This was cited in an earlier thread, prompted as much by misogyny as by historical indignation, but people got bent out of shape and missed a serious point.
Hardly any "war photography" can be authentic, if there is such a thing.
If bullets, bombs, flames, and shrapnel are flying, only a soon-to-be dead nut would walk around taking pictures.
If injured and dead are lying all over the place, whoever decided that's time to take pictures might deserve to have their camera or nose busted.
Courage is if you face battle, take calculated risks, and carry a weapon. Lunacy is if you face battle as a photo-op, take unmeasured risks, and carry a camera.
Photographers sometimes perish in beligerant situations. Sometimes it's due to being in the right place at the right time, business-wise, but not from the vantage of safety. Perhaps they get hit by accident. Other times, it's not so clear. It may be because someone mistook a camera for a gun. Or it may be because the photographers are propaganda agents for the other side. Embedded photographers are certainly at the mercy of (and partial to) their sponsoring units. They sure aren't stretcher bearers, medics, or clergy that might qualify for momentary cease fire.
Consequently, war photographers must spend the better part of their time keeping their heads low. That "Pulitzer prize shot" isn't worth a hole in the head. Therefore, some events must be recreated or enacted.
The firefighter picture looks like innocuous PR to me. It's "history" in the same sense as a "Buy War Bonds" poster or MacArthur posing for a staged shot on a beach. A military parade is a staged event. Does that make it any less historical?
Finally, this is not confined to any war, any time, or any subject. Most professional or commercial photography or video exist for the sake of presenting people or goods favorably. It succeeds by conveying images of how the sponsors or clients want things to be perceived.
