DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Freelance Journalism Ethics ???
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/27/2005 04:46:51 PM · #1
Went for a drive today. Didn't expect to get any good shots due to bright sun and high winds. However, a voice told me to take my camera in case I saw something of journalistic value. I've been tossing around the idea of submitting images to the local paper on a freelance basis.

What I saw was a heartbreaking motorcycle crash and a woman lying twisted on the road. It appeared that she had not been wearing a helmet, and I can only assume she was dead because the people who had stopped were not trying to revive her. I couldn't see if there was another person involved and thought it best to keep moving, as I was unable to do anything.

So here's my question: Was I correct in driving on, instead of stopping to take photos of the twisted wreckage? There's no way I would photograph a person who appeared to be dead; but what is the protocol for photographing accidents? I'd love to hear from anyone with journalistic experience who can give me pointers for the next time I encounter such a thing.


08/27/2005 04:52:20 PM · #2
Not a pro, but I say you did the right thing.

If you took the shot and sold it to the paper and made a few dollars, and it was a family member or friend of mine, I'd be quite angry.

Just my $.02.
 08/27/2005 05:04:33 PM · #3
Stop and help or keep driving.

For the most part the words Journalism and Ethics put together in the same sentence is an oxymoron.


08/27/2005 05:07:51 PM · #4
Originally posted by nsbca7:
For the most part the words Journalism and Ethics put together in the same sentence is an oxymoron.


How so?
 08/27/2005 05:08:09 PM · #5
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Stop and help or keep driving.

For the most part the words Journalism and Ethics put together in the same sentence is an oxymoron.


I agree.

Steve
 08/27/2005 05:12:52 PM · #6
Originally posted by sammy_stecchino:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
For the most part the words Journalism and Ethics put together in the same sentence is an oxymoron.


How so?


Journalism: report the fact, regardless of human suffering and family grief.

Ethics: do not report the facts, concern for human suffering and family grief.

As to the original question, if you can't help at the scene with first aid, are not a witness, then drive on and leave journalism for another day. If you feel it is your duty to photograph, to sell to a newspaper, the scene regardless of the suffering it may cause others, then it is time you put your camera away for good!

Steve
 08/27/2005 05:14:21 PM · #7
I kind of agree, in that journalism often requires you to document someone else's pain and suffering in order to make a living of your own. I've been in that situation too and just can't photograph someone in crisis.

But I'm not saying it's inherently wrong to take that kind of photo because it can help other people to learn from that kind of situation, and I'm often moved the most by photos of people in crisis. I just don't have it in me to take those pictures myself.
 08/27/2005 05:17:39 PM · #8
Remember "The Station". That was the night club in West Warwick, Rhode Island that burned down and 100 or so people died. The camera man for the local news TV was there because they were doing a story on the older famous bands that were now hitting the night club curcuit. The camera man was filming the the people stuck in the door way of the club about chest high laying there unable to move. Instead of pulling people down from the top and saving some lives, he contunied to film. Everyone in that doorway burnt to death. I don't believe for on second that getting a shot is worth people dying.
 08/27/2005 05:24:59 PM · #9
I saw some photos taken form the scene of that recent plane crash (where the plane ran off the runway in a storm - forgot where that was) the photos were blurry and out of focus but were of terrified people running from the wreckage.
It was pretty clear from the photos that this photgrapher was one of the first people on the scene. Rather then help out and do what they can, maybe help an old lady, maybe tend to an injured child... The person chose to take photos.

Now, I do not know if the person snapped a few photos while helping people, or stood there and took photos hoping to sell them and ignored the people that needed help. If it was the later, they are truly the lowest form of human life.
 08/27/2005 05:25:44 PM · #10
These are all great points. I have to reiterate that I have no medical training aside from CPR. The victim I saw was so badly injured that CPR wasn't really an option. I was going the opposite direction and there were many people stopped already. The police and ambulances were on the way.

