) 拍攝的。奧唐納還聲稱拍攝了一張 1943 年史達林、羅斯福和邱吉爾在伊朗德黑蘭舉行戰時會議的照片，但人們並不知道奧唐納當時是否在德黑蘭。[ 5 ]
奧唐納的兒子泰格·奧唐納將他父親錯誤地將斯特恩的照片等他人作品歸咎於他的癡呆症，並暗示他由於難以記住哪些照片而錯誤地宣稱了幾張照片的作者身分。[ 6 ]
個人生活
編輯奧唐納於 1997 年與酒井公子（生於 1960 年）結婚。[ 1 ]
死亡
編輯據奧唐納的妻子稱，奧唐納於 2007 年 8 月 9 日因中風併發症在田納西州納什維爾去世。她提到他接受了 50 多次手術，包括結腸和心臟手術，並將他的健康狀況惡化歸因於他訪問長崎和廣島時受到的輻射。 [ 1 ]
外部連結
編輯- 日本，1945 年：攝影：Joe O'Donnell - 網站由寡婦 Kimiko Sakai 維護
- 泰晤士報訃告
- 日本 1945 年——一名美國海軍陸戰隊員在歸零地拍攝的照片，照片由 Joe O'Donnell 拍攝，納什維爾：范德比爾特大學出版社，2005 年。
- “喬·奧唐納 (Joe O’Donnell) 的《1945 年日本：一名美國海軍陸戰隊員在歸零地拍攝的照片》的歷史和文化背景。”印第安納州森特格羅夫的約翰·弗蘭克 (John Frank) 的演講
- 大衛塔爾 (David Tower)即將上映的喬奧唐納 (Joe O'Donnell) 紀錄片中的信息
- 「1945 年日本戰後照片在 AMSE 開幕」 2 月 13 日發布的史密森學會 2013 年攝影展公告。
- 克拉克霍伊特，“值得一千個問題的圖片”，紐約時報，2007 年 9 月 16 日
值得一千個問題的圖片
經過克拉克·霍伊特
Pictures Worth a Thousand Questions
By Clark Hoyt
2007 年 9 月 16 日
分享全文
路易斯洛德點燃了他日常使用的雪茄，在弗吉尼亞州福爾斯徹奇的甲板上安頓下來，閱讀《紐約時報》。 ——三歲的小約翰甘迺迪正在敬禮。這張照片附在喬·奧唐納的訃告上，“一位長期擔任白宮攝影師”的人據說拍攝了這張照片和其他著名照片。
70歲的上帝認為出了什麼問題。就在一兩天前，他正在整理52 年新聞職業生涯的紀念品，偶然發現了一本1963 年11 月的合眾社國際銷售手冊，描述了合眾社在報道肯尼迪總統遇刺和葬禮方面取得的成就。這本小冊子上刊登了 Stanley Stearns 拍攝的合眾國際社 (UPI) 照片——與洛德現在在《泰晤士報》上看到的照片是同一張。
他上樓，給伊利諾伊州俄勒岡州的加里·海恩斯（Gary Haynes）發了一封電子郵件，他是合眾國際社的校友，也是《泰晤士報》的前圖片編輯。海恩斯聯繫了《泰晤士報》的助理總編輯湯姆·博德金，並表示該報可能從其檔案中使用了錯誤的照片來說明奧唐納的訃告。
事實更糟、更痛苦。 《泰晤士報》——就像美聯社、《時代》雜誌、哥倫比亞廣播公司新聞、奧唐納家鄉納什維爾的《田納西報》以及其他新聞機構一樣——被一個多年來誇大自己生活故事的人所欺騙。
訃聞編輯比爾麥克唐納說，這是「我們最糟糕的噩夢」。
這是完全可以避免的。警訊沒有引起注意，對奧唐納的說法產生懷疑的消息來源也沒有得到核實。其中包括該報自己的檔案。要檢查發生的事情，我們要想起一條古老的新聞編輯室格言：如果你的母親告訴你她愛你，請檢查一下。
「前白宮官方攝影師喬·奧唐納」去世的第一條消息是從納許維爾的公關人員朗·A·布爾丁(Lon A. Bouldin)傳到訃告台的，他是《紐約時報》工作人員所認識的、被認為可靠的納許維爾公關。博爾丁是美術館的顧問，該美術館展出奧唐納的照片。麥克唐納將這個故事交給了資深訃聞作家道格拉斯·馬丁(Douglas Martin)。同時，美聯社也發布了自己的訃告，指出奧唐納是「捕捉到甘迺迪致敬的幾位攝影師之一」。
馬丁發現了許多其他確鑿的證據，證明奧唐納過著他所說的生活：美術館裡出售的受版權保護的照片；奧唐納說他拍攝了一本關於廣島和長崎災難的照片集；當這些照片在史密森學會的國家航空航天博物館引起軒然大波時，國家公共廣播電台對奧唐納進行了採訪；奧唐納在《美國遺產》上發表的一篇關於他在日本經歷的文章； CNN 就 1999 年年輕的甘迺迪在飛機失事中喪生後的敬禮照片對他進行了採訪。
馬丁也致電白宮詢問奧唐納的服務情況，但被告知工作人員只能回答有關現任政府人員的問題。原來，奧唐納在美國新聞局工作了20年，該局的攝影師有時被派往白宮，但該機構已不復存在。
不管怎樣，馬丁並不是想證實奧唐納的故事，而是想尋找「有關他生活的深刻細節」。馬丁說，由於截止日期已到，他覺得專注於現有記錄比尋找與 85 歲老人同時代的人更有效。
