Photojournalism Ethics

NBC has been running video all morning of the disaster is Malaysia,

Thailand, and Indonesia from the Earthquake and Tsunami. The video is

rather disturbing, it depicts people being washed away by a fast

moving river, some people on the bank are making rescue attempts with

long poles. Dozens of people are shown in the river while there are

very few trying to pull them out. The photographer(videographer) is

standing on the sidelines wathing this all happen. So at what point

should the photographer drop the camera and try to save these people?

The photograph, while important, isn't worth letting someone die

over. <br><br>

There are precidents, for instance the "Death of a Spansih Soldier",

in that case the photographer(W. Eugene Smith, I think) trying to set

up his photograph led to the soldier's death(shot by a sniper), but

it was unintentional.<br><br>

I'm interested to hear from people who work as photojournalists,

and interested to know if anyone has been in a similar situation

before where they've had to choose between getting the picture and

saving a life. Obviously there are various situations and what should

be done depends greatly on the context. I wouldn't expect a

photographer in Iraq to pick up a rifle and start shooting back. But

when should you, and how extensivly, get involved as a journalist?

<I>There are precedents, for instance the "Death of a Spanish Soldier"...</I><P>Wrong

photographer (it was Robert Capa, not W.E. Smith) and you also have the facts wrong as

well. The photo has been proved to be in no way "a set up" by the photographer, despite a

claim by someone who wasn't anywhere near the place where it happened. <P>

<I>The photographer (videographer) is standing on the sidelines watching this all happen.

So at what point should the photographer drop the camera and try to save these people?

The photograph, while important, isn't worth letting someone die over. </I><P>So when

people are dying in a massive flood you are supposed to jump in and become a victim as

well? What if the broadcast

and rebroadcasts of that specific bit of footage helps the survivors of that village get the

aid they will

obviously need? Should these not be considered in a discussion of ethics? Some times the

most ethical act one can do is to be an honest witness and to report on what you saw. also

we don't know what the photographer did immediately after he or she put the camera

down or is doing right now .<P> While its easy

to judge someone who is on the scene

from the comfort of a cozy chair in front of a television, but what are your ethical

responsibilities? What are you doing to help relief efforts?

Do you have skills that these people can now use? And if you do, are you jumping on a

plane to

go over there? Do you have any excess money, above what you need to feed, clothe

and house you and your family? Are you donating the excess or even even a little bit of the

excess to the various

relief organizations?

Easy question. Even if your attempt to rescue someones live would have only a remote chance of success you must drop the silly camera.

 

 

Ellis wrote: "What if the broadcast and rebroadcasts of that specific bit of footage helps the survivors of that village get the aid they will obviously need? Should these not be considered in a discussion of ethics?"

 

I consider this to be dangerous thinking.

If something like this wave is happening and one is a witness, I consider it a golden opportunity to be in action for the ideals of humanity. Let this chance pass and you may never forgive yourself.

To care about proper broadcasting instead, would mean not to do first things first.

How about the story of a photographer who put his life at risk to save someone else? THAT would be a story which would raise some help for the victims. And as a side effect it would also raise the esteem of photojournalists.

 

 

Michael wrote: "I wouldn't expect a photographer in Iraq to pick up a rifle and start shooting back."

 

Glad that you dont expect that. How a photographer who would argue to leave Iraq for the Iraqi instead?

Yes, I got the photographer wrong, Robert Capa...and I never said the photograph was a hoax. Robert Capa had asked the soldier to perform for a photograph(duck and roll I believe) when he was shot and killed(in reality)<br><br>

And no, I don't know what happened right after the video ended, I wasn't there. And yes, the images may help the people get aid, and yes it will do good, for the ones who are still alive anyway.<br><br>

Second, I am not judging from an EZ chair, I am asking a question about ethics not starting a blame game or holier than thou rant. I am curious about what has and will happen when photographing in the field and what situations photojournalists have faced. <br><br>

and to top it off, if we all jumped on a plane to go "help out" during a disaster there would just be a bigger disaster.

further to Ellis: there is a difference between first aid from far away on the one side and the immediate urgency of life saving on the spot. The first is needful and to some extend mandatory, the later is compulsory.

I'm not a photojournalist.

 

I understand that French law requires by-standers to lend their aid at the scene of an

accident. However, the by-stander's realistic ability to help should be taken into account. I

can't believe that any human would let someone else drown just so they could take a good

picture. Maybe all help that was possible was already being given, in which case the best

thing for the journalist to do is to bring news of the situation to the rest of the world.

 

Do journalism courses have ethics modules and what do they teach?

Ellis said: Some times the most ethical act one can do is to be an honest witness and to report on what you saw.

 

That IS the job of the reporter and photojournalist. It is their ONLY job. Run out of film? Camera packs up? Do interviews on tape. Run out of tape? Get out the 'ol pad and start taking shorthand. Observe; record; analyse; organise; communicate; and report... that's it.