The papers here publish all kinds of accidents, and I wouldn't be suprised if this one shows up in it. The only reason that it occured to me to photograph it was because it might have helped illustrate another story about how deadly it is to motorcycle without a helmet. The fact that so many people ride around here without them just baffles me. So, in that sense it may have done some good.
 08/27/2005 05:30:05 PM · #11
There was a picture simlar to this in one of the local papers this week. It didn't show the victims (that would be pretty tacky, I think) of the fatal accident, but it did show the custom painted Jeep Wrangler. That in itself wasn't that big a deal until I read that they had not released the names yet, until family was notified (or read the paper, whichever came first).
 08/27/2005 05:30:13 PM · #12
I'm no journalist,but I used to be a paramedic, and when we were called out to a major, newsworthy accident scene, we usually called out our friends from the paper.

If you think about it. Why take a photo, what is the news, the message that will sell.

A 5 car pileup with 3 lanes of highway closed for the medical helicopter?
The paramedics working hard to save lives?
The unbeleivable damage done to a car when decelerated suddenly?
The distraught faces of family arriving on the scene? The unbeleivably lucky survivor in front of the carnage ?
The shapeless humps of the victims who did not survive, visable under the blue and red reflecting emergency blankets?

These are all pics that made it to the front page of our small, conservative community bi-weekly.
Never the face of someone in distress, or more than half an exposed limb of a deceased person.

There would have been nothing wrong with you taking pics, provided you had searched out and spoken to the most senior official there, (scene manager).
Otherwise you would have been chased off scene as a tourist with a taste for the macabre.

Just my experience, and now, 5 years later,unless I was sent specifically to an accident to take photo's, I drive right by.
08/27/2005 05:34:44 PM · #13
Rayg544: I totally agree, no shot is worth someone's life.

PhilipDyer: I completely agree.

Formerlee: I disagree with your views of journalism and ethics. Journalism does mean report the facts, but NOT regardless of human suffering. Many times the facts are related to human suffering. We are all familiar with school shootings covered in the media from the years past, and the images of students sobbing over their lost classmates only moments before. Yet this brings more attention to other areas on how to prevent similiar atrocities in the future -- such as looking out for warning signs, gun control, peer mediation, etc.

And ethics does not mean to "not report the facts" and concern for human suffering and family grief are not the only standards for what is ethical. Ethics is a question of what ought or ought not to be done (given certain environments). The situation in question obviously was an example of when someone "ought not" take a photo (at least of the body), yet would you say the same for the images from 9/11? or March 11 in Spain? or the attacks in London this last July? Or what about images from the masses suffering in Africa? Sometimes it is human suffering that demands the world's attention and makes reporting it the ethical thing to do.


Message edited by author 2005-08-27 17:39:15.
 08/27/2005 05:44:45 PM · #14
You might want to look at the World Press Photo winning shot for 2004 for ideas.
 08/27/2005 05:45:27 PM · #15
Photo jouralism is a tough business. I had to do it when I attened art school. Instead of focusing on the dead body on the ground, mentally you have to focus on the people trying to help the situation. As long as you don't get in the way of any rescue attempt it is "OK" to photograph situations like this. Occasionally A photo like that can help. One example would be to use the photo to promote motorcycle saftey. Out of tradgey hope can come.
 08/27/2005 05:49:47 PM · #16
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
The only reason that it occured to me to photograph it was because it might have helped illustrate another story about how deadly it is to motorcycle without a helmet.


And the only way to do that effectivly would be to photograph a close-up of her brains oozing out of the cracks in her skull onto the asphalt. If people really need to see that type of image they can just go here.

I don't think I would like to see my sister portrayed that way in the Daily Bugle.
 08/27/2005 05:57:16 PM · #17
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
The only reason that it occured to me to photograph it was because it might have helped illustrate another story about how deadly it is to motorcycle without a helmet.


And the only way to do that effectivly would be to photograph a close-up of her brains oozing out of the cracks in her skull onto the asphalt. If people really need to see that type of image they can just go here.