結果證明這是一個錯誤。 《泰晤士報》的訃聞常常因個人回憶而豐富，其中有許多與奧唐納自稱是白宮攝影師的時代的同代人。如果馬丁聯繫了他們中的任何一個人，他們的評論幾乎肯定會讓這個故事停止。
塞西爾·斯托頓（Cecil Stoughton）是白宮攝影師，奧唐納聲稱自己曾在白宮工作過很多年，他告訴我：「我以前從未見過他。我不知道他的存在。斯托頓現年 87 歲，在佛羅裡達州梅里特島過著退休生活。
影像
克拉克·霍伊特信用...查克甘迺迪/麥克拉奇論壇報
事實上，馬丁有些懷疑。他在文章中避免使用“官方”一詞，因為他知道那個時代沒有白宮官方攝影師這樣的東西。他認為，其中一張被認為是奧唐納拍攝的照片，即 1943 年羅斯福、邱吉爾和史達林在德黑蘭會面的照片，「值得懷疑」。奧唐納當時應該和海軍陸戰隊一起在南太平洋。馬丁在他的文章中沒有提到這張照片，但沒有警告任何人他的懷疑。
廣告
跳過廣告
夜間照片編輯史蒂夫·伯曼 (Steve Berman) 表示，鑑於奧唐納的年齡以及他當時應該在其他地方的事實，他對同一張照片感到「疑慮」。伯曼研究了德黑蘭的照片，並在《泰晤士報》的檔案中找到了兩份副本，但都沒有確認攝影師的身份。斯托頓表示，德黑蘭的照片一直被認為是美國陸軍信號部隊拍攝的。
儘管了解照片歷史的伯曼從未聽說過奧唐納，但他讓“我所有正常的保留意見”被一掃而光。他說，《泰晤士報》撰寫訃聞「就我而言已成定局」。 “我以為著名攝影師喬·奧唐納（Joe O’Donnell）已經得到證實，而我的工作就是找到標誌性的圖像來說明他的職業生涯。”
公關人員博爾丁發送了德黑蘭和甘迺迪照片的副本，伯曼向他、畫廊和奧唐納的遺孀核實了這些照片。
廣告
跳過廣告
由於沒有人對甘迺迪照片提出質疑，伯曼沒有在報紙的電子檔案中進行研究。如果他有的話，他就會找到帶有此出處的圖片：史丹利·斯特恩斯。
儘管如此，德黑蘭的照片仍然令人不安。在早期版本發布後，國家辦公室的文案編輯喬治·卡普蘭提出了自己的問題。文案負責人華萊士‧施羅德 (Wallace Schroeder) 表示，卡普蘭告訴他，一個幾乎十幾歲的孩子在德黑蘭拍這張照片是沒有意義的。施羅德與伯曼進行了交談，伯曼說這張照片應該保留，因為它是第二次世界大戰中最偉大的照片之一，並代表了奧唐納的作品。
自8月14日訃聞發布以來，《泰晤士報》花了很長時間才對這兩張照片進行更正，並表示正在調查文章中的其他說法。 （昨天的《泰晤士報》刊登了有關該調查的報導。）
馬丁說，一週後，他從納許維爾的一名記者那裡得知，奧唐納的故事可能有問題，但他當時正在撰寫其他截止日期訃告，在比爾凱勒之後的五天內，他都沒有開始認真調查此事。
廣告
跳過廣告
博德金說，訃聞發布兩天后，他將斯特恩斯的照片和據稱由奧唐納拍攝的照片進行了比較，認為它們看起來很相似。但編輯們持謹慎態度，希望獲得更多資訊。 「我們不想糾正錯誤，」麥克唐納說。
負責攝影部門的助理總編輯米歇爾·麥克納利 (Michele McNally) 表示，她讓伯曼兩次聯繫納許維爾畫廊，並向他保證這些照片是真實的。他再次聯繫了奧唐納的遺孀，要求提供由底片製成的新鮮的、經過驗證的照片。
8 月 29 日，《泰晤士報》收到一封電子郵件，其中牆上釘著甘迺迪的照片。奧唐納描述他的一些照片的手寫筆記同時被傳真出去。當麥克納利讀到他走過橢圓形辦公室、看到甘迺迪總統獨自坐在搖椅上並偷拍一張照片時，她的心沉了下去。無論是官方還是非官方攝影師，都不能在橢圓形辦公室附近徘徊，而且橢圓形辦公室的門始終關閉並有人看守。
更正最終於 9 月 5 日進行。在這種情況下，正常的報紙保護措施失敗了，而且如此多的小警告信號從未導致任何人保留該故事以進行更多報道，這令人驚訝且發人深省。
「這是佐證的經典教訓，」伯曼說。
Pictures Worth a Thousand Questions
By Clark Hoyt
Sept. 16, 2007
Share full article
LEWIS LORD lit his daily cigar and settled in with The New York Times on his deck in Falls Church, Va. As he went through the newspaper, his eye fell on a familiar photograph — 3-year-old John F. Kennedy Jr. saluting his father’s coffin. The image accompanied the obituary of Joe O’Donnell, “a longtime White House photographer” who supposedly took that and other famous pictures.
