What would you do?

[Photographer Clayton]

I am going to place a situation here, and see what people would do in the situation.

You are a photojournalist, and have gotten some good photos before the big news companies arrived. You know these photos can sell at the local newspaper and possibly a magazine. But your friends are trying to pressure you to delete the photos because they think it is inappropriate to take a photo of a tragic events and profit off them.

Would you delete the photos? (explain your answer)

 

[christopher walrath]

Of Kathy Ireland posing nude? No. Of a rape victim exposed and weeping uncontrollably on a curb? Yes. It's situational as you say and only through the morals that one aquires through a lifetime of experiences can one answer that question WHEN the situation arises. Besides, hypothetics suck! The real question is 'Can the 'Photojournalist' live with being referred to as a heartless bastard for the rest of their miserable life?'

 

[Mystwalker]

Me - yes.

A photojournalist - no.
That's your job.
Your job pays your rent, feed your family, etc ...

This is why I would never be a photojournalist - I would starve.

 

[crystal_lynn]

For me it would be situational, if it was say a fire and the photos would elicite compassion from the community which in turn would help the victim then no I would not delete them.

However, I would probably not be taking photos of a tragic event anyways. I would either be in the thick of things helping or move out of the way and let the real heros do their thing. I despise gaukers and that to me is what I would be doing if I was taking photos.

 

[Socrates]

I am going to place a situation here, and see what people would do in the situation.

You are a photojournalist, and have gotten some good photos before the big news companies arrived. You know these photos can sell at the local newspaper and possibly a magazine. But your friends are trying to pressure you to delete the photos because they think it is inappropriate to take a photo of a tragic events and profit off them.

Would you delete the photos? (explain your answer)

What others think of my photos is irrelevant. If I like them, I keep them (with or without the profit motive). Bear in mind, however, that I am beyond the age of majority.

 

[kundalini]

Without hesitation, take the photos because it is in the moment and you're not likely to ever have that particular event happen again.

The decision of what to do with them is another matter. I'm not a photojournalist, I do not depend on photography as a source of income.

However, I would never ever let friends, family or any others pressure me to delete any image that I have captured. Tremendous knowledge and changes can be had from tragic situations.

 

[Rand0m411]

It cant be recorded into history if its not recorded.

 

[KOrmechea]

Some amazing images were captured September 11, 2001 (probably the most tragic day of my generation). I don't think any photographer/journalist is sorry for covering the event.

I think you need to be able to separate work from the rest of your life. If friends don't like what you do, they don't have to view the images. Plus, there are ways to respectfully document sensitive issues.

 

[danjchau]

-------------

 

[Seefutlung]

That is called Blood Money. If any journalist feels they are reporting for reasons other than the highest of journalistic standards ... then they need to get out of the biz.

If a person feels guilty about receiving compensation for reporting a tragic event ... then that person doesn't have to accept the money or donate the money to the family or a charity in the name of the person involved at that tragic event.

Journalism isn't about money ... it is about the right of the public to know.

As a photo journalist I was taught that the need of the community is more important than the need of the individual.

So, let's say that the teen of a prominent family overdoses and dies. This is tragic for the family ... but will be seemingly considerably more unbearable after the story and photos appear in the newspaper.

The family just wants to be left alone in their sorrow for this terrible and less than honorable event.

But society needs to know the harmful and deadly effect of drugs. Society need to know than drugs can strike any family ... even a prominent family can be a victim.

The tragic event of one family may help to alert and potentially save countless other families from similar circumstances. Hence the greater need of society outweighs the pain of the few.

Albeit, this a weak example ... but it is late and I hope you get the concept.

Thomas Jefferson stated that he'd rather live in a country with no government and a free press than a country with a government and no free press.

So if that prominent family was able to suppressed that story to reduce their public pain and humiliation ... where will that suppression stop? Censorship of a "free press" has greater society ramifications then the tragic pain of the few. But I digress.

Taking a narrow view of tragic events and the reporting of same may seem cruel ... but looking at the broader view and it all come into perspective.