 

Hunter

Richard asked: Do journalism courses have ethics modules and what do they teach?

 

Yes, and the answer is as I gave it in response to Ellis' comments [French law aside]. IF, and it was NOT the case stated here, the journalist is the ONLY help at hand the situation becomes a personal ethics one rather than a professional ethics question... but as soon as any additional help appears on the scene the journalist must withdraw and undertake his primary job.

 

Hunter

Dai Hunter wrote: "...the journalist is the ONLY help at hand the situation becomes a personal ethics one rather than a professional ethics question."

 

So, if he is the ONLY help at hand, there is still room for a yes or no decision? Why not a must help instead of a can help, unless he is running big danger of being killed himself? And if he is not the ONLY help, but one that might change the course, if in that case he is not following his professional ethics and prefers to follow his own and help what then?

<I>...Robert Capa had asked the soldier to perform for a photograph(duck and roll I

believe) when he was shot and killed(in reality)

</I><P> Nope, that's not what happened.<P>Bernard wrote:<P>

<I>Even if your attempt to rescue someones live would have only a remote

chance of success you must drop the silly camera.</P></I> And anyone who is trained in

rescue will tell you that is the last thing one should do because more than likely you then

become another victim who then needs to be rescued as well or have your remains

retrieved.

<I> I can't believe that any human would let someone else drown just so they could take a

good picture.</I><P>Human nature being what it is, I unfortunately believe that

somewhere there are people who would do justthat and yes I agree with you and

eveeryone

else who is sane that such action is morally reprehensible. Any person who acts that

way should be punished by death on the spot.

If you want to donate money or equipment or supplies, I think the following organzations:

 

Medicine Sans Frontiers (Doctors without Borders);

 

the International Red Cross

 

or

 

The Red Crescent

 

are your best vehicles for aid.

Ellis wrote in response: "And anyone who is trained in rescue will tell you that is the last thing one should do because more than likely you then become another victim who then needs to be rescued as well or have your remains retrieved."

 

I was assuming that, of course, some common sense is still involved and selfless help is not confused with illusion.

bernd blauel asked: So, if he is the ONLY help at hand, there is still room for a yes or no decision?

 

On an individual and very personal level the answer must be yes.

 

Here are some examples;

 

1) Man sitting on a park bench with a gun in his mouth. Do you take his picture before, and possibly after, he tops himself? Yes!

 

2) Building on fire and someone is outside on a thrid floor ledge. Do you take their picture? Yes! Of course you hope they don't jump... but if they do you shoot as many frames as possible on the way down + one.

 

3) I am minded to recall an interview with war photojournalist James Nachtwey, after his working time in El Salvador in 1984, when he was so upset and horrified by a scene in front of him that he almost didn't shoot a photo of it. He first turned away. He composed himself, turned back to the scene and did shoot some frames. Later when he processed the film he says that a single frame of the scene he almost didn't shoot made him jump out of his chair when he saw it on the light table. He decided then and there that he would never again not shoot something because it was not his decision to make... he would never again censor himself. It was his editor's decision to use or not use any photo... but if he didn't shoot he ursuped his editor as well as the public interest to know the truth. In Nachtwey's own words:

 

"If I cave in, if I fold up because of the emotional obstacles that are in front of me, I'm useless. There is no point in me being there in the first place. And I think if you go to places where people are experiencing these kinds of tragedies with a camera, you have a responsibility. The value of it is to make an appeal to the rest of the world, to create an impetus where change is possible through public opinion. Public opinion is created through awareness. My job is to help create the awareness." ...Nachtwey

 

Hunter

The golden rule is report the incident and do not become involved. However I guess its a case of personal ethics in the end. I do remember seeing a massive stream of refugees on a road somewhere in Africa and a small girl about 3years old bewildered and crying in the middle of the stream of humanity and in danger of being knocked down and walked over. It was video footage. Monkey see monkey do, several other cameramen saw that one of them was onto something and moved into the frame focusing on the lost child. Suddenly a pro still photographer, a big solid guy with a couple of cameras hanging around his neck, pushed thro and picked up the child, as any compassionate person would do. I presume he would have taken her to some aid agency.

 

Here is a pic of the renowned British Photojournalist Don McCullin in Greece during a gunbattle in the 19-60s He has broken the golden rule and is running with this old woman in his arms to remove her from the danger zone.<div></div>

bernd blauel asked: So, if he is the ONLY help at hand, there is still room for a yes or no decision?

 

A bit more by Nachtwey that may illustrate the extrmely personal decision that this is:

 

...My job is to record [it] and communicate [it.] And I stick to that except in those cases where I'm the only one who can make a difference -- if there isn't someone there to help or there aren't enough people to carry the wounded to a safe place.... When it's clear to me that I'm the one person who can make a difference, I put down my camera. ---Nachtwey

Sorry, Don McCullin was in Cyprus when that incident took place.

