Unknown American Photojournalist (Sanders, Karen, Ethics & Journalism p 102)
It should come as no surprise to anyone that reporting suffering is fraught with difficulties. To see someone crying is to see them vulnerable and exposed. In most people, it is something which urges us either to offer comfort or to turn away. All in all, it demands our utmost respect.
Where, then, does all this leave the journalist? After all, for the person whose job it is to report or photograph news, they have a duty to broadcast information. Some would argue that this doesn’t necessarily make reporters ‘vultures’ or soulless scavengers.
When it comes to photojournalism however, where exactly do we draw the line? Which images should Editors consider to be of ‘public interest’ and which ones simply go too far? For one woman, who was filmed reacting hysterically to the news that her daughter had died in a plane crash, the only feeling she was left with was that she had been ‘visually raped’ by the media. (Sanders, p 103)
In 1993, photojournalist Kevin Carter took a photograph of an emaciated Sudanese toddler being stalked by a vulture as she made her way to a feeding centre. Too weak to continue, the little girl had curled up on the ground, and the vulture had landed behind her. It is believed that Carter took twenty minutes to take the photo, in his attempt to capture the perfect shot.
Carter went on to win a Pulitzer prize for his accomplishment. Two months later, he committed suicide. His death came after widespread criticism that questioned the moral implications of his actions. If he had been able to take the photo, people wanted to know, why had he not gone and found help? Why didn’t he pick her up and carry her himself? What had happened to the girl after the picture was taken?
Carter told the Time’s picture editor that he was sure the girl had made it to the feeding station. But the disturbing nature of the photograph clearly bothered people. In situations such as these, was it right for a journalist to stand by and photograph suffering when they could be doing something to help? Or, as some reporters believe, is their first duty to observe and report the news, and not to try and change it?
Filmmaker Dan Krauss said, "In his famous picture of the vulture stalking the Sudanese girl, I began to see the embodiment of his troubled psyche. I believe Kevin did, too. In the starving child, he saw Africa's suffering; in the preying vulture, he saw his own face." (More on this here and here)
All this seems to beg this important question: are you a journalist first, and a member of the human race second?
I have seen this image of the Sudanese Girl several times and even though I know the background information, I still find it difficult to understand Carter's actions. Osharpe's article says: 'The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) have a ‘Code of Ethics’ which sets out certain ethical responsibilities when carrying out journalistic work, number five in the list reads as thus, ‘while photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.’' Reading this, it is understandable that Carter took the image before attempting to do anything to help the girl. But what about the time after he took the shot? Was it really enough to chase the vulture away, as mentioned in Cinder's article? He had the shot he needed, so why didn't he pick the girl up and carry her to the food station to make sure she got the help she needed? If he was forbidden to touch her because of fear of disease etc., why didn't he himself go to the food station and find someone to help her? It is true that she was surely not the only starving child in Sudan, but arguing, as Cinder does, that this was reason not to help her is, in my opinion, a cruel and dangerous generalisation of a small child's suffering.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really powerful blog post, it has definitely got me thinking a lot! The photo is so harrowing, and really shows suffering. I personally find it quite difficult to look at because of this, and find it incomprehensible that someone could stand by and photograph without trying to help. As you said Chloe, it's human nature to have empathy to those who are suffering.
ReplyDeleteIt's a really difficult topic, because journalists are needed to report on the going's on of the world, and without pictures which show the suffering that occurs I think there would be a lot more ignorance, and people would be able to distance themselves from global issues such as starvation in third world countries. However, as Raggie has argued, the actions of the journalists/photojournalists should be taken into consideration when the suffering they are documenting could be helped in some way, without breaking the NPPA's 'Code of Ethics'. I, personally, would have broken this code of ethics anyway if I were presented with this situation regardless of whether it altered the event.
I found another blog on this topic (http://paulagortazar.blogspot.co.uk/p/ethical-limits-in-documentary.html) and I think the author explores and concludes this issue really well.
This image is extremely harrowing and it does provoke thought and emotion, so in essence Carter has achieved what i presume he wanted to from this image. It really does sum up third world suffering in one single image, which has to be truly admired however it does come at a cost, one worth taking? I'm not sure, it clearly had its consequences. Carter may have abided by the code of ethics prior to the photo, but do we know what took place after the image was captured? I agree with Hannah, people are ignorant to words and a picture can reach the masses more than just text can, but your own moral code can't help but question whether this photo is ethically acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this photo is haunting and disturbing to look at, but also very beautiful and powerful in that, in one small moment, it says so much about the extreme suffering and poverty of a country. I myself do not condemn Carter for taking the photo - I agree with Hannah's point about ignorance and think that he had a duty as a journalist to show the rest of the world the extent of the suffering in Sudan. If this sort of thing isn't photographed, people will be ignorant to what is going on in elsewhere in the world and will never be moved to do anything about it. I would even argue that this photograph probably did a lot to raise awareness for the suffering of the Sudanese people and maybe even moved readers to donate to charities or to help out in other ways. Like all of you however, I do feel uncomfortable with the fact that all Carter did to help the girl was to chase the vulture away. It seems like a very half-hearted effort, and implies that he was only really interested in getting his picture.
ReplyDeleteI also share Raggie's opinion that Cinder's argument that there is little point in helping her because she is not the only child starving child in Africa is a weak one. My boyfriend actually said the same thing when I first showed him this blog post - that he couldn't blame Carter because what good would it have done to help one child when there are thousands more that you cannot save? He concluded though that, had he been in the same situation, he probably wouldn't have been able to walk away and leave her to fend for herself. I think most people would say the same thing. Maybe however, by this point in his career, Carter felt so overwhelmed and disheartened by the suffering that he had witnessed around the world, (he built his career on taking these sorts of pictures) that he had simply lost heart in trying to make a difference. This is what seems to have caused the depression which led to his tragic suicide.
Thanks for the link to the article Hannah, it definitely allows us to see the situation from Carter's point of view, and highlights the point that standing back and 'not interfering' (as the 'code of ethics' suggests journalists should do) is not something that is easy to live with.