Gary

 

[JerryPH]

Is this a continuation of that same discussion where a student jumped on their head and you were made to delete pics or am I confusing 2 threads here?

Why do so many of your questions sound like you are copying homework questions?

 

[Seefutlung]

Remember that there is a big difference between reporting and exploitation.

Person trapped in a car after after an accident. Photographing a close up of their screaming face is exploitation ... backing up a few feet and shooting the person while Emergency Personal pry open the door is reporting.

Shooting a close up of a weight lifter's face while they are straining to lift a weight (with a similar expression as the person in the car) is reporting ... shooting a wide shot of the same person lifting weights would/could be boring.

Photographing the face of a dead solider is considered exploitation ... showing the faces of fellow soldiers grieving for their fallen comrades is reporting.

Exploitation is taking advantage of a situation where the shock value of the photo exceeds what that image contributes to the story ... or to society's need to know.

Annnd ... taking and publishing photos purely for money without a care or thought about how it would affect the family and friends of the subject is also a form of exploitation.

Gary

 

[Socrates]

Remember that there is a big difference between reporting and exploitation.

Person trapped in a car after after an accident. Photographing a close up of their screaming face is exploitation ... backing up a few feet and shooting the person while Emergency Personal pry open the door is reporting.

Shooting a close up of a weight lifter's face while they are straining to lift a weight (with a similar expression as the person in the car) is reporting ... shooting a wide shot of the same person lifting weights would/could be boring.

Photographing the face of a dead solider is considered exploitation ... showing the faces of fellow soldiers grieving for their fallen comrades is reporting.

Exploitation is taking advantage of a situation where the shock value of the photo exceeds what that image contributes to the story ... or to society's need to know.

Annnd ... taking and publishing photos purely for money without a care or thought about how it would affect the family and friends of the subject is also a form of exploitation.

Gary

I don't disagree with any of that but the problem is that, except for your last point, the decisions are subjective.

 

[Seefutlung]

I don't disagree with any of that but the problem is that, except for your last point, the decisions are subjective.

Yes, they are subjective ... what is deemed appropriate and would be considered publishable in one market (say New York) would be considered exploitation in another (like Iowa). Which is why you have professionals with extensive education and experience calling these shots.

Additionally, market pressures also come to play. Most advertisers will not drop money into an exploitative media enterprise. Guilty by association type of thinking. So the editors must reflect the standards of the local community in order to stay in business in that community.

And standards change over time. Life magazine published the first photos, to run in an American periodical, which contained dead American soldiers. WWII, dead Marines, killed while storming a South Pacific island beach, bobbing and floating in the shallow waves. Back then it was a giant step, creating a lot of anxiety amongst Life magazine's management whether to publish or not ... now publishing this type of image(s) is practiced everyday. So time and location/community are subjectively used to edit/censor/temper what is and is not published.

Fortunately, with the internet, we are not restricted by local advertising and local editors filtering the news we receive and digest.

Gary

 

[Socrates]

Yes, they are subjective ... what is deemed appropriate and would be considered publishable in one market (say New York) would be considered exploitation in another (like Iowa). Which is why you have professionals with extensive education and experience calling these shots.

Additionally, market pressures also come to play. Most advertisers will not drop money into an exploitative media enterprise. Guilty by association type of thinking. So the editors must reflect the standards of the local community in order to stay in business in that community.

And standards change over time. Life magazine published the first photos to run in an American periodical which contained dead American soldiers. WWII, dead Marines, killed while storming a South Pacific island beach, bobbing and floating in the shallow waves. Back then it was a giant step, creating a lot of anxiety amongst Life magazine's management whether to publish or not ... now publishing this type of images is practiced everyday. So time and location/community are subjectively used to edit/censor/temper what is and is not published.

Fortunately, with the internet, we are not restricted by local advertising and local editors filtering the news we receive and digest.

Gary

Some years back, I spent several weeks teaching a class to telephone techs in Brooklyn. Naturally, I adapted to the accepted mores. My next assignment was in Kansas and it was a total disaster.