Ethics of the Situation

[bmattock]

Take this example:

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/2005/07july/050705snap.shtml

Photographer grabs dramatic shooting pics thanks to vendor tip-off
By HoldtheFrontPage staff
A Manchester Evening News photographer was one of the first to the scene when a woman was shot on a busy Manchester street - thanks to a tip-off from one of the paper's own vendors.

Lensman Christian Bragg was able to get dramatic pictures of the aftermath of the shooting as the victim lay collapsed on the blood-spattered pavement.

What are the ethics of taking this sort of photo? Should the photographer have refrained from taking the photo? If so, for how long? Should he have rendered first aid before taking the photo? What are the ethics of this situation?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[captainslack]

First Aid, defintely!! Some things are more important than photographs!!!

 

[JoeFriday]

let your conscience be your guide.. I think that's more a moral issue than ethics

 

[bmattock]

let your conscience be your guide.. I think that's more a moral issue than ethics

ethics: moral philosophy. the philosophical study of moral values and rules.

I thought the word was appropriate, but I'd accept 'the morals' of the situation in place of 'the ethics' of the situation.

In any case - you're saying that ethics (morals) are up to the individual to decide? Do we as a society then refrain from judging individual actions or non-actions because we trust that the person examined their conscience?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Allen Gilman]

Bil...give us a better setup. What don't we know about this situation? Plenty.

"was one of the first to the scene..." Had someone already applied first aid? Had someone already called an ambulance? Was there anything else that the photographer could have done that hadn't already been done? We're all sitting here in our chairs ready to throw down the gauntlet...

 

[bmattock]

First Aid, defintely!! Some things are more important than photographs!!!

But what if he didn't know any first aid techniques? And there appeared to be two other people rendering aid. And the story said he had the husband's permission to take the photograph.

Besides - is his duty to the public as a reporter? Or to the public as a renderer of first aid? What about war correspondents?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Bil...give us a better setup. What don't we know about this situation? Plenty.

"was one of the first to the scene..." Had someone already applied first aid? Had someone already called an ambulance? Was there anything else that the photographer could have done that hadn't already been done? We're all sitting here in our chairs ready to throw down the gauntlet...

I don't know any more than was in the news article, complete with the bloody pavement photo.

I'm not trying to stir the pot and set us at each other's throats, or at the photographer who took the photos. I'm asking a philosophical question in the time-honored Socratic manner designed to provoke some soul-searching. How do we feel about news photography? Where is it's place in society? What obligations does a photographic reporter of news have that a member of the general public does not - or are there any at all?

I doubt there are any 'right' answers. But the discussion is important, I think.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I would have to go with render aid first. I think this photo was not necessary in the least.

I know crimes commited with guns are rarer in the UK. But this seems like a case of purple journalism. Sensationalizing this woman's misery is appalling to me.

 

[bmattock]

I think this photo was not necessary in the least.

Really? Are any photos necessary? Certainly there were newspapers before there were photographs in them. So what makes it not necessary? How could be a 'necessary' photograph?

Sensationalizing this woman's misery is appalling to me.

Is that what is happening in this photo? I note that the photographers who win Pulitzer Prizes routinely do with such photos:

http://www.newseum.org/pulitzer/main.htm

1966 - James Meridith Shot
1968 - Viet Cong Execution
1981 - Assassination Attempt
1985 - Volcanic Mudslide in Columbia

So I'm just asking - what is 'sensationizing'?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Actually, I considered war photographs specifically. To me, the images you list were remarkable events captured for the world to see. Each one those images were connected to events that had national and even global ramifications. Which is probably why the images were from Pulitzer winners.

For me, my first reaction to the shot you posted for this thread, was that the woman was in need of aid, not a photograph. That was my gut reaction. I'll stick with it.

 

[Allen Gilman]

Bill, I'm catching the drift of what you're asking here. Sorry about the quick reply above - thought you were doing otherwise.

 

[T_om]

What are the ethics of taking this sort of photo? Should the photographer have refrained from taking the photo? ...

No. There is absolutely no reason to NOT take photographs of events like this.

Should he have rendered first aid before taking the photo?

Had I arrived on the scene and observed no other assistance being rendered, I, personally, would have aided the victim as best I could until such time as more competent assistance arrived. After that, I would have resumed shooting.

Tom

 

[stet]

As Bill pointed out, although the photgrapher arrived before the medical help, we don't know whether he knew first aid, she's already receving help and he in some way received consent from the vicitim's husband. I work in news, and while I'm not a photojournalist, I think would take the photo.

Although she's mainly talking about war photography, Stephanie Sinclair, a PJ from the Chicago Tribune addressed this in her blog, regarding her work in Iraq. Yes, consideration for the victim is crucial, but there's more than one way to help. In the case of this woman, and for Manchester/England, the horror of gun crime is what's being highlighted for the public:

For people who don’t know me, I am not a medical professional but I am trained in first aid, and given the opportunity to help someone before taking photographs, I would definitely do so. However, most of the time we show up somewhere, medical help has already arrived. This was the case even in the car bomb outside our hotel. When I got outside the two victims of the explosion had already been taken to the hospital. As a friend once told me, the only thing I can do at that point is make the best, most powerful photograph I can to show people what has happened.

Anyway, I am not trying to justify what I do for a living. I am not Mother Theresa. But I am trying to give a little more insight to how I deal with being in devastating situations and why I do it.

That said, there is a fine line between highlighting horrors or brutality and showing what amounts to "death porn," as one Russian weekly calls it. Compare the Fallujah bridge photos with cheering kids (I would've run it) or the Madrid train bombing (http://poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=63131) (I would've cropped).

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I would have to go with render aid first. I think this photo was not necessary in the least.

I know crimes commited with guns are rarer in the UK. But this seems like a case of purple journalism. Sensationalizing this woman's misery is appalling to me.

I agree with Bob on this -- even if the first aid needs were met this picture has no merit. Unlike the four Pulitzer pictures there is no story being told in this shot, just an unfortuante victim of street crime. What is sensationalizing? Trying to wring a pound of drama from a one ounce event (the cable news networks do it all the time 🙂).

 

[Harvey Platter]

A press photographer's job is to take pictures. In my opinion, if he was the only person around, then he would be under a moral duty as a person to probide aid but as others *were* present, his job was to take the pictures. I think that his editor was quite right to praise him for doing his job well.

 

[kiev4a]

This dabate certainly isn't new. It was going on back in the 1970s when I was a working newspaper photographer and a member of the National Press Photographers Association. Some of my collegues believed their only job was to take pictures. If they were the first to arrive on the scene where there were injuries, they refuse to be involved in any way in helping the victim(s). There also were photographers (myself included) who believed that if we encountered a situation in which our assistance might save a life, our first obligation was to help our fellow man.
I remember several instances where I passed up what may have been the "best" photo in oder to lend a hand. In one case, firemen were searching for a toddler who had fallen in a canal. I was talking with a fireman on the canal bank when we spotted the youngster floating toward us. We both jumped in the water and pulled the boy out and I helped with efforts to revive him until the professionals arrived. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful but I never regretted losing the photo (I did shoot something after more firemen were on the scene).
In another case I was covering a manhunt, walking up a hill with a man handling the bloodhounds. The fugitive fired at us, hitting the tracker in the jaw with a rifle bullet. There were police officers relatively close but I felt my first duty was to do what I could to help the man who was down--even if it was only to provide moral support. When I got back to the office I made the mistake of telling the managing editor how I had reacted. He was livid. Frankly I didn't care. I was the one who was there and had to make the decision--then live with it.
I believe in both cases, because of my location, I was part of the event rather than simply a chronicler arriving after the fact. Therefore, my first obligation was as a citizen rather than a photographer. I knew some print and TV photographers, however, who would have refused to lend a hand even if their aid had been requested. I didn't hold such people in very high regard.

 

[stet]

I'm not fully aware of gun crime in the UK, but I don't think you could compare it with wars or U.S. violent crime rates. In the US it's everyday, and we're inured to that kind of news. But how often does local news in the UK portrary this? It's not a very graphic photo; my eye goes from the blood to the panic and worry in the others' faces.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

On further thought... The photographer can shoot whatever he or she cares to. In this case it appears there was permission granted by the husband.

On the other hand I feel that publishing the photo was not necessary. This kind of journalism reminds me of TV programs that are popular on cable networks like "Spike." It seems to be there solely to satisfy dark interests.

In reviewing the photo I see a woman on the ground bleeding, another woman who appears to have her attention locked on the photographer and a man (maybe the husband) who appears to be very bewildered. I'm not convinced from that one image that she was receiving the necessary care that would stem the bleeding.

One man's opinion.

 

[childers-jk]

For me, IMHO, I agree with kiev4a. I too worked in photojournalism, and was lucky to never have been in situations like the ones describe in this thread. But I did make a mental note to myself when working in such situations. If a person is in need of help, and I am the only one or the first one to arrive, my job as a human is to help. If there is already aid being given, and my help would just hinder the situation, my job was to record the event. I don't think I would frame the picture the same way this one was done, but I would have recorded the event.

My thoughts.

Jeff C.

 

[stet]

Maybe it's just how I'm reading it now, but I didn't mean for my last post to sound abrasive. If it does, I apologize.

Kiev4a: You should've been commended for your reactions. I hope most people would do the same.

Rick