Photography and Ethics
Posted on 23. Jun, 2009 by Terry Reinert in Photography
A few weeks ago I saw a tweet from a photographer about seeing a car accident on his way home and he was torn between whether to jump out with his camera a shoot some frames of it or not. This is something that I have thought long and hard about in the past and have seen a lot of other photographers post questions about it as well. His tweet got me thinking again on the topic and now I am going to share my own thoughts on the ethics of photography. This is not a post about the ethics of using Photoshop to manipulate photos or touch up models in your photos. There are a ton of blogs that have already covered this topic in great detail. A good discussion is taking place in the comments section of RC’s LayersTV blog post about it if you’re interested in that sort of thing. What I am going to talk about is the ethics relating to when and when not to shoot.
I will admit that this topic is not an easy one to figure out. On the surface many things look pretty cut and dry… drop the camera and save lives you twit! But in reality it is not that clear… in fact it is a very complex subject and the right answer differs based on the situation and your exact position within the events surrounding you. Because of that, no one can give you the right answer to guide your actions in the future… that is something that only you can determine in the moment but you should really think about it in advance so you do not end up with either a legal problem or a personal conflict in the future. For example, Kevin Carter won a Pulitzer Price for a photo he took of a dying girl in Africa with a vulture in the background. But the effects of his actions eventually resulted in him committing suicide. So keep that in mind as I go through some examples that I have either experienced myself or have heard of from other and discuss them from an ethical standpoint.
The Life Threatening Tragedy
We all know of examples in this category… car accidents, terrorist acts, results of crime, and so on. Basically, any situation that one or more lives are at stake. Again, on the surface the answer seems pretty clear… drop the camera and save lives. But there are a lot of variables we have to look at here…
1) Do you have any medical training and does this event contain a situation in which your training can be applied to save lives?
If the answer to this question is yes, then drop the camera and save lives you twit! Most people with this kind of training never think of the camera in the back seat when they come upon an event like this. Medical training, like combat training, is something that is practiced until it becomes muscle memory… so you react without thinking and usually don’t have to worry about this type of internal ethical conflict.
2) Is there something you can do to save a life that does not require skills that you do not have?
If someone is trapped in a burning vehicle that you could extract from the vehicle and carry to safety then the ethical action is again to focus on saving lives rather than shooting frames. Another example pertaining to car accidents is protecting lives by placing your own vehicle with flashers on in front of the accident to block oncoming traffic if you are there before the police. Again, no special skills required but you are still saving or protecting lives and that should take priority over shooting frames.
3) What are the laws of the country or state that you are in pertaining to the situation you are in and do you care?
There are some places that require you, by law, to do anything in your power to save lives. There are other place, like Florida for example, that have Good Samaritan laws to protect you if you make a mistake while giving medical treatment to someone and cause more harm than good (don’t take this at face value; there are catches to this that a lawyer could explain better than me). While these types of things may not play a direct role in determining the ethics behinds your actions they do shape the actions themselves if you are one to believe that laws are absolute.
4) Is the event something that is world changing with significant historical value?
For this point just look at 9/11. If you were on the streets below the Trade Centers and you had your camera, what would your choice be? Personally, I believe that saving lives takes precedence over an event of significant historical value. Others may disagree with me on this one and I understand the reasons why… but my opinion still stands. I watch the video shot by the news media that were there on the street and I find that the anger I feel is directed mostly at the terrorists but there is a little reserved for the news media. They are filming fellow human beings that are struggling to stand up and continue moving to safety and they are doing nothing to help them. In fact, they are taking advantage of these people to further their own sense of self importance. Now if these camera men had the camera running while they were running from person to person helping them up and getting them to medical personnel then I would call them a hero. But due to their actions I just call them douche bags. Don’t let yourself be blinded by what you believe your duty to capture history to be and make sure that you put your duty to save the lives of fellow human beings first! You can shoot frames or video with one hand while you are helping to carry the injured to safety with the other. Also in this case you have to take #1 and #2 above into consideration as well.
Non-Life Threatening Events
This is where things start to get a little easier… lives are not at stake so some of the complexities are removed. This is where your own personal morals and job description comes into play. I read a long forum thread a few years ago that was posted by a girl who was shooting as a photojournalist for her college paper. Many of her friends were involved in some school related competition (the exact competition was never specified) and they had been preparing for many months for the event. She was assigned to cover the event for the paper. Her friends lost and she was torn between being a photojournalist by shooting frames of her friends crying after the event or being a sensitive friend and not capturing their despair. She decided to be the photojournalist and shoot frames and because of it she lost a lot of friends. This is a good example of ethics in photography because it involves the ethics of her job position and also those of being a friend.
Each person has to determine their response to the situation above based on their own morals and ethical belief. Personally, I think she did the right thing by doing her job and shooting the event. Yes, the paper published photos she took of her friends crying but is that really so bad? That is just standard human emotional response. As a photojournalist you may be placed in situations a lot worse than this so you should come to grips with this before you decide to pursue that line of work!
Other Things to Consider
1) Ethics are different for every person so only you can determine what your answer is regarding the action to take in any given situation.
2) In many life-threatening situations you will not have time to think about what the right thing to do is… so make sure to think about this topic now so you do not make quick decisions that you won’t be able to live with in the future.
3) There will always be someone that will criticize your actions no matter what they are; it is impossible to make everyone happy.
And finally, I will leave you with this…
Whatever you choose to do is something that you will have to live with for the rest of your life! In many situations it may not be that big of a deal. Other situations, like the one Kevin Carter found himself in, it is a huge deal. So do not think about your career or your populatity when you make a decision to act; think about how you will see yourself once the act is done.
Related posts:
My Social Media
Advertisement
Hali
23. Jun, 2009
Excellent article Terry. Ethics is a touchy issue for most people and no two people have the same code of ethics no matter what their beliefs.s You’ve distilled the major points into an easy to understand easy to relate to post. For me it’s about common sense – I’m a medical professional so I’d help, but I doubt I’d ever take out a camera to chronicle someones tragedy no matter what. To me it smacks too much of all those people tying up traffic rubbernecking to see the accident on the other side of the highway just to gawk. I doubt I could ever sleep at night knowing I exacerbated someones pain by being heartless enough to capitalize on someone elses tragedy.
Terry
24. Jun, 2009
Thanks for the comment Hali. Humans do have the tendency to watch a train wreck and not be able to look away. I would shoot a car accident but only if there was something more to it than just a car accident… like a heroic rescue by firefighters or EMTs… I wouldn’t just sit and shoot a victim or anything like that just to get an image of a bloodied up person. But then I am not a photojournalist so I have the option to not shoot what I don’t want to shoot!