Is this photo ethical?

[Bamboopictures]

My number one rule for photojournalism. You're a HUMAN BEING first, photographer second.

 

[mamypoko]

Who are we to say that the act does not occur without a camera/recording device?

I agree with this, whether or not the camera is present, nobody can predict what would have happened, especially in such an emotionally charged situation.

Even if the shot was taken, who is to say the photographer did not try to help the situation before or after to the best of his/her abilities without forsaking his/her own safety? After all, the photographer holds a camera, not a gun.

Being a war/conflict photojournalist is probably one of the hardest jobs in the world, with all the emotions on the ground, one must truly shut off in order to get his/her job done.

 

[virtualme78]

Like Chiif said.... the key to be a photojournalist is to be impartial, able to disregard emotions and document the truth at that very moment. Being human first and photographer second not quite the way professional photojournalist should be.

 

[bonrya]

It's their jobs to document it. They always have a choice between becoming a relief worker instead if they cannot take it. But they chose their paths. We may criticize and judge them as bystanders but no one knows what they've been through from their eyes.

One of my favorite quotes:

"Coming home from very lonely places, all of us go a little mad: whether from great personal success, or just an all-night drive, we are the sole survivors of a world no one else has ever seen." John Le Carre

 

[alex36]

As a photographer, in the heat of the moment, you will shoot, to capture the events as they unfold. The difficult question is whether to make them public, and if yes, for what reason and purpose. There is this principle of "Do no harm" that I teach, not so much related to photography, but for the purpose of providing aid. It is a checklist to ensure that the aid you provide to a certain group of beneficiaries do not in fact cause more harm than good to those that you are helping and also to other communities that may be affected by your decisions.

I believe this principle of Do No Harm can also apply, for photographers to use as a method of deciding whether to make a certain image public or not. But no easy answers, as it is always about tradeoffs and good discretion.

 

[zoossh]

I, too felt that pictures of such nature act as a voice to other parts of the world calling out for awareness and help. However the other side of me felt that it is rather inhumane to first take picture of say, a dying person before offering some kind of help which could possibly save him from his very last breath.

many a times, you know you had nothing u can do under those circumstances. the photojournalists themselves knows it even better, but should do what they can in some of the rare situations, within their abilities and without endangering themselves.

 

[zoossh]

Someone actually moved the body. No..not ethical.

moving the posture of a dead body without making the posture unsightly, is not unethical from all viewpoints. but it is unprofessional in the viewpoint of photojournalists or reportage or press journalists, who often have a rigid mindset to that. they dun even want to change the position of a dustbin if there is one

 

[allenleonhart]

It's anyone's guess. Can you really measure the impact the photo had? Kevin Carter (Bang Bang Club) was criticized quite severely for his photograph in Africa of a starving girl who had fallen down. The catch was that there was a vulture gazing out nonchalantly and seeming to wait for the inevitable.

Some people said that he should not have taken the photograph when he could help the girl, or chase away the vulture. The other side of the fence says that the educational effect of his photograph owning to its huge psychological impact could help more people in Africa by inciting a flow of donations, etc.

wasnt carter warned to not do anything?

Journalists at the time were warned never to touch famine victims

http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/familymedicine/imh/unit1/unit1Sec2gPopup2.htm

 

[allenleonhart]

moving the posture of a dead body without making the posture unsightly, is not unethical from all viewpoints. but it is unprofessional in the viewpoint of photojournalists or reportage or press journalists, who often have a rigid mindset to that. they dun even want to change the position of a dustbin if there is one

there is only how much they can navigate around hahahahaha

It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist.

http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

 

[edutilos-]

wasnt carter warned to not do anything?

http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/familymedicine/imh/unit1/unit1Sec2gPopup2.htm

? What is your point?

 

[allenleonhart]

? What is your point?

with regards to that specific case, he couldn't do anything. dun see how the complaints that he shld do something was justifiedd... just my view la.

 

[edutilos-]

with regards to that specific case, he couldn't do anything. dun see how the complaints that he shld do something was justifiedd... just my view la.

I think to put it in perspective, you can think of the general instruction that you should not just move trauma victims from a car crash around before the paramedics . But if there is a burning car wreck nearby and petrol all over the place with sparks flying everywhere, should a bystander (who's willing to take the risk to save lives) blindly adhere to that instruction?

While yes, transmission of disease could occur, I think it is not unfair to think that the vulture's presence could mean that it might attack the weakened human even before death - and that's something that could be argued. One can't really come to a very firm conclusion because all alternate scenarios are counterfactual and postulation does not provide solid determination that they would have happened. In short - all sides have their defense, and to me, they are valid, but in the end, it's just talk and it does not change history.

 

[coolthought]

putting aside whether a photographer should be involved and help, as this can be another hot issue of itself to debate on.

