Ethics / Morals

Ethics


Doug Stevens. ‘Magazines and newspapers should not show dead bodies’. 
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/tag/bloody-sunday/ 
 
In context, the link was emotive in itself. “BLOODY SUNDAY”
 
It was not what I knew as bloody Sunday, but a Revolutionary moment in 1905 – you learn something new each day.
 
The image itself in the article is a secondary historical source, and as such, has much more immediacy than the tertiary accounts that may have been made at the time.
 
BUT, death is part and parcel of life. It may come naturally, it may come violently. It may come as an instant, it may take years (Cancer / Concentration camps, etc., come to mind.)
 
It can also be used to highlight struggles and issues. One dead body or very nearly dead (The immolation on the monk / the child burned by Napalm, the child photographed by the Bang Bang Club) can alter people’s consciousnesses 
 
http://100photos.time.com/photos/kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture
 
The photographer got abuse for not saving this child. Alternatively, you can argue that he save many more by highlighting the issue in Southern Sudan.
(Kevin Carter – Bang Bang Club.)
Article about press intrusion and Sienna Miller http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-16282985 
 
The article is about the Paparazzi and their relentless “hunt” of Sienna Miller.
 
Firstly, let’s look at Sienna Miller – CELEBRITY. Now look at the photographers in question – PAPARAZZI. 
 
Both of these are subsets of a much larger area. Most journalists do have ethics embedded in them from college / work / life. Paparazzi chose a style and utilise “questionable” tactics to get their shot. To them the shot is all. The Statement is secondary.
For Sienna’s part, I equally have very little sympathy. She is in her chosen profession. She years publicity.
 
A more important part of this the point:
 
“If the person in the photograph is in obvious distress or danger, should the photographer put down the camera? Are there circumstances in which the photographer should provide help or assistance? If the photograph is taken, after all these considerations, who will see it? How will its future dissemination affect the people in the photograph?”
 
Example: I was covering a food festival, taking panoramic shots from across the street. With my camera still up, I panned right and left, and saw the drama unfold. My camera is always on motordrive, so firing two or three shots per second is nothing.
As soon as I processed the incident, the camera dropped and I ran to help. Immediate Action comes before sensationalism.
After first aid was given, and Ambulances called, and I was sure no threat to life existed, I engaged Cathleen and spent the next hour and a half talking with her, before asking her permission to take her photograph. 
 
For me, there was no judgment call to make. The photograph is almost an accident. If I hadn’t got this image, I wouldn’t have cried in my milk.
 
In a more serious incident, my ethical stand would be similar. I’ve deliberately NOT published images that involve serious injuries in motorsports, and if I’m able to do so, I WILL get involved in the incident..
 
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/tag/bloody-sunday/ 
 
It can also be used to highlight struggles and issues. One dead body or very nearly dead (The immolation on the monk / the child burned by Napalm, the child photographed by the Bang Bang Club) can alter people’s consciousnesses 
 Article about press intrusion and Sienna Miller http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-16282985 
 
Firstly, let’s look at Sienna Miller – CELEBRITY. Now look at the photographers in question – PAPARAZZI. 
 After first aid was given, and Ambulances called, and I was sure no threat to life existed, I engaged Cathleen and spent the next hour and a half talking with her, before asking her permission to take her photograph. 
Both of these are subsets of a much larger area. Most journalists do have ethics embedded in them from college / work / life. Paparazzi chose a style and utilise “questionable” tactics to get their shot. To them the shot is all. The Statement is secondary.
For Sienna’s part, I equally have very little sympathy. She is in her chosen profession. She years publicity.


A more important part of this the point:


“If the person in the photograph is in obvious distress or danger, should the photographer put down the camera? Are there circumstances in which the photographer should provide help or assistance? If the photograph is taken, after all these considerations, who will see it? How will its future dissemination affect the people in the photograph?”
 
Example: I was covering a food festival, taking panoramic shots from across the street. With my camera still up, I panned right and left, and saw a drama unfold (See Picture). My camera is always on motordrive, so firing two or three shots per second is nothing.
As soon as I processed the incident, the camera dropped and I ran to help. Immediate Action comes before sensationalism.
After first aid was given, and Ambulances called, and I was sure no threat to life existed, I engaged Cathleen and spent the next hour and a half talking with her, before asking her permission to take her photograph.
 
For me, there was no judgment call to make. The photograph is almost an accident. If I hadn’t got this image, I wouldn’t have cried in my milk.


In a more serious incident, my ethical stand would be similar. I’ve deliberately NOT published images that involve serious injuries in motorsports, and if I’m able to do so, and if I'm needed to help, I WILL get involved in the incident.

I have been in many life-threatening situations, both in a situation where my life is at stake, and where others lives were. From these experiences, I perhaps see things with more clarity than some people who sensationalise issues.