Read the chapter on WELCOME TO SARAJEVO in our text. In light of the arguments and observations in it are the photos in the link below justified or not? Respond by Mon., Nov. 26, 4 p.m.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/archive-5/
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
25 comments:
The photos from Life Magazine are justified. Citizens, governments and non-governmental organizations need to know about these victims of war. Without war correspondents, we are unable to fully grasp the horrors of war. We see reports and photographs of our soldiers being taken down by the other side. This message penetrates through the mind of civilians back home and pushes them into action. However, the message isn’t always communicated to public officials, citizens or advocates. As Michael Nicholson said in the text: “But when the time comes to hang up your boots as I’m just doing, you realize that you’ve done very little to change the world. All you’ve done is to advertise its ills. It’s a very sad epitaph,” (158). The text reveals that when more images of death and suffering are advertised, less seem to respond. People are overwhelmed or have a case of “compassion fatigue,” (159). So, then what is the purpose of reporting the war if images and videos are ignored? I posted some content below, if anyone else is interested in other cases. Although I believe the photos are justified, I would say there is a difference between the photos in the text and the photos from Life.
The arguments in the chapter, Welcome To Sarajevo revealed cases dealing with civilians, specifically children. The photos in Life Magazine revealed photos of fallen soldiers, victims of war under duty. Although both are victims of war, I would argue that journalists don’t have an obligation to interfere in the duties of the military. These forces are to defend their countries and to kill the enemy. They are armed, trained and have a purpose. The children in the text are helpless, victims of war and have no duty to their nation. They are not honored for their survival or death in combat. They are murdered, raped and tortured because of their ethnicity, not because of their duty. Journalists should only interfere when the lives of innocent civilians are at stake. Some of the arguments in the text suggests that reporters and photographers should refrain from emotion when reporting on victims of war. Reporters are to report, and photographers are to photograph events. They are to just report the message back to the world. The text reads: “As a general rule, journalists are trained to distrust emotion and avoid getting wrought up over the people and events they cover. The assumption is that emotion, like doing shots, disorders the brain and interferes with seeing clearly,” (157). However, Michael Nicholson argued a different case, suggesting that it is impossible for reporters to step aside. He argues that journalists can do both. They can report on the war and help innocent children from being wounded or murdered.
Here is some content concerning this post:
Anderson Cooper saving a young boy in Haiti. Should he be criticized for interfering? http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/19/anderson-cooper-haitian-hero/
Is this photo justified? Why didn’t the photographer interfere? Photo by Kevin Carter: http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/
I think the photos in the link are absolutely justified. Those are wartime news worthy photos. When talking about the ethics of other material like some of the events brought up in Sarjevo that is a different matter altogether. The idea of filming people as they are unexpectedly shelled by mortars and are suffering is immoral. I think when people are being “slaughtered” as they put it in the text then people’s inability to stand by takes hold. I don’t think many journalists had the intention of becoming involved with the war but how do you stand by and allow children to be ruthlessly killed all throughout the streets.
As said in the first post, to quote Nicholson that we are only “advertising the worlds ills” (158), I think this is both positive and negative. The term advertising seems as though we are selling it to people but it is the only way to spread the story and the light of people. It is twisted and sort of convoluted because journalist are seeking these stories. They chose to film certain moments because they are considering how it will further there career and I think that is the distinction. The motive behind the actions. If you are filming the destruction of Bosnia to win an award you are missing the point. If you are there because it is an injustice and the world must know then that is rather noble. It is the smallest of differences and rather trivial but it tells a lot about the journalist and I think that it gives more of an excuse or reason to be in that scenario.
The chapter and the link don’t necessarily fall in line with one another and I think the link is actually what the standard of war time reporting should be and Sarajevo really is a genocide that can’t be reported objectively.
The photos in the link are justified because people need to know that a war was going on. They need to see the photos to understand the horrors of a war. Although they may not be nice to look at or hard to look at people need to see them. The photos are newsworthy.
