Journalists Were Present for October 7: The Embedded Photographer Question

On November 8, 2023, the media watchdog organization HonestReporting published an investigation identifying that several photographs distributed by major news agencies on the morning of October 7 — during the attack itself — were taken by Gaza-based freelance photographers who appeared to have been present at the scene of the massacres before any legitimate news organization could have independently dispatched a journalist.

HonestReporting identified photographs taken on the morning of October 7 inside Israeli territory that were distributed to wire services and news organizations. The photographers included freelancers working for:

• The Associated Press — Hassan Eslaiah, whose photos from inside Kibbutz Kfar Aza appeared within hours of the attack
• Reuters — photographs attributed to Gaza freelancers present during the assault
• CNN — who had also been using Eslaiah's photos
• The New York Times — HonestReporting named freelancer Yousef Masoud; the Times said he was not working for it that day and called the suggestion of advance knowledge "untrue and outrageous"

The logistical question: the attack breached the barrier at 6:29 a.m. International journalists based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem could not have been at the scene within the first hour. The Gaza-based photographers were present immediately.

AP photographer Hassan Eslaiah became the central case:

• Photographs attributed to Eslaiah showed scenes inside Israel — including burning vehicles and soldiers — consistent with being taken during the attack, not after.
• Eslaiah had previously been photographed with Hamas political chief Yahya Sinwar, and had publicly identified himself as having close relationships with Hamas officials.
• After HonestReporting's investigation was published and picked up by The New York Post, AP stated it was "reviewing" its relationship with Eslaiah.
• AP subsequently said it was no longer working with Eslaiah, whom it described as an occasional freelancer. AP also said it "had no knowledge of the Oct. 7 attacks before they happened" and that no AP staff were at the border or crossed it.
• CNN also stated it had "severed ties" with Eslaiah.

AP did not explicitly confirm that Eslaiah had advance knowledge of the attack.

The question this raises is not merely about individual photographers, but about the information environment:

• If photographers were embedded with Hamas — knowingly or otherwise — the photographs they took on October 7 were, functionally, Hamas documentation distributed as neutral journalism.
• Major international news organizations transmitted these images globally without disclosing the circumstances of their capture.
• The organizations that distributed the photos (AP, Reuters, NYT, CNN) had business relationships with Gaza-based freelancers who necessarily operated under Hamas oversight — because all journalists operating in Gaza since 2007 have done so under Hamas oversight.

Critics argue this is a structural feature of reporting from Hamas-controlled territory that is not always disclosed to audiences; news organizations say their Gaza stringers work independently.

Every journalist operating in Gaza since Hamas seized control in 2007 has done so under conditions Hamas controls:

• Access is granted or denied by Hamas.
• Movement inside Gaza requires Hamas permission.
• Content can be subject to Hamas review; journalists who publish material Hamas deems harmful to its interests lose access.
• Sources inside Gaza who speak to journalists without Hamas approval risk their lives.

Major news organizations — AP, Reuters, AFP, the New York Times — maintain Gaza offices and use local stringers because that is the only way to have any coverage from Gaza. This is a genuine editorial challenge. It becomes a credibility problem when the sourcing is not disclosed.