Lord, 70, thought something was wrong. Only a day or two before, he had been sorting through the memorabilia of a 52-year career in journalism and had come across an old United Press International sales brochure from November 1963, depicting U.P.I.’s accomplishments in covering the assassination and funeral of President Kennedy. The brochure featured a U.P.I. photo by Stanley Stearns — the same picture Lord was now looking at in The Times.
He went upstairs and fired off e-mail to Gary Haynes of Oregon, Ill., a fellow U.P.I. alumnus and a former picture editor at The Times. Haynes contacted Tom Bodkin, an assistant managing editor at The Times, and said the newspaper might have taken the wrong picture from its files to illustrate O’Donnell’s obit.
The truth was worse and much more painful. The Times — like the Associated Press, Time magazine, CBS News, The Tennessean in O’Donnell’s hometown of Nashville and other news organizations — had been taken in by a man who for years had inflated his life story.
It was, said Bill McDonald, the editor of obituaries, “our worst nightmare.”
And it was entirely avoidable. Warning signs went unheeded, and sources that would have cast doubt on O’Donnell’s claims went unchecked. They included the newspaper’s own archive. To examine what happened is to be reminded of an old newsroom maxim: If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.
The first word of the death of “former official White House photographer Joe O’Donnell” came to the obituary desk from Lon A. Bouldin, a Nashville public relations man known to Times staffers and considered reliable. Bouldin was a consultant to an art gallery that exhibited O’Donnell’s photographs. McDonald assigned the story to Douglas Martin, a veteran obituary writer. The Associated Press, meanwhile, sent out its own obituary, noting that O’Donnell was “one of several photographers to capture” the Kennedy salute.