Only the people in the photo and in the war know what it feels like. We can have sympathy for the soldiers, but we cannot have empathy. The chapter in the text talks about sympathy and empathy. "Empathy is a challenge that defeats most people. If we haven't lived through distressing, disturbing experience of another, then the more re-moved we are from understanding or relating to it," 150.This means that to have the same feelings as someone, empathy, you have to be living the same experience and you have to be in the same situation as another person.
Journalists need to be have no feelings when they are taking a picture. They are getting paid to capture a moment, whether horrible or not. I think, for a journalist, the more horrific the photo is the better it is. Photos that show terror or pain are the photos that sell. People may not want to look at them, but it is hard to look away. The text states, “Journalistic norms require them to keep their personal preferences and opinions out of news stories,” 150. This means that reporters who write about a war cannot say how they feel about it. They can only report the truth and the facts.
If people know there is a war is going on they know it’s a horrible situation, but seeing photos from it make it clear that it is a horrible event. Sometimes people need that.
Being a journalist who covers war, I think, he gets immune to the fact that he has seen it all before. Another question is should the reporter take a picture of a solider dying or should the reporter help the solider. The text states, “He was just trying to help… we’re not here to help… we’re here to report,” 153. Some reporters show no sympathy, or they know that they can’t, and just stick to reporting. They see war or taking pictures of dead bodies just another day on the job. The chapter also states, “Never get involved,” 155. That is the rule for journalists covering horrific action.
The photos of dead and wounded soldiers are justified in the sense that people need to know the truth. That is what journalism is, seek the truth and report it. The journalist found the truth in the photos of war and he reported it.
I would categorize the photos as esthetically pleasing instead of justifiable. The skill required to take these photos is enormous; the photographs deserve appreciation. The photos promote readership/viewership (depending on the news source), however saying that the photos are justified is inaccurate. These photos lack empathy. Each person who published these photos did not put his or herself in the position of the person being photographed and if they did, they are heartless. Some may argue that lacking empathy and being heartless is a desired characteristic among journalists. "The more emotional or attached journalists become, the more unreliable their reporting is believed to be... the ideal position for journalists is to stand somewhat apart, pad and pen in hand and feelings under tight control." (Page 157) I disagree. Michael Nicholson says that standing safely on the sidelines only results in a vision from distance. "Feeling with and/or for others serves as a clue to reality, a door to understanding." (Page 158) The lack of empathy among journalists results in "compassion fatigue," explained on page 159 as an audiences response to being overstimulated and burned out all at once. This occurs because of the way war, natural disasters, and famine is covered; so heartlessly. Our generation has become immune to these images as a result of the journalists' lack of empathy. In essence, the enemies causing these casualties portrayed in the pictures have won.
I believe that the photos are justified. The photos are accurate representations of war. People need to know what really goes on during a war and about the victims.
The book states, "if we haven't lived through the distressing, disturbing experience of another, then the more removed we are from understanding or relating to it" (p.150). Seeing pictures of war time is the only way for people back home to be able to even begin to understand what it is really like. Therefore, I think the pictures are justified.
I think there is a difference between showing the war photos and the situation discussed in the book. I believe that journalists should interfere when the lives of children are involved. Children are not trained to fight wars like soldiers are. Michael Nicholson was correct to argue that journalists can report neutrally and still help innocent children form being harmed. While I do not think journalists and photographers should interfere all of the time, there are certain occasions that should be considered acceptable.
I believe the photos in the link are justified, mainly because I feel that is the lot of reporting. Why cover a gruesome war and not give people the raw images of what's really going on? And although written accounts can serve the same purpose, a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. People have to see in order to believe and have some emotion evoked in them so they know that what they are seeing is a reality.
I think one of the main reasons, if not the only reason why people cannot progress together, is because we disassociate ourselves saying we are not our brother's keeper, and are not responsible for their actions, just as they are not to be held accountable for ours. Maybe the media is to blame for this disassociation in how they portray the news or what's newsworthy, but as time goes on and we try our hardest to reach beyond the limitations of oppression, we grow colder towards one another, gradually loosing our human responsibility.
