Comments on: A Question on Photojournalism Ethics http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/ Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:52:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Scott http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13967 Scott Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:21:43 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13967 @Josh: I see what you're saying about the photographer...it's really an editorial complaint that I have. @Jen: I think the photo that troubled me the most was the first one...where they were all standing around and someone was picking up the victim's leg (perhaps checking her pockets for ID?). It's the news, not <em>CSI</em>. @Josh: I see what you’re saying about the photographer…it’s really an editorial complaint that I have.

@Jen: I think the photo that troubled me the most was the first one…where they were all standing around and someone was picking up the victim’s leg (perhaps checking her pockets for ID?). It’s the news, not CSI.

]]> By: Jen http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13956 Jen Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:07:03 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13956 I agree Josh, the PJ was just doing his job and it is really up to the editor of the publication to decide what prints and what doesn't. I myself don't find the photos disrespectful of the victim. It helps me that I don't see her face....but the photo gives me a more definitive sense of the tragedy. The body strewn out in a mall...it could really be anywhere...and to me that gives impact to the image. I think maybe they are too much for Salt Lake City....or maybe for a smaller town...but I think one of these photos would have run in a much larger city. The one image of the three that makes me sort of eerie is the second one (A police officer stands nearby as a body of a woman lies on the floor Monday, Feb. 12, 2007, at Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City.) Sure he's a police officer, he has probably seen dead bodies before....but him leaning up against that sign seeming so complacent....that image is more troubling to me than the other two.. I agree Josh, the PJ was just doing his job and it is really up to the editor of the publication to decide what prints and what doesn’t. I myself don’t find the photos disrespectful of the victim. It helps me that I don’t see her face….but the photo gives me a more definitive sense of the tragedy. The body strewn out in a mall…it could really be anywhere…and to me that gives impact to the image. I think maybe they are too much for Salt Lake City….or maybe for a smaller town…but I think one of these photos would have run in a much larger city.

The one image of the three that makes me sort of eerie is the second one (A police officer stands nearby as a body of a woman lies on the floor Monday, Feb. 12, 2007, at Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City.) Sure he’s a police officer, he has probably seen dead bodies before….but him leaning up against that sign seeming so complacent….that image is more troubling to me than the other two..

]]> By: josh http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13953 josh Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:53:02 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13953 I think you're absolutely right about websites being more of a pull form of communication. Print media and televised media would definitely be more conservative about making pictures like these available, but the very fact that these pictures are controversial (that they were made public anyway) will probably drive web traffic. Plus, they can just yank them down at any time if they get too much heat about it, but if you put it in print media it is much more permanent. Yahoo might even be trying to make their site more controversial in an effort to divert web traffic from Google. Some might go so far as to say the photos should have never been taken, but I do not agree with that. That decision should be made my an editor or another gatekeeper down the line. The photos might even be useful in a police investigation. If a photo journalist has access to an area, it is, in my view, his duty to document it to the fullest extent. I think you’re absolutely right about websites being more of a pull form of communication. Print media and televised media would definitely be more conservative about making pictures like these available, but the very fact that these pictures are controversial (that they were made public anyway) will probably drive web traffic. Plus, they can just yank them down at any time if they get too much heat about it, but if you put it in print media it is much more permanent. Yahoo might even be trying to make their site more controversial in an effort to divert web traffic from Google.

Some might go so far as to say the photos should have never been taken, but I do not agree with that. That decision should be made my an editor or another gatekeeper down the line. The photos might even be useful in a police investigation. If a photo journalist has access to an area, it is, in my view, his duty to document it to the fullest extent.

]]> By: Scott http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13952 Scott Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:48:48 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13952 @Bill: Wow, that bad...gives more meaning the phrase, "If it bleeds it leads." Do you think that the "no local bodies" policy has been made moot by the internet? @Bill: Wow, that bad…gives more meaning the phrase, “If it bleeds it leads.” Do you think that the “no local bodies” policy has been made moot by the internet?

]]> By: Bill http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13949 Bill Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:32:14 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13949 Many local news outlets have a "no local bodies" policy. I've had to edit images of dead bodies out of raw footage of car crashes, for example, for TV news stories before. Back in the 1960s, my dad said the station he worked had to edit raw footage that contained a guy getting crushed by a steamroller. Ultimately, it's up to each news organization to decide what they're willing to show, and most are fairly conservative in that regard. Many local news outlets have a “no local bodies” policy. I’ve had to edit images of dead bodies out of raw footage of car crashes, for example, for TV news stories before. Back in the 1960s, my dad said the station he worked had to edit raw footage that contained a guy getting crushed by a steamroller.

Ultimately, it’s up to each news organization to decide what they’re willing to show, and most are fairly conservative in that regard.

