Blog Post 7

This weeks reading hit especially close to home for me. I've studied photography for over 8 years so the ethics of photography as a tool of reporting have been hammered into my head. I was extremely interested in the pictures and individual cases that were going to accompany the chapter. 

One of the most powerful for me was the case focusing on Marinovich in Soweto. I had seen both pictures before in different online chat rooms but never truly knew the story. It brought me back to one of the very first classes we had in which we all discussed the role of ethics in deciding to publish certain pictures. In my opinion I would've published these photos. They may ruin someone’s breakfast but they are the truth and paint a somber picture that I think the public should've known. As we discussed in class, perhaps it may be more tactful to put the picture on a page a bit farther from the front but they should still be showcased. I feel like too much of the U.S. population didn't find the war in Iraq and Afghanistan relevant to them because they felt extremely disconnected form it. This disjointedness comes from the paucity of real time coverage (especially images) that truly demonstrates the atrocities abroad.

I think something about the Soweto case that stuck out to me specifically, was the discussion of the ethics of the photographer. A lot of the time focus is placed on the editors and their ethics, see: should we publish this or not. Yet the ethics behind the person taking the actual picture are judged as well. I found myself having a bit of a mental conflict in this regard. As a photographer I think if you find something powerful to shoot that makes a once in a lifetime shot, then by all means shoot it. But this isn’t ethically sound, as the book discusses. The question of ‘to shoot or not to shoot’ is one based intensely upon how a certain individuals ethical map looks. As a realist I see no problem shooting something as it’s happening but many might argue this as wrong. I think back to an extremely startling photo I saw a couple of months ago. A man lay on the ground, hands bound with hundreds of knives sticking out of him, the gore was off the Richter. It was one of the most powerful photos I’d ever seen. I immediately researched its origins. Apparently the man stabbed was a rapist abroad, killed after the entire village decided to take action against him. The photo is jarring but an interesting statement.

There was a lot of criticism towards the photographer for taking pictures in place of helping the man being stabbed, but how much can he be expected to do? If he had intervened might he also become a victim? That’s not to say if you can stop something that you shouldn’t but it seems as if in this situation that might be more dangerous than staying out of it. I also think ethically it’s impossible to hold all photographers to the same standard. Perhaps I’m biased but conclusively I feel the editors should shoulder more of the responsibility in these situations. Running the picture to thousands of readers is a lot different than taking one in the heat of the moment.