I've heard that McCullin did something similar when he was in Vietnam with a squad of

green US Marines PFCs who had lost everyone above them in the chain of command.

Realizing he had the most experience in combat he led them to safety.

Dai Hunter reciting Nachtwey:"And I think if you go to places where people are experiencing these kinds of tragedies with a camera, you have a responsibility. The value of it is to make an appeal to the rest of the world, to create an impetus where change is possible through public opinion. Public opinion is created through awareness."

 

Any photojournalist may stick to this kind of 'professional ethics' (a strange expression anyway), but let me have mine as well and say that these professional ethics can quickly become a deceptive illusion.

Why should anyone be more interested in what the public thinks than to obey the command of his own soul? Why should anyone disregard his own consciousness for the sake of Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous' opinion? Seems pretty silly to me.

This brings up another interesting question and one that might resonate with

my fellow ny'ers. Some photographers, pro and amateur, went to the WTC on

9/11 and subsequent days, in order to take photos. This being despite the fact

that the Mayor, Police and Fire depts all requested that everyone except

trained medical and emergency response people, etc. stay away from the

scene. The WTC was not only an emergency site, it was also a crime scene,

and also a place that still held great hazard for those walking among the

smoldering ruins, who may have also added to the danger of those still

trapped. I chose not to photograph it, i followed the directions of the

authorities and stayed clear of it. It is obvious that many professional

photojournalists would go there, however many amateurs and some art

photographers chose to go there and walk among the remains of the

buildings and it's inhabitants in order to get images for personal gain. After a

few days of this, they started arresting these trespassers. But my question is ,

would you have gone to the WTC in spite of the pleas not to?

bernd blauel asked: Why should anyone be more interested in what the public thinks than to obey the command of his own soul? Why should anyone disregard his own consciousness for the sake of Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous' opinion?

 

Whoever told you that PJs [or for that matter any hard news journalists] have a soul was misinformed. Those that start out with one, and who can't shake themselves loose from it, usually find another line of work in double quick time.

 

Hunter

hunter your bloated ego fantasies are too much to take.....

ken hughes said: hunter your bloated ego fantasies are too much to take.....

 

...bloated ego fantasies...? What I am discussing in this thread are journalistic ethics and ethics as they are taught in schools of journalism around the world. Nothing to do with my ego, or fantasies, bloated or otherwise.

 

The first point of departure for all journalists is that everything, literally everything, is in the public interest, though the editor may think otherwise once the story is submitted. Thereafter, any restrictions that are imposed on journalists [and for that matter editors] come from one of three sources: law; the codes of practice of professional associations and unions; and codes of practice that come from press commissions. Internationally there is almost nil difference between any of the codes and between the behaviour of journalists in almost any country you can name.

 

I do not come to this discussion without experience - I have been at this for over 40 years. Getting the story or the pictures IS the job. If a journalist can't, or won't, do it they find another line of work.

 

I think you need to get out more often my friend.

 

http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp

 

[uS] SPJ Code of Ethics

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of

writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of

the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months

of study and debate among the Society's members.

 

http://www.missouri.edu/%7Ejourvs/rtcodes.html#2000

 

[uS] Radio-Television News Directors Association's code of professional ethics

2000 RTNDA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

(adopted September 14, 2000)

 

http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/uk.html

 

United Kingdom

CODE OF CONDUCT

Adopted on 29 June 1994 by British National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

 

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/cop.asp

 

United Kingdom

Press Complaints Commission

Code of Practice

Latest version: adopted 28 April 2004; effective as of 1 June 2004.

 

http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/ifj.html

 

International Federation of Journalists

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES ON THE CONDUCT OF JOURNALISTS

Adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux on 25-28 April 1954 and amended by the 18th IFJ World Congress in Helsingör on 2-6 June 1986.

 

Hunter

This was not a life and death situation, but it may illustrate the perils of intervention to some extent.

 

Children are crossing a guarded crossroads on their way to school. they are being intimidated by soldiers. International observers are observing, and when they try to intervene to help children pass through the barriers, they themselves become the objects of intimidation. You go and try to help a couple of five year olds to cross. Suddenly you find yourself surounded by soldiers pointing their weapons at you. "Your job is to take pictures, nothing more". You back down. Finally one of the observers takes the kids by the hand and leads them through. The soldiers leave him alone. You feel like a coward.

I really think this is a non-issue. There is never a point when someone is forced to "choose between getting the picture and saving a life"--as if confronted with a clear do-or-die moment (cue the music), as happens in the movies.

 

There is not a journalist in the world who would allow someone to die if he or she were in a position to offer help without inviting grave peril.

 

Ethical issues in journalism are far more sophisticated and nuanced than having to decide whether to drop a camera and save a life. That moment just never happens.