Martin found plenty of other corroborating evidence that O’Donnell lived the life he said he did: copyrighted photographs on sale at the art gallery; a book of photographs that O’Donnell said he took of the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; a National Public Radio interview with O’Donnell when those photographs caused a furor at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum; an article by O’Donnell in American Heritage about his experiences in Japan; and a CNN interview with him about the salute photo after young Kennedy was killed in a plane crash in 1999.
Martin also called the White House to check on O’Donnell’s service but was told that the staff could answer questions only about people in the current administration. It turned out that O’Donnell spent 20 years on the payroll of the United States Information Agency, whose photographers were sometimes detailed to the White House, but the agency no longer exists.
Anyway, Martin wasn’t trying to verify O’Donnell’s story so much as looking for “penetrating details about his life.” And because Martin was on deadline, he said, he felt it was more effective to focus on the existing record rather than hunt for contemporaries of an 85-year-old man.
That turned out to be a mistake. Times obituaries are often enriched by personal recollections, and there are many contemporaries from the years O’Donnell claimed to be a White House photographer. If Martin had reached any of them, their comments almost certainly would have stopped the story cold.
Cecil Stoughton, who was a White House photographer through many of the years when O’Donnell claimed to have been there, told me: “I never saw him before. I didn’t know he existed.” Stoughton, sharp at 87, lives in retirement in Merritt Island, Fla.
Image
Clark HoytCredit...Chuck Kennedy/McClatchy-Tribune
As it was, Martin had some doubts. He avoided the word “official” in his article because he knew there was no such thing as an official White House photographer in that era. He felt that one of the photos attributed to O’Donnell, a shot of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin meeting in 1943 in Tehran, was “questionable.” O’Donnell was supposed to have been in the South Pacific with the Marines at that time. Martin left any reference to the picture out of his article but didn’t warn anyone about his doubts.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Steve Berman, the night photo editor, said he had “misgivings” about the same picture, based on O’Donnell’s age and the fact that he was supposed to be elsewhere at the time. Berman researched the Tehran photo and found two copies of it in the archive of The Times, but neither had credits that identified the photographer. Stoughton said the Tehran photo has always been attributed to the United States Army Signal Corps.
Although Berman, who knows photo history, had never heard of O’Donnell, he allowed “all my normal reservations” to be swept away. That The Times was writing the obituary made it “a done deal as far as I was concerned,” he said. “I assumed that Joe O’Donnell, famous photographer, had already been verified, and my job was to find iconic images to illustrate his career.”
Bouldin, the public relations man, had sent copies of the Tehran and Kennedy pictures, which Berman verified with him, the gallery and O’Donnell’s widow.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Because no one raised doubts about the Kennedy photo, Berman didn’t research it in the newspaper’s electronic archive. If he had, he would have found the image with this credit line: Stanley Stearns.
Still, the Tehran photo kept nagging. After the early edition, George Kaplan, a copy editor on the national desk, raised his own questions. Wallace Schroeder, the copy chief, said Kaplan told him that it didn’t make sense that an almost-teenager would have taken the picture in Tehran. Schroeder talked with Berman, who said the picture should stay in because it was one of the great photographs of World War II and was indicative of O’Donnell’s work.
It took too long, more than three weeks from the time the obituary was published on Aug. 14, for The Times to run a correction on the two photos and to say it was investigating other claims in the article. (A report on that investigation ran in yesterday’s Times.)
Martin said he heard from a reporter in Nashville a week later that there might be problems with O’Donnell’s story, but he was working on other deadline obits and didn’t start looking into it seriously for five more days, after Bill Keller, the executive editor, was alerted.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Bodkin said that two days after the obit ran, he compared the Stearns photo and the one supposedly taken by O’Donnell and thought they looked alike. But editors were cautious and wanted more information. “We don’t want to correct a correction,” McDonald said.
Michele McNally, the assistant managing editor in charge of the photo department, said she had Berman contact the Nashville gallery twice, and he was assured the photos were genuine. He contacted O’Donnell’s widow again and asked for fresh, verified prints made from negatives.
