Ethical Question regarding photography

shepthedog

As part of a college assignment I have to answer the following question. I am interested to hear what people here think on this subject..

You are the night editor of a newspaper. A photographer has taken a picture that shows very clearly a dead body following a drive-by shooting. The picture is of a young man, lying on a footpath, he has been shot in the chest and there is a lot of blood. Will you use the picture?
Give your reasons for running or not running the pic..

It has certainly got me thinking about some of the pictures I see appearing in the papers, expecially tabloids, eg NOTW etc..

Paulw

shepthedog wrote: »

As part of a college assignment I have to answer the following question.

And you want us to do your assignment? Nice one.

As for the scenario ... I think we see too much voilence these days. Such images are no longer becoming horrific, in fact they are becoming normal. I wouldn't use it.

Oryx

I would not use it. As well as desensitising us to violent images, and making them almost mundane, whoever the person is, he has a family. You have to be sympathetic to their feelings.

Let us know what marks you get, yeah?:)

Covey

Paulw wrote: »

And you want us to do your assignment? Nice one.

As for the scenario ... I think we see too much voilence these days. Such images are no longer becoming horrific, in fact they are becoming normal. I wouldn't use it.

Ditto, liitle extra newsvalue by publishing the photo as well as the report, plus distressing for family of the victim.

deegs

I think it would have more impact if you just saw less than the full image, maybe use it heavily cropped

pete4130

You've described the scene but haven't told us what the "picture" is that you've taken. It could be a well composed shot of something other than a bloody corpse lying on the ground with their chest blown open.
If the assignment refers to actually using the image of a bloody corpse it would depend on what sort of publication it would be used in, broadsheet or tabloid.

Manic Moran

There seems to be a sort of 'distance' rule. If it's an extreme close-up wherein the body takes up half the picture, it's considered insensitive. If the body is a more generic 'body in road' sort of thing, usually with police and the coroner etc around it, it's generally deemed acceptable.

NTM

Masada

i suppose it depends on the subject you are doing really., if its journalism then id say you would take the picture becasue its all about making money and they arnt supposed to care about "offending peoples feelings" etc. its been done in irish papers many times.,

magicbastarder

assuming it's for a paper being sold in the jurisdiction where the crime happened; then no ****ing way use the shot. no long shots, no close shots of any part of the dead body.
the photograph will not impart any extra useful info about the killing.

sineadw

I'm completely playing devil's advocate here - personally I would say no freakin way use the shot, for the sake of the family if nothing else -

Buuuuuut.... is the role of the reporter not to report? We see similar images from war zones every day (well.. you know what I mean...) and they often win the most prestigious prizes. I'd have to say it depends on the content in this case - is it just lurid and sensational? Is it telling the story visually? Is it tasteful? Or is it just tabloid schlock? Does it give a clear insight into something that is a problem of society? Is it just a back-up image for the story of another murder? What's the story that's running alongside it? None of that is explicit in the brief..

Do you have to give a *definite* yes or no? If it were me (and it was acceptable) I'd be taking an 'it depends' line and exploring the use of these type of images in more detail, both the good and the bad.

Fenster

I can't really say yea or nay as five months working at a veterinary clinic as veterinary assistant has completely desensitized me to blood, dead things (thankfully few) and random organs.

Stephen

You normally see these types of photos in the paper after the body has been covered with something, which I guess is more acceptable than seeing the dead body itself.

magicbastarder

images from war zones are different where the target audience are far less likely to know the person in question, and are usually reported within the larger context of whatever conflict is at hand; they're not simply being reported for the sake of reporting the sole death in question.

plus, images from war zones are rarely that gratuitously graphic.

sineadw

Ah but my point - and its purely pedantic - is that the brief itself doesn't state what or where the picture is from, or what story its running with. I could well be that its a drive-by shooting of a jew or a muslim in jerusalem, used to highlight the larger conflict. I'm in 'college brief' mode is all - sometimes the b@stards try to catch you out with stuff like that... Not sure if the course you're doing Gary is anything like that? Just thought I'd throw it in.

Masada

magicbastarder wrote: »

images from war zones are different where the target audience are far less likely to know the person in question, and are usually reported within the larger context of whatever conflict is at hand; they're not simply being reported for the sake of reporting the sole death in question.

plus, images from war zones are rarely that gratuitously graphic.

it still happens here though, there was the case of the man that was shot in his car in clontarf on the front page of various papers and the other one in the IFSC complex.,

Muineach

hmm this came up a few hours ago for me

From my house I could see a house/shed on fire, ambulance and fire brigades were firing off all over the place, then my dad asked me do you want to go and take a few pictures ?

