Ethics of News Photography?

[CameraClicker]

"how many children, husbands, and wife's woke up seeing their family member on TV dead or dying exposing the mayors drug problem?" One for sure, might have been two. Mayor is still in office with no power but only an election can force him out. It has been going on for a couple of years now. Peripheral parts are winding their way through the courts. It's a mess.

Sammy's murder was on YouTube and then on TV. I suspect most people in the city think that is a good thing.

There are many news outlets, and I haven't seen most of them. I understand some may be geared more to the sensational than others. And in some ways we may be in heated agreement. A couple of years ago a couple of kids were racing down Kennedy Rd and one wrapped the car around a pole and cut it in half, I think there was a passenger that took off, and the other car disappeared. The driver was killed. Three hours later the local politician was standing on the corner babbling about some bill he had introduced, while the TV crews filmed him. I thought that was a sorry sight. Half of the car was still laying around. I don't recall seeing a body in our media, the most tasteless part was the politician.

Usually our media does not show mangled bodies, but they do show portraits or sketches of those involved. And, they show accident scenes, usually a wide view of an intersection or curve, sometimes with a wrecked vehicle. I haven't seen anything I thought was unreasonable. The same reporters and photographers who are doing that reporting were covering the Olympics, Pan-Am Games, various wars, human interest, and lots of other stuff. When not on some distant assignment they do about five different stories a day. Accidents and murders are part of that, which is why they need some mental toughness. It wasn't an accident, but a medical condition had a photographer in the hospital every few days photographing the same little girl for months. By the time he was finished he knew everyone.

In the Internet age there is the opportunity to self publish, but anyone working with regular media is mainly a collector of details and images. An editor decides what stories run and which images support the story. The ambulance chaser just wants a pay cheque like everyone else. Blame the consumers. Without them the media would not pursue the story and would not pay for the content. It's a hard line to draw. Kennedy's assassination took place in front of lots of cameras, at least one recorded the whole thing. It made the news at the time, and it was on TV as a documentary last winter. Do family and friends want to see that? Probably not. It is part of history though. And while we may not be aware of it, some roll over on a back road may change history just as much for some other family. As a paramedic you may already know everything there is to know about the victim. The news crew that rolls up only knows there has been a crash, it is up to them to find out who, what, when, where, and why. The first step is to chase the ambulance so they can start near the beginning. It could be days or weeks before they know if their time was well spent. And a lot of the decisions are not theirs to make.

 

[vintagesnaps]

If you were seriously interested in doing something like this you'd probably need to find out if your local paper was interested in using you as a freelance photographer, have a portfolio of your work prepared, and if contracted then be issued credentials by them. Otherwise you'd be on the scene as a citizen/bystander taking pictures without knowing if a news source would use them. That would seem to just bring one more person (yourself) into whatever situation first responders need to handle.

 

[dennybeall]

Having grown up as a second generation news photographer in the DC area I think there are two different answers. Being a photojournalist and responding to phone calls and police/fire radio calls can be a job or it can be a passion but seldom both. Pros race to a scene and take all the photos needed to tell the story but the editorial staff decides what to publish and if areas of the photo need to be blocked out.
Personally I can't imagine doing the job just for fun or entertainment. With the proliferation of cell phone cameras now I would doubt there is any market for a news photographer except in very large markets.

 

[bratkinson]

I don't know about cities other than the medium sized one I live in, but here in Western Massachusetts, the TV stations and newspaper all encourage their viewers/readers to email their photos of news events, bad weather, or whatever. Cellphone photos are the 'norm' these days. Payment? Other than mention of 'Joe in xyztown sent this photo of...', I don't think they get even a nickel.

Even the Chicago Sun Times has laid off their photography staff. Free photos from the general public are good for the bottom line profit vs wages, benefits, vacations, etc eating away at profits.

 

[Mixmaster]

I live in a small town in the middle of West Virginia. Population = 6,000 +/-.
While I do travel a lot (my wife is from Ecuador, and I find myself in South America often) I get bored here - even though here is where "work" is.
I recently downloaded an app for my iPhone that allows me to listen in to the City & County police departments, the Fire & EMS, and the local branch of the State Police. Basically, its a scanner on my iPhone.
The local newspaper MIGHT have 2 reporters and one camera between them. It's a decent paper for a small town, but they don't have much of a front page.

I have been considering, for quite some time now, responding to the scenes of accidents, fires, fights, and other "interesting" incidents and taking photographs - but I don't want to be labeled as an ambulance chaser nor do I wish to make enemies in this town. But I do have a fair amount of free time on my hands...

Should I even attempt this?

How do you stand on the side of the road and take photos of an overturned car when there are injuries? What are the ethics regarding that?
I'm fairly certain I am talking myself out of this as I write this post - but I'm curious to know what the rest of you think.

I just joined the forum a week or so ago, I know this is an odd place for a first post, but I have a thought for the OP:

As a firefighter and former medic, I hate seeing all the cameras around our scenes and would never encourage someone to post pictures of someone else's loss of life or personal property. However, if the OP has the time, I might suggest checking with the fire, rescue, and law enforcement in their town. My former department actually had an official "department photographer" that responded to calls with the intent of documenting all things. IIRC he was a semi retired pro photographer and former volunteer. His "juicy" photos were never released for public viewing, but the photos helped back up reports and documentation, occasionally documented arson investigations, and provided him with a way to get photos that no-one else could, and along the way he got some really good action shots from much closer than and general public photog would ever get. Something like this may be a way for the OP to get his photo fix and help the community at the same time.