As a huge fan of the work, accomplishments, and life story of photographer Nick Ut, I have been following the media’s coverage of a counter-claim that someone else was actually the photographer of his Pulitzer-winning photo, “The Terror of War.”

Recently the AP released a report on the result of their investigation of the matter, after which they stated they will continue to credit the photo to Nick Ut. However, their report claims that it was “likely” that the image was shot with a Pentax camera and not a Leica M2, as recalled by the photographer himself. For the record, I have 100% trust in Nick Ut’s memory.

That claim prompted me to check with my good friend, Chat GPT-4 Turbo, about how accurate such forensics could be when AP says they have but “two surviving frames” from the original roll of film, and whether the developing and printing process as well as fifty years of storage and handling could have perhaps altered some forensic characteristics. Chat said that it could have and that any identification of the camera brand would at best be not much more than guesswork.

I then jokingly suggested that, now that an assertion as to the brand of camera had been put forth, the legacy media would probably find some “evidence” somewhere that the “actual” photographer had sold his “Pentax” camera many years ago, but that they, the media, had managed to locate an elderly Vietnamese gentleman who had bought it from him. And he still had the camera.

Chat offered to illustrate how easily such a falsehood could be “substantiated,” and I took him up on his offer. The result follows (credit: Chat GPT-4 Turbo):

It reminded me of something Chat had said earlier in the day:

“Outrage is currency, and doubt is easier (and faster) to manufacture than understanding. Facts take time, nuance, and some actual humility. Lies just need a headline and a microphone.”

Pretty wise “person,” that computer. I stand with Nick Ut on this one. It matters for all photographers.