I thought about it and I decided not to go.

I still remember the picture of the two dead policeman from the northern "troubles", the one where they were not in uniform and took the wrong turn into a funeral, that pic still sticks with me.

Found the story : http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DD1E3CF933A15750C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all, no pictures

Spyral

I'm not sure you can photograph crimes scenes anyway... the picture might be considered as potential evidence and so could be siezed.

sheesh

For this case we will assume that we are the kind of Newspaper that normally puts graphically violent pictures on their front page. So I'm not doing anything new.
There are 2 sides to this. If i run it the paper might sell a way more papers and I'll be a hero and maybe get out of this night editor job and get a day time slot.
If I don't run it and the head editor sees it he might be angry with me might even fire me.

If I run it the paper might be sued by the family of the deceased for mental anguish.

If I don't run it the photographer might sell it to a competitor then I'm really screwed especially if the photo has an effect on our sales.

Ethics doesn't really come into it actually it is a business decision will it sell papers or will it cause uproar. will the uproar be good for the paper. (there is no such thing as bad publicity). if it sells more papers we put it in if it does not then we do not.
on a practical level you would get legal advice. refer to standards.

Ethically I would say no I would not. But if i felt that not doing so would get me fired I would.

ThOnda

Nope. I wouldn't like to work in such neswpaper that would ever thing about printing such a photo.

PeakOutput

im in two minds about this. this particular scenario ie drive by shooting its more than likely a local problem with local people being affected i probably would not run it


HOWEVER

i recently thumbed threw a book in waterstones called something like "press photographs of the year 2007" and basically what it looked like to me was the type of pictures that photographers around the world take that the newspapers wont print.

these pictures had more of an affect on me,not because they were necessarily gory, than any picture ill see in the times. there was just something about a picture of a old lady(palestinian i think) with her shoulder to the shield of a riot cop with 6 more cops behind him pushing or a normal looking man on a mound of sand with two militants after pulling him out of a crowd in iraq(i think) and shooting him 20/30 times. the picture was actually taken while they were shooting him from what looked like no more than 20 feet away.

i cant help but feel that these are the types of photos that could actually make people care about what they are reading about and iv never seen a picture anywhere as powerfull in an irish newspaper. maybe a picture of a dead drive by victim could evoke similar feelings and push someone to action

AnCatDubh

common decency as most are suggesting would mean that - no you wouldn't print, but commercial reality, the so called 'greater good', and various subjective realities would probably dictate that in practical terms you would print.

also dead people don't sue which appears to be an overriding media rule - all lifeless bodies = more than fair game. this is probably why we don't see identifiable overdose cases, suicide attempts, or other self harm - although perhaps equally as striking in some instances.

i'd imagine the media have a risk assessor which would be able to tell you to the cent the 'what-if' of; if we publish we get XXXX amount of increased revenue from increased sales, kick the competitions butts, 'make' the news, and get larger circulation, more advertising, etc..., etc... while if we get sued the courts will probably sue us XXXXx amount.

while it is probably quite disturbing to most of us to think that this mentality may be used, i think it is the commercial reality thats in the wild.

the actual question as you've reproduced it above doesn't include the term ethical (assuming the title is your own categorisations of the post)- i wonder are you course tutors looking just for the commercial reality side of things as a theme???

media will play the "we are only a mirror reflection of what society wants" melody that appears to keep them going - do you buy into this is what you would ask yourself? if you are a late night picture editor then you probably do.


it probably depends on the kind of publication, red tops, broad sheets, etc... they do tend to have very different approaches and your question doesn't provide any fixed basis for the type of publication.

anyway just a few ramblings. good luck with the assignment.

magicbastarder

sheesh wrote: »

Ethics doesn't really come into it actually

well, i'll assume it does, given the thread title.
of course journalism has to take ethics into account; it is one of the professions most in need of that condition.

magicbastarder

case in point - the madrid train bombings, and the photo used by most british papers. there was a severed leg visible in the photo; not readily identifiable as such, especially given the quality available with newsprint.
the reactions of the papers - for a front page image of an atrocity in a different country - ranged from photoshopping the leg out, to desaturating it so it was less visible, to leaving it untouched.

sineadw

AnCatDubh wrote: »

also dead people don't sue which appears to be an overriding media rule

AFAIK if a person is dead libel and slander laws no longer apply - basically you can print whatever the hell you want about them. And they do...

PeakOutput wrote: »

i cant help but feel that these are the types of photos that could actually make people care about what they are reading about

I couldn't agree more, but you have to be a very very good photographer and I think maybe be very very lucky. Did anyone watch 'War Stories' the other night BTW?