| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2007 11:09:57 PM · #1 |
Just returned from 2 interesting exhibitions in Newcastle and decided to share a few thoughts.
The first one - Portraits by Karin Catt. A local girl made good on the world stage. She does beautiful portraits of celebs (both Australian and International). Her large prints are so clear & clean you could just about squeeze the pimples on Heath Ledger's nose. I suppose a Hasselblad will do that for you.LOL
The second one (at a smaller near by gallery)was the one that got me thinking. It was the news photographer of the year. A mixed bag of types of shots - from bushfires, health, social comment etc. A number of them involved quite graphic shots from Iraq - involving bodies/ destruction etc. Not "pleasant" to look at but the person is reporting the news, doesn't carry a gun and is not personally involved in the conflict. I don't have any moral dilemma about that.
The shots that got me thinking were of the Cronulla riots. A disgusting time in Australias recent history.
For those of you who don't know about it - it happened over a couple of weeks (mainly only 2days) where our anglo-saxon, flag waving yobos started beating up on any Lebannese, arabic Australians at a Southern beach. It was mainly groups of drunk, young idiots out to cause trouble. But it put religious and ethnic acceptance back about 30 years.
Back to the photos. The photographer was following with the mob when they boarded a train carriage that had 2 young Lebanese youths in it and started to attack them. The photographer sat behind a seat and shot the whole scene until the police arrived and broke it up and rescued the 2 youths. This series of photos caused a great dilemma and may seem like a contradiction regarding the war shots. On the train the photographer could have assisted and possibly stopped the attack (could have been bashed himself, lost his equipment - who knows).
The war shots I feel you don't have any control on what happens around you (you are not armed, not a soldier). I found the Cronulla shots more disturbing because there was a sense of "you could have helped here" but didn't. I don't think I could have taken those shots.
Years ago - we had an eathquake in Newcastle. The main devastation was only 3 blocks from where I live. I didn't take any photos the day it happened but the next day I wondered around taking shots (film SLR). I came to the devasted remains of a house. Among the rubble was a little old Greek lady carrying pot plants. It was her house and the only thing she could salvage(and was concerned with) were her pot plants. I stood watching her debating whether to take the shot. In the end I didn't -it felt too much like preying on someones misery. The image is still burnt in my mind (16 years later).
Would I make a good news photographer? I've come to the conclusion - NO. Not unless I could choose what assignment to take and not feel personallly involved.
How about you ?
Message edited by author 2007-01-15 23:47:23.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 12:06:46 AM · #2 |
The question is not whether the photographer could have helped in the moment, but did taking the photos help tell the story and show the world just exactly what was going on? Had there been no photos of what happened on the train, the public outrage at what happened there would have been lessened to a great extent.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 12:15:27 AM · #3 |
More of them than him. I'd say he was smart. He stayed out of something in which getting involved would have put his own safety at risk with little chance he could have stopped it anyway, and now the police have good photos for evidence.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 12:16:38 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
More of them than him. I'd say he was smart. He stayed out of something in which getting involved would have put his own safety at risk with little chance he could have stopped it anyway, and now the police have good photos for evidence. |
And brought the event to the attention of the public. How many times has a story been glossed over...without showing the true facts to the public.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 01:02:05 AM · #5 |
It's definitely a moral delimna ... one we broached a lot in media ethics courses.
If you are near a large drainage ditch and see a child drowning in flood waters , do you:
a) Rush to the aid of the child
b) Snap a few shots then rush to the aid of the child
c) Snap away until rescuers arrive?
This situation is a lot easier than the one mentioned in the OP. But take in more considerations:
1) the water is very swift
2) you aren't a good swimmer
3) 4 people have drown there in the last 3 months
1 and 2 make the likelihood of an actual rescue by you very unlikely and possibly hinder rescue efforts by professionals because now YOU have to be rescued.
However, 3 puts you in a position where your "story" might make a difference in the future.
Edit: BTW, the reason this came up much in my ethics course is because it happened here. The child and a mother drove off into a drainage ditch near a major intersection. The child and mother drowned as well as a man that tried to save them, who happened to be a photographer.
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 01:09:24.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 01:26:11 AM · #6 |
The way you answer those questions (the OP's and Leroy's) shouldn't change because you have a camera in your hand. JMHO though.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:09:09 AM · #7 |
I'm not exactly sure just how often journalists (photographers or other) actually encounter situations in which they can intervene directly to change an outcome for the better but my feeling is it does not occur frequently. If we place on journalists the moral imperative of intervention then the delivery of news gets bogged down and the media have dual roles and become agency for aid/relief as well news reporting. It's a hard enough job as it is and the psychological stresses brought on by such internal conflicts can lead to ruin, as evidenced by Kevin Carter's story. You can read about him HERE.
The real mettle of a journalist is measured, imo, more by the ability to place oneself in dangerous situations and continue to perform the job in face of personal peril and psychological stress, rather than actual involvement in the situation. (Especially true for stringers who may not have the financial stability and support of a news organization, and may also lack health insurance.) If doctors quit their profession because they lost patients despite their best efforts then no one would get healed. It's much the same for journalists and both have to develop hard shells for self preservation and continuation of their needed skills and dedication. |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:11:02 AM · #8 |
edited for posting of the same message immediately above. Not exactly sure how that happened
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 04:12:46. |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:30:08 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm not exactly sure just how often journalists (photographers or other) actually encounter situations in which they can intervene directly to change an outcome for the better but my feeling is it does not occur frequently. If we place on journalists the moral imperative of intervention then the delivery of news gets bogged down and the media have dual roles and become agency for aid/relief as well news reporting. It's a hard enough job as it is and the psychological stresses brought on by such internal conflicts can lead to ruin, as evidenced by Kevin Carter's story. You can read about him HERE.
The real mettle of a journalist is measured, imo, more by the ability to place oneself in dangerous situations and continue to perform the job in face of personal peril and psychological stress, rather than actual involvement in the situation. (Especially true for stringers who may not have the financial stability and support of a news organization, and may also lack health insurance.) If doctors quit their profession because they lost patients despite their best efforts then no one would get healed. It's much the same for journalists and both have to develop hard shells for self preservation and continuation of their needed skills and dedication. |
I respectfully disagree. That's a bit of a stretch comparing photographers to doctors. The later is far more important than the former, IMO.
To play devil's adocate, what if those victims were members of that photographer's family? Would that photographer continue to sit back shooting away or would he/she put their camera down and help? I wonder. After all if the shot is truly important one should sacrifice their own family for it and not just strangers.
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 04:32:46.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 04:30:19 AM · #10 |
Quite the sticky situation!
Try this from my point of view, here I am trying to start a photography business and shots like that could really help boost me, but, I used to be a paramedic, and still feel quite a moral obligation to help.
Not sure what I would do....
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 05:26:18 AM · #11 |
I think that photos should ONLY be taken if the person in them has given permission. There is never any ethical boundaries in profiting from other peoples grief. The best shots are people in their time of joy, or, to avoid all controversy, shots without any people in them at all.
Zymmetrical.com - Your Photos, Your Prices
Message edited by author 2007-01-16 05:27:40.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 10:42:39 AM EDT.