Whether a photo of this sort be ethical, imho, depend on mainly, the way the photographer goes about getting the photo, the intention of the photographer and the effect of the photo produced.

 

[virtualme78]

I believe in this senario, the job of a photojournalist is more of relating what really is happening/happened to the world and not so much about how he should go about taking it, intention and effect, what not.

putting aside whether a photographer should be involved and help, as this can be another hot issue of itself to debate on.

Whether a photo of this sort be ethical, imho, depend on mainly, the way the photographer goes about getting the photo, the intention of the photographer and the effect of the photo produced.

 

[cannedpineapples]

Not an easy answer. in 1971, many western journalists were in Bangladesh covering the war between East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan.

Many of the subsequent violence was put up as the crowd knew that the western media was present.

ie. Prisoners got bayonetted precisely because the photographers were there.

Is it ethical to take the photo ?

I got the above image from photobucket history of birth of bangladesh.
you can view the thread here:
http://joubonjatra.com/forums/showthread.php/35555-১৯৭১-কিছু-ছবি/page5

I think we need to differentiate between people getting bayonetted only because journalists were present, vs people choosing to execute their bayonetting of others when journalists are present. In the second case, they are going to get bayonetted anyway, they just timed it for maximum publicity. In the former case, it's 'oh, this would make a great picture! I had no intention of killing him, but let me do so now for your picture'.

If it's just a matter of timing, I think it's ethical. A newsreporter has to report on not just actual things happening, but also on deeper trends that these events reflect. The bayonetting of others is typically the reflection of a deeper problem that won't go away just because reporters aren't there.

 

[allenleonhart]

I think to put it in perspective, you can think of the general instruction that you should not just move trauma victims from a car crash around before the paramedics . But if there is a burning car wreck nearby and petrol all over the place with sparks flying everywhere, should a bystander (who's willing to take the risk to save lives) blindly adhere to that instruction?

While yes, transmission of disease could occur, I think it is not unfair to think that the vulture's presence could mean that it might attack the weakened human even before death - and that's something that could be argued. One can't really come to a very firm conclusion because all alternate scenarios are counterfactual and postulation does not provide solid determination that they would have happened. In short - all sides have their defense, and to me, they are valid, but in the end, it's just talk and it does not change history.

hmm. i was thinking along the lines of personal safety, and perhaps also safety to others first as the justification for the lack of action in the case of the child and the vulture.

wouldnt u agree that light of personal safety, as in the case of the burning car wreck, that the man should not take the unnecessary risk, for he might be in danger, rather than the fact the trapped guy or trauma victim could be saved?

while it would not be wrong to save the child, it might come at the expense at more people later. an untrained personnel shouldn't be involved, but a trained personnel might be at a better position to save the child. perhaps the question would then be, at what risk to the person would it be reasonable for person who would want to rescue, carry out the rescue...

just my 2 cents to the issue at hand

 

[edutilos-]

hmm. i was thinking along the lines of personal safety, and perhaps also safety to others first as the justification for the lack of action in the case of the child and the vulture.

wouldnt u agree that light of personal safety, as in the case of the burning car wreck, that the man should not take the unnecessary risk, for he might be in danger, rather than the fact the trapped guy or trauma victim could be saved?

while it would not be wrong to save the child, it might come at the expense at more people later. an untrained personnel shouldn't be involved, but a trained personnel might be at a better position to save the child. perhaps the question would then be, at what risk to the person would it be reasonable for person who would want to rescue, carry out the rescue...

just my 2 cents to the issue at hand

Based on your "personal safety" logic, don't you think that's a decision for the man to make? Which is why I said "willing to take the risk to save lives". At the end of the day, if the bystander charges into the fire, and everything explodes and effectively the net result is a negative; he made a decision and has to live by it. He has no (or rather, insignificant) obligations to the world taken as a sum and even if you want to approach this logically and rationally, it should be a risk-based assessment on the spur of the moment rather than "personal safety rules, leave it to the trained personnel".

Personal decision is a very separate discussion from the moral/ethics versus health implications angle here, I think you are going off on a tangent. In any case, this was just a quick analogy and should not cause a shift in focus to a separate realm altogether.

 

[chewed]

I think if the girl is not dead but seriously injured and the photojournalist took photos instead of helping her, then that would be unethical.

Else...

 

[justshot]

link to the movie:

http://www.1clickwatch.com/the-bang-bang-club-2010-watch-online-stream-online-movies/

 

[artspraken]

i just watched the bang bang club movie. its quite widely available now.

i did not really enjoy the movie. more camera parade than anything else. the acting i felt was especially sub par.

I particularly wonder why this actor set the timer on his M3 when shooting with his eyes...i think he dunno how to hold his M3 properly haha