The death of Paul Conroy, the British photojournalist who spent more than two decades documenting war from the inside, feels like the loss of one of the defining witnesses of that era of conflict. For many readers his name will be most closely associated with Marie Colvin, the formidable Sunday Times war correspondent known for her uncompromising frontline reporting and the siege of Homs in 2012. For those of us who worked in foreign news during those years, it signifies something broader: a particular standard of courage and integrity in the act of bearing witness.
I spent years picture editing foreign news at the Independent, at a time when the paper was known for, and quietly proud of, the force of its photography. We believed in giving images space. We believed in letting them carry argument and emotion without dilution. Much of my focus was the Middle East, during years when conflict rarely loosened its grip on the front page.
The photographs did not arrive daily. They arrived hourly, sometimes by the minute, pouring in from the wires in their hundreds. As picture editor, my job was to sit inside that flood and make choices. To sift through frame after frame of death, devastation and private grief. To decide what carried meaning rather than shock, what bore witness without exploiting it. Most of what passed across my screen would never make it into print. Over time, you feel something in yourself harden slightly, not indifference, but a kind of necessary composure. You are looking at horror from a distance, through pixels, in relative safety. And even then, it leaves a mark. It is impossible not to think about the photographers who are not buffering those scenes but standing inside them, in real time.
I knew many of the photographers working in those places, and within that small, committed world there was deep respect for those who kept going back. Conroy was part of that group. Much of his work was for the Sunday Times, and over time his name became associated with a particular steadiness. He was known for his judgement, his discipline and the absence of ego that colleagues valued in high-risk environments.
Before photography, Conroy had served as a soldier in the British Army. He understood conflict not as spectacle but as structure, as machinery, as something that grinds through human lives with indifferent force. He went on to spend more than 25 years documenting wars, from Iraq and Afghanistan to the shifting theatres of the Middle East.
For many of us, his story is bound up with that of Marie Colvin. They worked together at the Sunday Times and formed one of the defining reporting partnerships of that era. In 2012, during the Syrian army’s bombardment of Homs, Colvin was killed and Conroy was gravely wounded. Those events have since been chronicled in his book Under the Wire and later in the 2018 film A Private War. The story has become part of modern journalistic history, but within the profession his standing long predated that terrible moment.
Watching those accounts, and reflecting on his career, I found myself thinking about my own beginnings. When I first started out in photography, I harboured the vague, slightly romantic ambition to be a war photographer. I wince admitting that now. From a distance, the role can appear purposeful, even noble in a cinematic way. The camera looks like a passport to history.
It does not take long, working in foreign news, to understand how wrong that reading is. There is nothing romantic about crouching under shellfire. Nothing glamorous about watching civilians flee homes they may never return to. The photographers and correspondents who operate in those environments are not chasing drama. They are absorbing it. They are making decisions under pressure that most of us will never have to make.
I realised quite quickly that I did not have the temperament for that life. Editing from London was intense enough. To step towards danger repeatedly, to keep functioning while fear presses in on all sides, requires a steadiness I did not possess. It sharpened my admiration for those who could do what I could not and I turned my attention to the work in front of me.
What set Conroy apart, in the way colleagues described him, was not only courage but ethics. He was known for his lack of ego and absolute belief in the importance of bearing witness. The work was never about him. It was about the people caught in events beyond their control, about ensuring that what was happening in besieged cities or fractured states could not be denied. In recent years he had also been involved in training journalists in battlefield first aid and reporting from Ukraine, extending that sense of responsibility beyond his own camera.
There were other facets to him too, friendships and collaborations that sat far from the battlefield. One of the more unexpected was his close bond with the singer-songwriter Joss Stone. They met when she was still a teenager making a documentary, and remained close thereafter. They later collaborated on a project supporting Amnesty International, combining music and footage from conflict zones. The friendship speaks less to novelty than to something consistent in the way people describe him: loyalty, generosity and an ability to connect across worlds that, on the surface, had little in common.
I never became the war photographer I once imagined I might be. Paul Conroy did that work for more than 25 years. He did it without theatrics and without self-advertisement, guided by a belief that some realities must be witnessed, however uncomfortable the act of witnessing may be. There is nothing romantic about that calling. It asks more of a person than most professions ever will, and I remain grateful that he chose it.
[Further reading: Can Keir Starmer avoid the mistakes of Iraq?]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment