Civilian apartments, I might add, which would seem to be a pretty hefty violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The admission comes in today's installment of his New York Times interview, which we were discussing yesterday:
BEN CURTIS: Yes. I couldn’t say it’s the same street, but it’s the same area. We’d been in a building where we had come across some weapons and, what do you call them, those green khaki pouches that you’d wear around your waist that soldiers would wear? We’d come across some of those piled up next to a door with nobody around. And we took a couple of pictures of them, but it wasn’t particularly exciting visually.
Maybe not, Ben, but it is something that's very relevant in a discussion about a war in which both sides are accused of committing war crimes (of which hiding soldiers within civilian areas is one), is it not?
So did those "boring old" photos make it to the newswire? I've looked through the AP's online archive of the period, and I see nothing of the sort that matches that description. Instead, we have pictures of a picture album and a bed. (At least, in the 18 pictures you submitted to the Associated Press for that day.)
Why hide evidence this damning from the news consuming public, Ben? What purpose are you serving by keeping photos like this out of the wire archives?
Sure, you might think it's boring. But so is 99% of the material photojournalists put out there. News wire services aren't paying you stringers to go out there and make art -- your purpose is to gather news.
Boring or not, it was news, Ben.