On Aug. 29, The Times received e-mail with a photo of the Kennedy picture pinned to a wall. Handwritten notes by O’Donnell describing some of his photographs were faxed at the same time. When McNally read his account of walking past the Oval Office, seeing President Kennedy alone in a rocker and snapping a candid photo, her heart sank. Photographers, official or not, cannot wander near the Oval Office, and its door is always closed and guarded.
The correction finally ran on Sept. 5. It was an especially bitter pill because The Times sets the standard for newspaper obituaries, producing deeply reported, beautifully written accounts of the lives of fascinating people. That normal newspaper safeguards failed in this case, and that so many little warning signs never caused anyone to hold the story for more reporting, is surprising and sobering.
“It’s a classic lesson in corroboration,” Berman said.
The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.
Share full article
Related Content
The Public Editor
Liz Spayd, 2016-17
Margaret Sullivan, 2012-16
Arthur Brisbane, 2010-12
Clark Hoyt, 2007-10
Byron Calame, 2005-07
Daniel Okrent, 2003-05
The Public Editor Signs Off
Friday Mailbag: Manchester, Stereotypes and Social Security Math
The Bombing, the Crime Scene Photos and the Outcry
A police investigator at work in Manchester, England.
More in Opinion
I Work at the F.T.C. I Know What Is Killing Local Groceries.
Opinion
Democrats Will Regret Helping to Pass the Laken Riley Act
Opinion
Hegseth Is Dangerous but Not for the Reasons You Think
Opinion
Editors’ Picks
Women Really Want to Talk After Seeing ‘Babygirl’
The film, which stars Nicole Kidman as a sexually frustrated tech executive, raises questions about sex, power and kink.
How to Hit Peak Fitness After 40
Can Estrogen Cream Reverse Skin Aging?
Trending in The Times
Moderate Drinking Raises Cancer Risks While Offering Few Benefits
An analysis is one of two reports that will be used to shape the dietary recommendations for alcohol consumption.
House Passes Bill to Bar Trans Athletes From Female School Sports Teams
Republicans presented the legislation as a way to level the playing field for female athletes, while Democrats said it would lead to an invasion of privacy for young girls.
Readers Pick the Songs That Defined Their Year
Ana Moura
Site Index
Site Information Navigation
© 2025 The New York Times Company
NYTCoContact UsAccessibilityWork with usAdvertiseT Brand StudioYour Ad ChoicesPrivacy PolicyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapCanadaInternationalHelpSubscriptions
公共編輯是讀者的代表。他的意見和結論是他自己的。他的專欄每月至少出現兩次。
分享全文
相關內容
公共編輯
莉茲·斯佩德，2016-17
瑪格麗特·沙利文，2012-16
阿瑟·布里斯班，2010-12
克拉克·霍伊特，2007-10
拜倫·卡拉梅，2005-07
丹尼爾·奧克倫特，2003-05
公共編輯簽名
星期五郵袋：曼徹斯特、刻板印象和社會保障數學
爆炸、犯罪現場照片和抗議
英國曼徹斯特的一名警察調查員正在工作。
更多意見
我在聯邦貿易委員會工作，我知道是什麼正在扼殺當地雜貨。
觀點
民主黨會後悔幫助通過《拉肯萊利法案》
觀點
赫格斯很危險，但原因並非你想像的那樣
觀點
編輯精選
女人看了《Babygirl》後真的很想說話
妮可基嫚在這部影片中飾演一位性失意的科技高層，提出了有關性、權力和性癖的問題。
40歲後如何達到健身巔峰狀態
雌激素霜可以逆轉皮膚老化嗎？
時代潮流
適量飲酒會增加癌症風險，但幾乎沒有好處
分析是用於制定飲酒飲食建議的兩份報告之一。
眾議院通過法案禁止跨性別運動員參加女子學校運動隊
共和黨人將該立法視為為女性運動員提供公平競爭環境的一種方式，而民主黨人則表示這將導致侵犯年輕女孩的隱私。
讀者選出定義他們這一年的歌曲
安娜·莫拉
網站索引
網站資訊導航
© 2025 紐約時報公司
紐約時報公司聯絡我們無障礙與我們合作廣告T品牌工作室您的廣告選擇隱私權政策服務條款銷售條款網站地圖加拿大國際的幫助訂閱