]]> By: Scott http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13947 Scott Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:16:51 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13947 @Josh: Yeah, I can see both sides, too. I also admit that I do look at them when they're right in front of me (like online rubbernecking). I also agree that it's probably more the fault of the editors than the photographers. But do you think we own any of it? After all, it's not something you hear people complaining about...just little 'ol folks like me. We are the consumers of the content, right? I'm thinking that because the internet is more of a "pull" communication than television, it's always going to be more extreme. Thoughts? @Virginia: I know, I know. This was sarcasm... <blockquote post="910">So you're saying that you get all the news you need right here? ;)</blockquote> And to answer your question more clearly: No, I think that propagating the pictures would have been to repost the images. I gave a link so that I could reference what I was complaining about. I could have just left the link off and posted the captions, but feel like in this particular instance it was okay. If I am leading people to something they don't want to see, I suppose I could add a warning to the post reminding folks not to go there unless they want to see dead people (even though it's implicit). You may be the exception, but don't you also think that people who are likely to visit a blog also get their news online? The traffic on Yahoo! News averaged <a href="http://www.journalism.org/node/3737" rel="nofollow">31.6 million unique visitors</a> per month in 2006 (#1 actually among the other services...5.5 million more than their nearest rival). That's a lot of people, too. You can probably find these images on other news sites, but I haven't gone looking. @Josh: Yeah, I can see both sides, too. I also admit that I do look at them when they’re right in front of me (like online rubbernecking). I also agree that it’s probably more the fault of the editors than the photographers. But do you think we own any of it? After all, it’s not something you hear people complaining about…just little ‘ol folks like me. We are the consumers of the content, right?

I’m thinking that because the internet is more of a “pull” communication than television, it’s always going to be more extreme. Thoughts?

@Virginia: I know, I know. This was sarcasm…

So you’re saying that you get all the news you need right here? ;)

And to answer your question more clearly: No, I think that propagating the pictures would have been to repost the images. I gave a link so that I could reference what I was complaining about. I could have just left the link off and posted the captions, but feel like in this particular instance it was okay. If I am leading people to something they don’t want to see, I suppose I could add a warning to the post reminding folks not to go there unless they want to see dead people (even though it’s implicit).

You may be the exception, but don’t you also think that people who are likely to visit a blog also get their news online? The traffic on Yahoo! News averaged 31.6 million unique visitors per month in 2006 (#1 actually among the other services…5.5 million more than their nearest rival). That’s a lot of people, too. You can probably find these images on other news sites, but I haven’t gone looking.

]]> By: Virginia http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13945 Virginia Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:57:29 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13945 No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I was saying that people who get their news from the radio or newspaper, which there are a lot, wouldn't have known about the images on the Internet - I didn't. And I understand the lack of respect you feel for the deceased and families of the deceased by the photos being posted. I guess my question is, do you think you are propagating the photos by posting the links on your blog? No, no, that’s not what I’m saying. I was saying that people who get their news from the radio or newspaper, which there are a lot, wouldn’t have known about the images on the Internet – I didn’t. And I understand the lack of respect you feel for the deceased and families of the deceased by the photos being posted. I guess my question is, do you think you are propagating the photos by posting the links on your blog?

]]> By: josh http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13944 josh Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:10:15 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13944 I don't fault the photographers. Ultimately it is up to an editor or producer to determine what will be shown and what will not. I've had discussions such as this one with many photographers and it is hard to find two that will agree, but most would side with you believe it or not. I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm really not sure what I would do in situation had I been the editor. I doubt these would've been shown in the Washington Post or on the evening news, which makes me think that Yahoo news might be twisting their ethics a bit to generate more hits and unique visitors to their site. I don’t fault the photographers. Ultimately it is up to an editor or producer to determine what will be shown and what will not. I’ve had discussions such as this one with many photographers and it is hard to find two that will agree, but most would side with you believe it or not.

I can see both sides of the argument, and I’m really not sure what I would do in situation had I been the editor. I doubt these would’ve been shown in the Washington Post or on the evening news, which makes me think that Yahoo news might be twisting their ethics a bit to generate more hits and unique visitors to their site.

]]> By: Scott http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13943 Scott Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:09:30 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13943 So you're saying that you get all the news you need right here? ;) Yeah, that's somewhat of a necessary evil (drawing attention to the images), but it's not like these are hidden on some underground blog. So you’re saying that you get all the news you need right here? ;)

Yeah, that’s somewhat of a necessary evil (drawing attention to the images), but it’s not like these are hidden on some underground blog.

]]> By: Virginia http://transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-13942 Virginia Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:03:13 +0000 http://www.transformatum.com/2007/02/13/a-question-on-photojournalism-ethics/#comment-13942 I wouldn't have known these pictures were on the Internet if I hadn't seen the link on Transformatum. I wouldn’t have known these pictures were on the Internet if I hadn’t seen the link on Transformatum.

]]>