In this case I sympathize with Michael Nicholson's expression of "terrible disappointment and regret" at the bottom of page 158, in that you start off in your career believing that you will change the world, to find later that all you did was advertise it's ills. However, a job well done by those who are in the position to document history is done when we paint an accurate picture of reality.
Before reading the "Welcome to Sarajevo" chapter, I ultimately would have been against publishing images of dead bodies and people committing violent crimes against each other, just for the sake of how I cringe and my stomach turns when I see them (most recent being the Daily News front page "How Hamas executed Israel Spy"). But the fact is, this is the world we live in, and what these images reveal is an imperfect human nature. Imperfect not in only how we treat each other (slaughter of children, genocides), but our immortality as well. It is what it is, is what I have to say about the photos in the link. That's what war is and that's what it does to people.
The "we're not here to help" but report part in the chapter rubbed me the wrong way because I feel that helping is reporting. Just as Martha Gellhorn is quoted on page 160 saying: "anything is better than silence."
The photos from the NY Times as well as the final chapter of the book address an issue that has bothered me for quite some time. I remember as a child being very confused and asking my parents why someone was able to take pictures of criminals in the act or people suffering but nobody was on had to fix the issue. I think that this same confusion that I experienced years ago has only been magnified recently as I learn more and more about the world and all the horrible things that happen. In the chapter, the character Michael Henderson is quoted with the journalistic principle of “we’re not here to help.” I personally think that this attitude is situational and is not something that can or should be upheld all the time. If there is a situation where someone has been shot for example, and people are rushing around trying to help the person, this would be an appropriate time to take a picture or write about the situation. If however, there is nobody around to help the wounded person and the journalist still takes a picture or begins writing about it this would be with a complete lack of empathy. Nicholson is quoted in the last few pages of the chapter as admitting to a lack of impact that one person can or will most likely have in their career. He regretfully admits that journalists, in many cases, simply advertise the world rather than solving them. If I think back to the beginning of the semester, I can think of an example from class that I think is similar to this situation. Just as I would not want to live in a world were someone would save the scientist over their mother from the burning building, I also would not want to live in a world where people favor their jobs over humanity. Perhaps this inability to separate myself from the situation would make me a bad journalist. I would argue that it makes me a better person.
I believe in order for something in journalism to be justifiable it needs to not only be newsworthy and timely but it must bring around a constructive result in its audience. These photos of fallen soldiers are in a way justified because it allows the public to fully understand the horrors of war and make decisions regarding their opinion of it, but on the other hand I believe it is art for arts sake. The photos are beautiful and the photographers have great skill and ferocity for going out into the battle field to take photos where they undoubtably risked their own lives, however I can’t see how photos are this nature are essential and justified through the well-being it would bring its readers.
In the text Nicholson expresses that often journalists find later in life that though they sought out to change the world they ended up “advertising its ills” I believe these photos fully illustrate that point. Can these photos change the world? Maybe they sparked a movement which ultimately led to the end of the war, but if not the artists truely are advertising the ills of the state of the world particularly the vietnam war. That is why these photos appear to me as art for arts sake, because they are beautiful, appreciated, capturing a moment in time, evoking emotion ect.
Furthermore, the text expressed deeply how a journalist is not supposed to get involved while on the scene. In fact, reporters should refrain from experiencing any emotion towards the victims or situations they are reporting on in order to do a good job. "The more emotional or attached journalists become, the more unreliable their reporting is believed to be... the ideal position for journalists is to stand somewhat apart, pad and pen in hand and feelings under tight control." (Page 157) This to me completely contradicts what being a journalist is all about. I’ve always believed that journalism was a tool for the greater good, to help people. Journalists go into their field because they want to help people in both small steps and big leaps, but when viewing a situation they know is wrong, seeing suffering of children being bombed or raped, seeing criminals attacking victims and being the only person around who can do something about it they are not only supposed to stand back and watch but feel no empathy towards the subjects? I don’t believe a person who is capable of doing this exists, at least one who has the ethical and moral stamina to be a journalist for the right reasons.
