Morality regarding photojournalism: opinions?

Jake Mongey

Jake Mongey

Well-known
Local time
11:23 PM
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
558
View My Gallery
(warning link contains graphic images)
Currently looking at morality in regards to identity within photography for my final project at college and have come across this article regarding a photojournalists coverage of a stoning and whether he should have taken the image from a moral standpoint.

If you could give the article a read and write down your opinions for me to use in my research that would be great:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan

Cheers,
jake
 
Hatchetman said:
Nothing immoral there IMO. Facts is facts, no?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the writer does raise questions about it, its very theoretical and there are probably better stories but this article seemed to appear fairly neutral. Can I use your response in my writing on the subject?
 
I suppose its related to intent. If the intent of photography it to create awareness of a conflict, problem or situation, to make people react to do something, then I think is moral. On the other hand, if the intent is just to sell something, to get "likes" so to speak, to get famous, then I think there is something amoral in there.

Some times, when faced a conflict or problem, we are helpless to do something about it, like slavery, drugs dealing, human explotation, etc.; the only thing we can do about it is to make people aware of it, so photography has value. On the other hand, when photography is just get self gratification on a morbid sense, it lacks morals (say a gruesome accident photo that show nothing but blood and gore), because no one gains nothing from it.

Then, one must also realize that sometimes its everything on the eyes of the beholder, so what may be moral for people may not be so for other people with a different mindset.

Truly a complicated issue.

Regards

Marcelo
 
"He also shot every stage of the killing in all its protracted and torturous barbarity. What it takes to do that, and at what personal cost, only he can say."

Speaking ONLY for myself:

As an amateur, I would not have taken the photo because the personal cost would have been too high.

If I were a professional photojournalist, I honestly do not know what I would have done if I were in the same situation, but it would have been either one of these:

A) If I did proceed with taking the photos, then I would have tried to do so to the best of my abilities.

B) If I decided not to take the photos, then I would have just walked away. I would not have stayed around to watch.
 
I think we have to look at this series in the larger context of the photographer's work and intentions. How can we judge from our sofas 8,000 miles away, absent the context of his history and culture?

I viewed his collection on the AP site, and he appears to be documenting life in his homeland, both the good and the bad. These particular photographs present the barbaric consequences of the recently enactment of Sharia law, in this case the penalty for adultery. As revolting and heart-breaking as they are, I think they need to be seen. The execution would have happened whether he was there or not. Maybe his images, or the compounded effect of images like his, will engender change. Let's hope so.

John
 
We probably have the moral duty to document the s*** that goes on. If we don't, then no-one knows about it. If no-one knows about it, no-one can do anything about it.
 
Much of the politically correct mainstream media simply refuse to concede that this type of barbarity is prevalent and is officially endorsed in some perhaps many countries where sharia is the law. Kudos for The Guardian for at least having the guts to publish it, I suppose. But I would prefer that the focus of the story was more balanced and honest - it should be less about the morality of showing these images and more about the morality of perpetrating the acts. That is where the real moral ugliness resides.
 
peterm1 said:
Much of the politically correct mainstream media simply refuse to concede that this type of barbarity is prevalent and is officially endorsed in some perhaps many countries where sharia is the law. Kudos for The Guardian for at least having the guts to publish it, I suppose. But I would prefer that the focus of the story was more balanced and honest - it should be less about the morality of showing these images and more about the morality of perpetrating the acts. That is where the real moral ugliness resides.
Click to expand...
Well said, Peter.
 
johnwolf said:
I think we have to look at this series in the larger context of the photographer's work and intentions. How can we judge from our sofas 8,000 miles away, absent the context of his history and culture?

I viewed his collection on the AP site, and he appears to be documenting life in his homeland, both the good and the bad. These particular photographs present the barbaric consequences of the recently enactment of Sharia law, in this case the penalty for adultery. As revolting and heart-breaking as they are, I think they need to be seen. The execution would have happened whether he was there or not. Maybe his images, or the compounded effect of images like his, will engender change. Let's hope so.

John
Click to expand...
+1 agree with that.
 
Jake Mongey said:
(warning link contains graphic images)
Currently looking at morality in regards to identity within photography for my final project at college and have come across this article regarding a photojournalists coverage of a stoning and whether he should have taken the image from a moral standpoint.

If you could give the article a read and write down your opinions for me to use in my research that would be great:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan

Cheers,
jake
Click to expand...

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
 
Jake Mongey said:
(warning link contains graphic images)
If you could give the article a read and write down your opinions for me to use in my research that would be great:
Click to expand...

When I worked for a newspaper, I had no problem taking photos of illegal and/or immoral acts. When the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked me for my images, I told them to see the newspaper's city editor because the images actually belonged to the newspaper. I also told the FBI that I had no problem if the city editor decided to give the FBI copies but I preferred not to testify in court.

The city editor gave the FBI copies. The perpetrators were prosecuted. I did not have to testify in court.
 
peterm1 said:
Much of the politically correct mainstream media simply refuse to concede that this type of barbarity is prevalent and is officially endorsed in some perhaps many countries where sharia is the law. Kudos for The Guardian for at least having the guts to publish it, I suppose. But I would prefer that the focus of the story was more balanced and honest - it should be less about the morality of showing these images and more about the morality of perpetrating the acts. That is where the real moral ugliness resides.
Click to expand...

Hi Peter;

Having worked as a PJ I can only say the photographer rarely has any influence on writers. I never saw a story in writing before I took pictures. I never knew when, or if some times, the story would be published until I saw it in print. If I had made images of that nature, they would have been sent to an editor (photo editor in my case) and I wouldn't know how any story might be told using them. My captions or notes may or may not have been researched further. So, the PJ only makes the picture in most cases. Great photos tell a story. But often, the facts of the visual are painted (and many times clarified) by writers and editors. It's the reality of it.

And Jake; between PhotoShop and Social Media, I'm not sure of anything I see or read these days.

My work was for a major news magazine.
 
When confronted with scenes of such atrocity, it becomes the duty of the photojournalist to document so that the world can see them. It's about awareness and accountability.

There was a remarkable thread on flickr started by a man who's father in law was a Japanese photojournalist. On his deathbed, he asked his son in law to burn all his slides.

When the burning didn't go as planned, the son in law looked through them, and found unpublished images of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. A large debate took place about whether to honour his father in law's dying wish, or leave them intact.

In the end, he gave them to the Yasakuni Jinja War Museum, which is ironic because it houses memorials for a number of Japanese generals who are considered war criminals by the West. The details are quite remarkable and bear reading.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/60005081@N00/discuss/72157605052844272/
 
Initial thoughts on the article, (rather than this thread).

"Images as extreme as these beg so many questions about the morality of reportage. "

No, they don't.

" Perhaps Sontag comes closest to articulating the moral dilemma at the heart of extreme images of suffering when she writes: "There is shame as well as shock in looking at the close-up of a real horror. Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order are those who could do something to alleviate it … or those who could learn from it. The rest of us are voyeurs, whether or not we mean to be."

Nonsense, as with much of Sontag's writing on photography.
Sorry, I don't believe in turning a blind eye just because she or someone else as a viewer might be made to feel something unpleasant. Sometimes rubbing our comfortable noses in it is absolutely necessary.

I also think Sontag swiftly excuses herself from any expectation of being able to affect the world in any way, and I equally can't accept that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom