The role of a photojournalist

[anjoca76]

Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki writes in today's NY Post what I think is an excellent perspective of what it was like to be behind the camera immediately following yesterday's marathon bombing here in Boston.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/armed_with_camera_helpless_amid_1l95y5j68tIM4vnhY14qLJ

I am interested to hear if anyone who has done this sort of thing for a living--photojournalism--has anything to share or add? The role of a photojournalist in situations like this, or combat, etc., is an important one. It may not be an immediate help, like a doctor or police officer, but those images serve an important purpose in documenting a tragic moment, and helping us to better understand our past is crucial. But how does one summon the courage and responsibility to get into the chaos with camera in hand, rather than turn around and flee for safety, which would be a perfectly reasonable reaction to something like yesterday's bombing. Is it purely instinct that takes over?

 

[anjoca76]

Excellent stuff, thanks.

 

[Bob Michaels]

........... But how does one summon the courage and responsibility to get into the chaos with camera in hand, rather than turn around and flee for safety, which would be a perfectly reasonable reaction to something like yesterday's bombing. Is it purely instinct that takes over?

James Nachtwey quote ""Every minute I was there, I wanted to flee. I did not want to see this. Would I cut and run, or would I deal with the responsibility of being there with a camera"

If anyone has not seen the movie "War Photographer" by Christian Frie, which is about Nachtwey, you should rent or buy it. No one has ever been disappointed after I recommended this film. It was nominated for both an Academy Award and an Emmy. It did win the Peabody award.

Nachtwey's TED speech is also really worth watching.

I think the order in which he lists his awards in his Bio tells a lot about what he thinks is important:

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He has received numerous honours such as the Common Wealth Award, Martin Luther King Award, Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award, Henry Luce Award, Robert Capa Gold Medal (five times), the World Press Photo Award (twice), Magazine Photographer of the Year (seven times), the International Center of Photography Infinity Award (three times), the Leica Award (twice), the Bayeaux Award for War Correspondents (twice), the Alfred Eisenstaedt Award, the Canon Photo essayist Award and the W. Eugene Smith Memorial Grant in Humanistic Photography. He is a fellow of the Royal Photographic Society and has an Honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from the Massachusetts College of Arts.[/FONT]

 

[xxloverxx]

I don't do any photography professionally, but I think that what makes photographers run towards the event instead of away is the result of years of training. Conditioning, even, likely at a non-conscious level.

LeDoux's Tracing Emotional Pathways is one way to look at it: http://www.columbia.edu/~lep1/rry/w3410/LeDoux/Image3.gif

Explanation:
Sensory thalamus: A "relay center" that sends information via both high and low roads.
Sensory cortex: Responsible for logical thinking.
Amygdala: The emotional control center (triggers emotions).

A more detailed diagram would show the hippocampus in between the sensory cortex and amygdala —*the hippocampus stores schemas ("networks of knowledge").

Therefore, in the high road, we process (logically, consciously and rationally) information, which is then "compared" to existing schemas, all of which provide an emotional response (which in turn affects your actions).
The low road is only used in life/death situations —*note the lack of logical thought. Information triggers an emotional response straight away.

My opinion is that photographers, over years, condition themselves so that when the low road is taken, they run towards the event.

It is said that the sensory thalamus sends information via both paths at the same time —*however, the low road's "output" is usually discarded in favour of the high road. It seems that the low road is only taken when reaction is so fast that the high road doesn't even have time to produce an output. This still goes with LeDoux's model: A photographer, using the high road, would be running towards the event anyway.

A theory which supports this is Lazarus' appraisal theory. Briefly:
Primary appraisal —*how does this affect me?:
- Motivational relevance: Is the situation relevant to me?
- Motivational congruence: Is the situation favourable to my goals?
- Accountability: Who is responsible for the final outcome?

Secondary appraisal —*coping:
- Problem-based coping: Can I improve the situation by making it less threatening (to my goals, the self, anything which I care about)?
- Emotion-based coping: Can I improve the situation by changing how I feel about it?
- Future expectancy: To what extent can I expect the situation to change?

Using this theory, one of these photographers might process the situation like this:
- The situation is relevant to me.
- The situation is favourable to my goals (producing photos —*this, however, depends on the true priorities of the photographer. Again, developed through conditioning).
- I am responsible for the outcome — if I don't get photos, I'm the one to blame (again, this whole thing to do with priorities)
- I can improve the situation by making photos, which makes the situation less threatening to my goals/career/integrity/pride
- I can improve the situation by changing my emotion: Instead of feeling fear, I should try to remain calm and make the photos.
- The situation will always change —*a moment, once passed, is gone forever.

 

[oftheherd]

I have never been a photojournalist.

I think another question often asked also deserves comment. Given that others will also be running towards the incident, how does the photojournalist justify taking photos instead of providing aid to victims if they are present?

It is not my intent to hijack the thread, but rather to suggest there are two very pertinent questions about a photojournalists reactions; does one refuse to ever do one's job if it is dangerous, does one ever put one's profession over saving a current victim?

 

[xxloverxx]

I have never been a photojournalist.

I think another question often asked also deserves comment. Given that others will also be running towards the incident, how does the photojournalist justify taking photos instead of providing aid to victims if they are present?

It is not my intent to hijack the thread, but rather to suggest there are two very pertinent questions about a photojournalists reactions; does one refuse to ever do one's job if it is dangerous, does one ever put one's profession over saving a current victim?

My thoughts:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Photos help people learn and spread the news.

If people refused jobs on the basis of them being dangerous, progress in the world would be very slow. Also, as per my previous post, sometimes actions aren't justified —*they're just done.

Many people do put their profession over saving a current victim. I don't think there's any doubt for its existence.

---

I think some of this relates to bystanderism, so that justifies bringing up a few theories…

1. Diffusion of responsibility: The individual thinks that (s)he has less/no obligation to act because there are others nearby who have also noticed the incident.

2. Pluralistic ignorance: You look to others in your in-group (a group you identify with —*in this case, "photographers"). If the others are doing nothing with regard to actively helping a current victim, you act similarly.

What if you're, say, a doctor but also a photojournalist? I think it then depends on the uniform you have on ("uniform" being an object you have with you at that moment which you relate to either profession). If you're wearing casual clothes and carrying a camera, you'll probably identify with the "photographer" group more readily than the "doctor"/"help" group. However, if you're wearing clothes which you associate with the medical profession, the inverse is more likely to happen.

3. Arousal-cost reward model. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Social_exchange.JPG/400px-Social_exchange.JPG In cases of violence or terrorism, the cost of helping is high and the cost of not helping is low and so you do not help (just for now, let's say that making photos doesn't count as helping (that's far from my real opinion)).

I guess this is a good a time as any to mention fundamental attribution error, which is when we over-attribute someone's behaviour to their disposition and underestimate the role of the situation. Many people make this error when they see a photographer making photos instead of trying to provide immediate help. "How could (s)he be so heartless?!" is an easy example — it refers to the disposition with little consideration for the situation.

Edit: Surprised I managed to forget Cialdini's Negative State Relief explanation for altruistic behaviour: He argues that we help others to avoid the negative feeling which would come to us if we didn't help. Basically, we help to avoid feeling bad. Using this explanation, we'd first have to establish that you do what would best avoid a negative feeling (what would cost you least. Think opportunity cost): For most people (let's call them non-photographers), the most important thing would be to provide immediate help. However, a photographer might feel even worse about not having made a photo than if (s)he didn't provide immediate help.

 

[sig]

I have never been a photojournalist.

I think another question often asked also deserves comment. Given that others will also be running towards the incident, how does the photojournalist justify taking photos instead of providing aid to victims if they are present?

It is not my intent to hijack the thread, but rather to suggest there are two very pertinent questions about a photojournalists reactions; does one refuse to ever do one's job if it is dangerous, does one ever put one's profession over saving a current victim?

Because they can make money on selling photos?

With all the cellphones out there it is hard to believe that beeing a photojournalist in this case has any other purpose than making money.

 

[xxloverxx]

Because they can make money on selling photos?

With all the cellphones out there it is hard to believe that beeing a photojournalist in this case has any other purpose than making money.

Anyone can profit from selling their photos, no matter what camera was used to make the photo.

What about recording history in a way which satisfies the self with regards to the artistic side? Having a skill which allows them to make images which make the viewers feel an emotion, both from the beauty of the photo itself and from the beauty of the moment captured?

 

[oftheherd]

...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Photos help people learn and spread the news.

There is something to that, but written word or oral tradition can keep something in the corporate memory.

Many people do put their profession over saving a current victim. I don't think there's any doubt for its existence.

But do we accept that as proper conduct?

1. Diffusion of responsibility: The individual thinks that (s)he has less/no obligation to act because there are others nearby who have also noticed the incident.

I don't think that applies here. A photojournalist will be acting to preserve history and promot reporting of a fact. The question is which should take precedence, acting to save a victim or to record action as it takes place?

2. Pluralistic ignorance: You look to others in your in-group (a group you identify with —*in this case, "photographers"). If the others are doing nothing with regard to actively helping a current victim, you act similarly.

What if you're, say, a doctor but also a photojournalist? I think it then depends on the uniform you have on ("uniform" being an object you have with you at that moment which you relate to either profession). If you're wearing casual clothes and carrying a camera, you'll probably identify with the "photographer" group more readily than the "doctor"/"help" group. However, if you're wearing clothes which you associate with the medical profession, the inverse is more likely to happen.

That may well be a justification for an action not to aid a victim at the moment, the photojournalist may, on reflection, not be so sure. As to a doctor and photojournalist, that doesn't seem a good example. The doctor probably has a duty to a medical association (at least moral), if not law, to provide aid. Private citizens normally do not. But I get your point.

Many people make this error when they see a photographer making photos instead of trying to provide immediate help. "How could (s)he be so heartless?!" is an easy example — it refers to the disposition with little consideration for the situation.

If others are helping victims and photojournalists are taking photos, what is the error? Also, what if a photojournalist has zero medical training?

Edit: Surprised I managed to forget Cialdini's Negative State Relief explanation for altruistic behaviour: He argues that we help others to avoid the negative feeling which would come to us if we didn't help. Basically, we help to avoid feeling bad. Using this explanation, we'd first have to establish that you do what would best avoid a negative feeling (what would cost you least. Think opportunity cost): For most people (let's call them non-photographers), the most important thing would be to provide immediate help. However, a photographer might feel even worse about not having made a photo than if (s)he didn't provide immediate help.

I think that happens many times in many situations. Is it correct action?

Because they can make money on selling photos?

With all the cellphones out there it is hard to believe that beeing a photojournalist in this case has any other purpose than making money.

Many photojournalists work for some media company, TV, magazines, or newspapers. They would not own the photos they make. They might get away withholding particular photos, but it wouldn't be moral or legal to do so. Then, the only money they make is their salery, that salery given with the expectation they will produce.

If they are self-employeed, then certainly they would wish to make money from their photos. That doesn't mean they would not also have a strong sense of duty to provide mankind with photographic evidence of what they observed.

My personal belief is that if I were on a scene and believed there was no one else to save a person that would probably die without even non-trained intervention (such a simple thing perhaps as applying pressure to a bleeding wound or applying a tourniquet), I would probably give that attention as long as needed. Then I would document what I could. I would also be sure to advise my editors what I had done so if they wished, they could comment on their publication's adhearance to civic duty. But I would have a hard time living with myself if I thought I had let someone die when I could have prevented it. But that's just me, my upbringing, and my life experiences.

 

[anjoca76]

I live in Boston (am at home in lockdown now) and went down near the bomb site a couple times this week with my camera. Yes, I took a bunch of photos, but although I saw lots of people mourning, hugging, upset, etc., I never took any images of those scenes. Those felt like personal moments that I didn't believe I had the right to intrude upon. But all the "pros" nearby seized immediately on those moments. I understand that is their job, but as, at best, an enthusiastic hobbyist, I couldn't justify aiming a camera at anything quite as intimate as that.

 

[oftheherd]

I live in Boston (am at home in lockdown now) and went down near the bomb site a couple times this week with my camera. Yes, I took a bunch of photos, but although I saw lots of people mourning, hugging, upset, etc., I never took any images of those scenes. Those felt like personal moments that I didn't believe I had the right to intrude upon. But all the "pros" nearby seized immediately on those moments. I understand that is their job, but as, at best, an enthusiastic hobbyist, I couldn't justify aiming a camera at anything quite as intimate as that.

I think that is a very individual decision. At least the PJs, assuming that is what the "pros" you mentioned are, can justify doing so in the name of providing their employer with what the employer has hired them to do.

Meanwhile, stay safe!!

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

In a situation like that, we all make a decision as to what is best done in the circumstances. Sometimes, taking pictures is positively helpful, as they may assist specialists like the police to sort out what happened and why. At other times, it will, justifiably, annoy those trying to assist victims.

I'm delighted to say that I have never been in the position of making that decision. I would hope that, if I were, I would emulate the behaviour of the London photographer who was among the first on the scene of the bus bombing during the attack on London in 2005. As he approached the scene, he shot everything in sight. When he got to the remains of the bus, he found an elderly man who had been hit by a piece of shrapnel. He immediately dropped his camera and went to the man's aid, staying with him until a paramedic relieved him.

I believe that's called "getting your priorities right".

 

[nikonosguy]

James Nachtwey quote ""Every minute I was there, I wanted to flee. I did not want to see this. Would I cut and run, or would I deal with the responsibility of being there with a camera"

If anyone has not seen the movie "War Photographer" by Christian Frie, which is about Nachtwey, you should rent or buy it. No one has ever been disappointed after I recommended this film. It was nominated for both an Academy Award and an Emmy. It did win the Peabody award.

Nachtwey's TED speech is also really worth watching.

I think the order in which he lists his awards in his Bio tells a lot about what he thinks is important:

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He has received numerous honours such as the Common Wealth Award, Martin Luther King Award, Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award, Henry Luce Award, Robert Capa Gold Medal (five times), the World Press Photo Award (twice), Magazine Photographer of the Year (seven times), the International Center of Photography Infinity Award (three times), the Leica Award (twice), the Bayeaux Award for War Correspondents (twice), the Alfred Eisenstaedt Award, the Canon Photo essayist Award and the W. Eugene Smith Memorial Grant in Humanistic Photography. He is a fellow of the Royal Photographic Society and has an Honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from the Massachusetts College of Arts.[/FONT]

awesome movie

 

[BlackXList]

When considering why photojournalists document rather than "help" you have to assume that those we're describing as "photojournalists" (to make the distinction between citizen journalists etc.) are people who often find themselves in situations with this kind of dilemma, would also be well aware that sometimes the worst thing for a non medically qualified person to do is "try and help".

in "trying to help" it's completely possible to make things worse if you're not properly trained (aside from the purely medical considerations, sadly there are also issues of liability). It's not just medical training that might be relevant in a lot of potentially dangerous situations.

The first rule of rescue is "Don't make things worse" sometimes that means you have to resist the best intentions to try and help, and sometimes it means not putting yourself in danger so that the rescue workers potentially have to rescue an extra person.

(these points are in addition to those raised above by other posters).

Personally I feel that Photojournalism is an entirely valid reason for someone to be in a dangerous situation, and I find myself unable to judge those present for "why they didn't try to help" etc. For many reasons.

Firstly, they're actually there, their ability to judge the situation is better than mine.

Secondly, my above points.

Thirdly, they're there to take photos, that's their purpose in that situation, to criticise someone for that seems strange to me.

 

[newsgrunt]

hmm, thought I had posted this earlier but don't see it so let's try again.

People need to read this to get a fuller picture.

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/04/18...dos-story-by-eugene-richards/?iid=lf|around#1

 

[xxloverxx]

Oftheherd:

"There is something to that, but written word or oral tradition can keep something in the corporate memory."

True, but spreading information by a photo, which can be taken in with a glance, must surely be faster than reading 1000 words which may or may not have been accurately translated into a language you can read. Image tends to be a more universal form of communication (e.g. various psychologists have identified and argued for the existence of 6 universal emotions, but no one has identified 6 universal words).

Oral tradition is a dangerous one —*both Bartlett and Loftus & Palmer provided evidence for the inaccuracy of memory recall and how easy it is to distort memories.
Flashbulb Memory would argue that oral tradition would be an accurate way of retaining information within a group, but Neisser both provided evidence against the FBM theory (see the Challenger study) and said that social sharing and rehearsal are as important in maintaining FBMs as the emotional value with which you hold that memory, but these actions can also lead to distortion over time (the consequences of distortion are best seen in Loftus & Palmer's "Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction").


"But do we accept that as proper conduct?"/"I think that happens many times in many situations. Is it correct action?"

The concept of "we" needs to be defined — what is "we", and in what context? The concepts of right and wrong can only be defined within a specific group.


"If others are helping victims and photojournalists are taking photos, what is the error? Also, what if a photojournalist has zero medical training?"

The error is that people will attribute the photographer's behaviour to the disposition rather than the situation —*e.g. they will not take into account the fact that there're already enough people helping and that more would just get in the way. Instead, they will attribute the photographer's actions to a dispositional unwillingness to help.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

People need to read this to get a fuller picture.

I have to say that, having read that piece twice, I was completely unimpressed. I came to two conclusions: the author confuses hyperbole with feeling and I wouldn't wish to be within a hundred yards of the subject.

Of course, the second conclusion could be erroneous, being based on the results of the first but that's what happens when flights of fancy replace simple statements of fact.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I actually have earned my living as a photojournalist during several years, working for one of the main newspapers at the national level. I think people glamourize this profession too much. Most of what I photographed was politicians, covering their news, illustrating interviews, speeches... Etc. Very boring stuff. On the rare couple of occasions I was requested to cover conflict situations, I politely refused. My life is too dear for me to risk it over taking pictures of humans shooting at each other.

 

[dbarnes]

The job of the photojournalist is to witness. Be the eyes of the public and the world. Shed light where it needs to be shed.

It's work that has value well beyond money. (Believe me, photojournalists who are any good could make lots more money doing commercial photography.)

Often, doing the work means being dispassionate. But it also means being compassionate. No photojournalist I know would hesitate for a *moment* to put down the camera and save a life if nobody else were around.

 

[newsgrunt]

I don't readily see the relevance of the topic of this link to the discussion of photojournalists doing their job in a conflict situation.

Eugene Richard's reportage is interesting background on the subject of one image from the bombing. The entire piece tells me nothing of the photographer and his motives or feelings while making the image: the hero in a cowboy hat.

yeah, it was OT in hind sight but I thought it was an interesting side bar to the marathon story.

In situations like Boston, in the days following, the hard part of the job is trying to manage access to the relevant scenes. This means multiple trips to multiple police barricades in an effort to find one that is more porous. Add in several separate jurisdictional SWAT teams and the work coming out from the wire shooters is impressive. For many, the media staging areas are merely there to softly contain the media and keep them from wandering where they shouldn't (or where they don't want you to go).