Morality regarding photojournalism: opinions?

Colin Corneau said:
Every photographer has to make their own decision in such matters. But, when you are willingly taking on the role of photojournalist or documentarian, along with that comes the acceptance that you will likely have to photograph something you disagree with/find repellent or objectionable...you do so because the duty to inform and let the viewers see, so they can make their own decisions, comes above your personal comfort. In other words, it's not really about you, totally.

That said, many many photographers carry their own burdens in future years from what they've seen. Don McCullin is a famous example - a guy who saw it all and literally took a bullet (only his Nikon F body stopping the slug) for his dedication.

At the risk of sounding mercenary, it's better to have the shot and have the moral argument - one way or the other - at a later time.

On a slightly different note, I came across a story of the vice-versa of this -- a veteran who is using photography to come to terms with his PTSD.
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/28/interview-michael-mccoy-veteran-fights-ptsd-photography/

All the best,
Colin
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
It's not a moral question; it's an ethical question.

Morals: handed down from gods.

Ethics: principles set down and explored by humans.
 
Like said before, it all boils downs to intent and context.

Example: A photo of a gory traffic crash. If its posted, say on a personal FB, it will only be morbid, but if used on a accident prevention campaign, it contribute to rise awareness of security and safe driving. Same picture, different context = different morals?

Regards.

Marcelo
 
maggieo said:
It's not a moral question; it's an ethical question.

Morals: handed down from gods.

Ethics: principles set down and explored by humans.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Moral isnt just ruled by religion (god or gods). Its ruled by culture,religion or philosophy.

Main difference is that ethics is mostly used when talking about a specific field (photography ethics, medical ethics, etc.) and moral has a broader scope, but in their main sense are mostly the same thing: rule behaviors that set what is proper or improper, or, if you plese, what is good and what is evil or bad.

Regards.

Marcelo
 
Ethics deal with the space between that which is good and that which is not; it's all about the grey areas. Morality is more of an either/or good or evil proposition.

The sub-head of the piece is quite clear:

Do you look away from images of real-life horror, or look closer? A series of shocking photographs from Somalia asks disturbing questions about the ethics of bearing witness
Click to expand...
 
maggieo said:
Ethics deal with the space between that which is good and that which is not; it's all about the grey areas. Morality is more of an either/or good or evil proposition.

The sub-head of the piece is quite clear:
Click to expand...

Medical ethics are quite strict, not really dealing on gray areas (its unethict to leave a pacient to die for example. There is no gray area in there).

Regards.


Marcelo
 
mpaniagua said:
Medical ethics are quite strict, not really dealing on gray areas (its unethict to leave a pacient to die for example. There is no gray area in there).
Click to expand...

Actually, there is quite a lot of grey area there, ethically speaking. First, there are the ethics of palliative care vs. extreme measures. There's also the question of where in the process of dying is a patient actually and finally dead and what can and should be done.

Medically supervised euthanasia is another grey area surrounding the medical ethics of death, too.

Back on topic, physicians struggle with many of the same ethical questions as photojournalists; what is our responsibility in this situation and to whom are we responsible?
 
I am not a professional photographer but if I were, I would not have taken those pictures. We can imagine what the results of "stoning" to death would be and those imagined images are gruesome enough without actually witnessing or recording the event for others to witness. Why record them and inflict horror on others?
 
thawkins said:
I am not a professional photographer but if I were, I would not have taken those pictures. We can imagine what the results of "stoning" to death would be and those imagined images are gruesome enough without actually witnessing or recording the event for others to witness. Why record them and inflict horror on others?
Click to expand...

To make people aware of that, and perhaps make a difference. Or would you rather turn a blind eye on it? Agree, this is a cultural thing and I suppose it would be very hard to make a difference but I would rather be aware of reality than be blind in my small bubble.


Regards.
 
thawkins said:
I am not a professional photographer but if I were, I would not have taken those pictures. We can imagine what the results of "stoning" to death would be and those imagined images are gruesome enough without actually witnessing or recording the event for others to witness. Why record them and inflict horror on others?
Click to expand...

Do you think the photos of what "some" Germans did to Jews (and others) during WW2 should not have been made? There are many today, even with the photo record, that say it never happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom