Like many photographers, I enjoy the content put out by the folks at PetaPixel.  To be honest, I didn’t pay them much attention until Chris Niccholls and Jordan Drake (whom I briefly met in New York lat year) joined PetaPixel in 2023 to lead their YouTube channel.  Through them, I got acquainted with PetaPixel Editor In Chief Jaron Schneider – particularly after they started the PetaPixel Podcast.  I even purchased a PetaPixel membership to support their continued efforts – thirty bucks a year was a small price to pay.  That’s when I started getting PetaPixel’s “Daily PetaPixel” emails highlighting recently published articles on their website.  So I started reading them.  And I quickly came to the conclusion that PetaPixel had a definite political bias to their journalism.  I’d even go so far as to say irresponsibly biased.

Case in point was an article published on PetaPixel dated January 20th entitled “Photographer Tosses His Leica Away FromICE as He’s Tackled to the Ground.”  “Oh boy” I thought to myself.  Knowing their bias, and the narrative leading title, I knew this couldn’t be good.  Unfortunately, I was not wrong.

The story is about “Photojournalist” named John Abernathy (as PetaPixel identifies him) who was present during a protest/demonstration which took place five days earlier on January 15th at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling in southern Minneapolis.  According to the article, which mirrors the account given by Abernathy, Abernathy was tackled, detained, and received a citation from ICE during the protest.  The article focuses on a viral photograph of Abernathy tossing his Leica M10-R and his phone toward another photographer – Pierre Lavie – who took the photograph:

Photo credit: Pierre Lavie

The article goes on to talk about how the photo underscores “the importance of photojournalism” and the “risks photographers face in the field.”  The article even mentions that “online commentators are already wondering whether Abernathy and the photographer who captured the image of Abernathy (Pierre Lavie) could win a Pulitzer Prize for their work on the ground in Minneapolis.  PetaPixel further published 17 of Lavie’s photos of Abernathy being taken to the ground and apprehended.  What PetaPixel do is ask the question, “is John Abernathy actually a journalist?”

In his account of events in the article, Abernathy blames “far-right agitators” who “arrived on the scene and instantly ratcheted up energy” as the reason why the “peaceful protest” turned chaotic and kinetic.  Interestingly enough, Abernathy doesn’t elaborate on this point, but clearly is attributing blame on the incident to them.  I find the term “far-right agitator” particularly interesting.  Couldn’t the crowd of protestors legitimately be characterized as “far-left agitators?”  What were these “far-right agitators” doing that was so different from the crowd that had gathered to protest ICE?

Abernathy goes on to say that “Law Enforcement did a couple of pushes again, (which seems to suggest a repeated pattern of crowd control) and at some point, I didn’t know they were coming, and I was facing away from them and they hit me from behind and I was on the ground.  I literally didn’t know what happened.”

The narrative being put forward by Abernathy and perpetuated by PetaPixel is clear:  Abernathy, innocent of any wrong doing, out of nowhere was tackled, detained, and received a citation from ICE.  He described being tackled and surrounded by “about 50 border police” and says it was “just for taking photos.”  I don’t believe it.  Not for one second.  Not based on my political affiliation or my point of view, but rather based on the evidence available online and even in PetaPixel’s own article.    I’m not claiming ICE acted perfectly — I’m arguing that the prevailing narrative is disproportionately slanted relative to the available evidence.  My criticism here is aimed primarily at PetaPixel. Their article contains enough information to raise serious questions about the politically convenient framing,  yet it repeats that framing almost verbatim.  Starting with not asking the most obvious question:  Why was John Abernathy detained while Pierre Lavie was not?

In the midst of the self-described chaos and pandemonium during and immediately after Abernathy being taken to the ground by ICE, Abernathy throws both his phone and camera to fellow photographer Pierre Lavie.  This fact suggests two things:  1)Lavie was, for whatever reason, not targeted in that moment by ICE, while Abernathy was, and 2) Abernathy made a real-time decision to throw Lavie his camera and phone because he believed Lavie was in a better position than he was.  The reason?  Lavie likely had a badge identifying himself as a member of the press.  Abernathy apparently did not.  Abernathy’s prior career according to the PetaPixel article, was as a Commercial Photographer, not a Photojournalist.  It’s likely that Abernathy did not have valid press credentials on January 15th.  Why do I say “likely?”  A look at Abernathy’s Instagram bio is the first big clue:

Words like “Bearing witness without permission” and “no badge” and “no distance” aren’t the words of a credentialed, working photojournalist who legally and ethically covers news events, observing legal boundaries.

Our second big clue is a photo of Abernathy and Lavie that Abernathy posted and PetaPixel included in their article which was taken after the incident took place and Abernathy recovered his camera and phone from Lavie:

From the PetaPixel article

Note that Lavie is wearing a vest with a big, highly legible blue “Press” patch, and a badge identifying him as a member of the “National Press.”  Note that Abernathy has no such ID  present in the photo.  In 2026 America, everybody is media.  Everyone can record and report on events in real time.  But not everyone is treated as press by law enforcement when things go kinetic.  In the absence of identifying press credentials, Abernathy was likely treated as part of the crowd because he functionally was part of the crowd (either by position, behavior, or lack of visible credentials), while Lavie was treated differently because he was either outside the enforcement zone or clearly credentialed.  Abernathy likely recognized the difference, which is why he tossed his camera and phone to Lavie.

Abernathy seems to be claiming that the take down by ICE came without provocation or warning on a member of the press.  But the known environmental context (ICE active crowd dispersal), and the asymmetric outcome (Abernathy gets tackled/detained, Lavie doesn’t) simply doesn’t support this narrative.  For their part, ICE claimed people were throwing objects, creating hazards, and that arrests happened after repeated warnings to disperse.  And while Abernathy’s testimony casts aspersions on, if not directly blames “far-right agitators” for what happened, it’s notable that ICE’s public statements from that day do not reference ‘far-right agitators’ at all — they describe ‘violent anti-ICE agitators’ and cite repeated dispersal warnings.

“Journalists” who only provide vignettes of a larger story that serves a particular political ideology aren’t true journalists.  This is true of Abernathy, and is unfortunately true of PetaPixel.  I’ve seen many examples of PetaPixel being less than unbiased in their past reporting – but this piece on the events of January 15th is perhaps the most egregious.  Is PetaPixel a legitimate news outlet that’s obligated to present an unbiased, unvarnished truth?  I don’t know the answer to that question.  What I do know is that I won’t be renewing my PetaPixel membership.  Please stick to gear reviews stay out of politics PetaPixel – I expect better.