Photojournalism and ethics

Photojournalism happens to be the closest area of photography to me. Something I would want to do on a daily basis, but don't really have a chance yet. I am very appreciative of it though and I like the idea of capturing moments and events, without staging them.

You don't have to be a photographer to discuss certain aspects of photography. I think internet proves it all the time. It is full of people judging from their own point of view, even if they don't know much about the subject.

Now, how do you feel looking at this famous picture?

ph. Kevin Carter

First thing many people see is how good and unusual it is. If you are not a photographer, all you know is that you "like" it - you see it was taken by professional. You don't know technicalities or reasons for liking it. Being a photographer the only difference is that often you can say why you like the picture. The point is, it doesn't matter your first impression was good once someone points out the background of taking it. If you start to imagine the process of taking a photo and you start to realise this child is still alive, your blood pressure gets higher. You start to think of a photographer as a heartless person, who prefered to take a picture rather than help and do something. By the way, what would you do?


Another situation photographer might end up being in is when something already happened and you are not the only person there. Nobody can help. There is you, scenery, and probably some audience.

ph. Nathan Veber

This is not a photograph showing what happened. This photograph shows what is happening after something happens. Controversial in its form indeed. It makes you probably hate photojournalists for what they do. But hey, remember. The girl is already dead.

ph. Paul Hansen

This is the photograph, that shows an actual tragedy. Even though the "object" (the girl) appears in both, the subject is different. It makes a huge difference in what your perspective is, since without seeing the first picture, you would contemplate of how sad the photograph is, some people would see some beauty in it. But hey, remember. There was plenty of eager photographers there. Plus, pretty sure they staged the picture little bit (was she originally holding all these artwork this way when she fell down after being shot?).


What about if something is currently happening but there is no way you can help? No way you can save anyone?

ph. Stanley Forman

First impression: old picture, two women falling, photographer must have been really quick.
Impression is correct in all points. Two women were escaping from a fire, but the fire escape collapsed and they fell. Photographer was quick with the photo, but probably was already pointing in this direction anyway, since fire was there for a while already.
He couldn't save anyone. However, picture is still controversial and the author was accused of "invading the privacy of the victims" and "looking for sensation".


I think the biggest reason why we talk about ethics in photography is that doing something else than helping or being sad/sympathetic in moments when tragedy happens is considered highly inappropriate. What if I tell you something that applies to all of us (to some more, to some less) - we care about things that touch us directly the most. You will not be taking picture of your own mother falling from the building, you will not laugh at anything when 3 minutes ago you found out someone close to you died, you will not be able to continue working if you are feeling very sick or you just put down your dog. But you will be able to do all these things if someone else was experiencing the bad part. Someone you don't know, you don't relate to. As much as we can react to tragedy of someone we don't know, most of the reaction comes from not knowing, but seeing.

There was a girl in Colombia who died trapped in her house after the eruption of a volcano. She was only 13 and nobody was able to help her.


How bad are you feeling?



How sad?



Can you imagine her suffering vividly?



That's her:

ph. Frank Fournier

Isn't it ironic? You find out about most of these tragedies from photographs and media. Both can manipulate if they want, but those most controversial are not famous because of their manipulation, but because how sad/brutal truth they show. However you still come back to the thought "they still shouldn't".

You can hate imagining the scene of photographer focusing on the picture more than an issue, but it is thanks to him why you see this picture. I'll come back to the question - what would you do? Would you do something more useful? Yes, you can call emergency number, but usually someone has done it already. If not, photographers are humans too and they also do it. Just because all you know about the author is his work, doesn't mean he hasn't done anything else or he didn't feel bad or shocked when taking the picture.

Funny thing is we live in times of smartphones and now everyone takes pictures. It is normal, at least until you see smartphones in the air covering the scene of tragedy.
What is the difference?
In my opinion, the significance difference is thinking. Photographer thinks when he takes a photograph. Tragedy is already happening, he doesn't want to waste it. He wants it to be captured well.
Normal person doesn't think. They get their phones out all days in various moments, sometimes to text, sometimes to take a selfie, sometimes to play Candy Crush. Mobile phones became "AllInOne" and people tend to use them all the time, everywhere. It became something they are used to do whenever they are not occupied with anything important. Photograph taken as a result of witnessing, by the phone, with no thought of "how" has no purpose of documenting dramatic scene. It is "snapping a picture". You do it for yourself, for the sake of remembering you've been there and unless you are the only person who captured the scene, your picture will be forgotten or used once and forgotten.
I am not judging people who do it. If I didn't have my camera with me and only a smartphone, I would probably do the same. But something is wrong, when you think it's okay for you to do it, and not for professional.
If you don't think it's okay to do it at all, then I have sad news. It is normal. Years ago, owning and knowing how to use a camera was a privilege, now it's a casual thing. Instead of capturing photos, people were using words to describe a situation. They were talking and being interviewed by newspapers. Now, it's the same + all those pixels everywhere.

If you also think photographers do it for the money or/and fame, the truth is most really don't think about it when taking a picture. Photographers follow their "instict" and camera is their tool. After using it in many various occasions, when facing an event or accident they think like photographers, not typical human (important note: they are still humans and they don't become insensitive at any point). If you are a printer, you will look at brochures in a different way than other people. If you are a cook, you will look at food in a different way than other people. If you are a politician, you will... look at ethics in a different way than other people. Photography profession is different in this manner, that your perspective applies to everything around, or to specific field like photojournalism. And photojournalism unfortunately involves happenings that are not always positive or happy.


What is also good to keep in mind, there are photographers and hyenas. Hyenas with a camera might basically act like their need of taking a picture is the most important. They would get in other people's way, they would sometimes stage things in order to manipulate the picture. The difference between those two types of photographers is the key point. Everywhere in every field you have good and bad people and let's stick to that.