I don't think I would like to see my sister portrayed that way in the Daily Bugle.


OK, back up. I stated in the beginning that I would NEVER photograph the victim. So there's no need for such graphic language; and I think I'll pass on your link. My inclination was that the twisted wreckage of the motorcycle, along with a story about the accident, might help persuade someone to wear a helmet. I had just read an editorial that morning from a biker who had begun wearing one because of just such an accident. Please don't chastise me for thinking about something I didn't do. The reason I started this thread was to get some helpful advice on what's appropriate.
 08/27/2005 06:00:36 PM · #18
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
The only reason that it occured to me to photograph it was because it might have helped illustrate another story about how deadly it is to motorcycle without a helmet.


And the only way to do that effectivly would be to photograph a close-up of her brains oozing out of the cracks in her skull onto the asphalt. If people really need to see that type of image they can just go here.

I don't think I would like to see my sister portrayed that way in the Daily Bugle.


OK, back up. I stated in the beginning that I would NEVER photograph the victim. So there's no need for such graphic language; and I think I'll pass on your link. My inclination was that the twisted wreckage of the motorcycle, along with a story about the accident, might help persuade someone to wear a helmet. I had just read an editorial that morning from a biker who had begun wearing one because of just such an accident. Please don't chastise me for thinking about something I didn't do. The reason I started this thread was to get some helpful advice on what's appropriate.


I'm not really chastising you. More the industry. I'm just giving my opinion on good taste in journalism.
08/27/2005 06:02:44 PM · #19
Originally posted by sammy_stecchino:
Rayg544: I totally agree, no shot is worth someone's life.

PhilipDyer: I completely agree.

Formerlee: I disagree with your views of journalism and ethics. Journalism does mean report the facts, but NOT regardless of human suffering. Many times the facts are related to human suffering. We are all familiar with school shootings covered in the media from the years past, and the images of students sobbing over their lost classmates only moments before. Yet this brings more attention to other areas on how to prevent similiar atrocities in the future -- such as looking out for warning signs, gun control, peer mediation, etc.

And ethics does not mean to "not report the facts" and concern for human suffering and family grief are not the only standards for what is ethical. Ethics is a question of what ought or ought not to be done (given certain environments). The situation in question obviously was an example of when someone "ought not" take a photo (at least of the body), yet would you say the same for the images from 9/11? or March 11 in Spain? or the attacks in London this last July? Or what about images from the masses suffering in Africa? Sometimes it is human suffering that demands the world's attention and makes reporting it the ethical thing to do.


I take your point, but the events you describe bear no resemblance to each other. As a photojournalist your job is to record an event thru photography. 9/11 or other terrosist attacks are not the same as taking a shot of a woman lying dead in the road after a bike accident. The photos of terrorist attacks, altho shocking and graphic, do not focus on one person and therefore the suffering the family involved.

There is a very thin line between what you class as ethical and sensationalism! If you want to make an impact, you have to be careful not to cross that line.

Steve
 08/27/2005 06:02:57 PM · #20
Originally posted by nsbca7:

I'm not really chastising you. More the industry. I'm just giving my opinion on good taste in journalism.


Forgive me for getting defensive. I agree, there is a lot of unnecessary gore in journalism.
 08/27/2005 06:06:59 PM · #21
Steve,

I wouldn't classify it as "sensationalism", but I do agree that at times there can be a very thin line. And I do not feel the events have to be similar, the human suffering is the standard in the examples and is the element in question.
08/27/2005 06:17:19 PM · #22
Roxanne,

I have no experience with shots like that. I imagine I would find it hard to stop too, but kind of regret later that I didn't do it. Shots of the emergency crew on the scene, the wreckage of the bike or even to follow up if there were little memorials left after the accident (they do that around here sometimes...little crosses and things like that), would all be newsworthy IMO.

Some of whether or not I would stop would probably depend on safety and if there was a good spot to pull over and take the shots, yet be out of the way. It might also be helpful to make up some sort of photographer ID and keep it in the car? I don't know. I probably wouldn't say anything to emergency crew or police unless they spoke to me first, as I wouldn't want to interfere. Afterward, I would see if any of my shots were worthy of printing and contact the local paper to get any of the specifics...I wouldn't ask around on the scene, unless it was just chatting with a bystander or something.

I do know that in photography I've never regretted taking a photo, but have often regretting NOT taking one.
 08/27/2005 10:50:01 PM · #23
it's too late and i'm too tired to dig up the quote i saved from a photojournalist who was in an area hit by the tsunami last Christmas. he was asked why he took the pictures he did instead of 'trying to help'. his reply was along the lines of, 'i was helping by doing my job. the images i captured were those that helped galvanize world support. my images helped bring that tragedy to those who would not have experienced it otherwise.' that's how i tend to look at it.

my other opinion has to do with whether or not you approach photojournalism professionally. it's one thing to say you're going to take your camera out just in case you see something you might submit to a paper. hells-bells, there's plenty of stuff that paper's love to use for filler that don't involve blood-and-gore. shoot the cute stuff and submit away. on the other hand, if you are going to be shooting something else, if you don't know how to approach it professionally, it's probably best not to try. sure, there are exceptions, but they are rare.
 08/27/2005 11:08:56 PM · #24
A quote from a PJ over the tsunami tradegy,

"Here I witnessed the most heart-wrenching scenes. Bodies arrived in all sorts of vehicles. A van brought in eight bodies, each piled on top of the other. At another corner a couple held their daughter’s body and cried aloud. This scene moved me deeply. I lifted my camera and captured the moment. This was not just another picture I needed to submit; it was the story of this grieving couple. I wanted to share this painful story with the world through my lens.

As a photojournalist, I cannot be emotional. Had I chosen to cry during that moving moment, I would have missed a truly moving picture. I would have let down the people of Sri Lanka. Despite the stress and danger, seeing my picture appearing on newspapers and websites worldwide was a great consolation. I know I have not let down the people who suffered and lost so much in this tragedy. I know I have recorded their experience the best way that I could." -VINCENT THIAN, AP Photographer

Message edited by author 2005-08-27 23:09:25.
 08/28/2005 12:00:44 AM · #25
I attended the showing of the last 60 years of Pulitzer Prize winning photos Friday at the Washington State Museum in Tacoma. It was very moving as well as informative. The most interesting part was each photo had a description of events and the story as told by the photographer. Many were of tragedy and / or war. Many were taken in very dangerous and difficult conditions. Many you would have recognized. Some helped change history and get the public to realize what was happening in the world that needed attention.

Two particular photos are relevant. A photojournalist was covering famine and starvation in Africa. Before visiting an aid center he and others were instructed not to touch or try to assist any victim. Outside the camp he stumbled across a young women (hard to tell the age as she was in the final stages of starvation and was very emaciated) crawling across the dry desert soil trying to get o the food station. He took the shot that ended up winning him the Pulitzer. He did not help her although he wanted to. She died and would have died in any case as she was so far gone. After the photo was printed some questioned his ethics and why he did not assist the child to the aid camp, pick her up and carry her in. Some time later he committed suicide. His suicide was a result of guilt and anguish over the event.

Another photo (you will likely remember if you are my age) was of a young female child running toward the journalist in Vietnam after having her village bombed. She had all her clothing burned off of her from napalm. While running at him she kept repeating “it is burning, help me ... ”. He took the photo and helped get her to aid. She lived, is now married and has two children. After winning the Pulitzer he returned to Vietnam and gave half the winning money to her and her family. To this day he stays in contact with her.

So before you criticize legitimate photojournalists (not the Paparazzi) ask yourself, “Could I handle these events? I do not think I could.

Message edited by author 2005-08-28 00:01:46.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:04:49 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:04:49 AM EDT.