When I took an Introduction to Philosophy class in high school, and in at least one of my English classes, a clear distinction was made between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy, we were told, was the ability to imagine what a person was feeling, a sort of putting yourself in that person's shoes--the sort of thing you're always told to do as a child, when you can't understand another's viewpoint. Empathy, on the other hand, was defined as something much more difficult: knowing EXACTLY how the other person feels, due to your having been in that situation yourself. The simple fact that we are humans and not mind-readers seems to preclude total empathy; surely, even if we've been through a comparable situation, we can never experience exactly the same emotions as another person. I believe that "empathy is a challenge that defeats most people" simply because true, utter empathy is impossible (150).
I still believe in this distinction between empathy and sympathy, and I believe that the journalists in places like Sarajevo definitely know something of the horrors these people are facing. But I also believe that they can never truly know the fear of actually being a true target of the ethnic cleansing, the slaughter, like the Bosnians were. No matter if they are caught up in the shelling or other forms of violence, they are still just observers, not victims. Even so, I do believe that the photos linked to here or the stories written by the embedded journalists to accompany them are justified. Without these small glimpses into the horrors of war, those of us who are far removed from the conflict would not be able to even properly sympathize with those affected. There are, however, limits to our compassion, apparently, if the classification of "compassion fatigue" (159) is anything to go by. We need these photos, in small amounts, but in a steady stream so that the public does not forget these horrors and is stirred to action by them.
I think that the photos are justified. It is real life, it is actually what is going on. Some people seem to forget what happens in war and don’t know the true struggles of the men and women who serve us. When people booed and protested against the men and women coming back from the Vietnam War, that was just wrong. They risked their lives, and saw best friends die in front of their eyes. When talking about if it is morally right or wrong to post pictures showing death from war to the public; the question that should be asked to the opposed is, if it is morally right for men and women to risk their lives to save them and keep them safe from the dangers that threaten us. They live through the pain, suffering, and anguish; your just seeing a picture. People will never understand war just from pictures, but by seeming pictures they can become more supportive and companionate for the troops that our risking everything for our country.
I think the when journalists post these pictures they have to ask themselves why they are posting them, for their own gain in their careers? Or to show and educate people on what is going on in the world? When going to Bosnia and filming the executions of innocent people with the intent to further your career is completely unjustified. If it is to actually show the people what horrors are taking place, then I think it is justified. It comes down to a moral question, “Do you feel good about yourself after?”
I believe the photos presented in the link are justified. War photos should be justified no matter what. People need to see what is going on in the world, this goes with Sarajevo; "if we haven't lived through the distressing, disturbing experience of another, then the more removed we are from understanding or relating to it" (p.150). People think all is well in the world eating popcorn on their couch watching "dancing with the stars" or any other bs on netflix or tv, until they see photos like the ones presented in the link, then they get depressed and feel uncomfortable. However, it is becoming more and more common to see gruesome photos in the news and people feeling uncomfortable. I was at my job the other day serving breakfast and pouring coffees and i stopped briefly to check out the NY Post front page and i was a little shocked. The Post often has outlandish/unethical front cover photos but did not think the photo was either of those, i just thought "wow i am serving people bacon, eggs, and banana pancakes and this is what they look at while eating" but this is what is happening in the world we live in and we all must see it. "The more emotional or attached journalists become, the more unreliable their reporting is believed to be... the ideal position for journalists is to stand somewhat apart, pad and pen in hand and feelings under tight control." (Page 157) welcome to sarajevo. I disagree with this part from the book because i feel journalist should not stand apart from anything, they need to be right in the mix, totally attached, and feelings pouring out in all directions. The photos in the link represent what is happening in the world but theres so much emotion in them, so much feeling, so much that its hard to look away and not stare at them while having your feelings flare up.
I believe these photographs are absolutely justified. Photos like these are necessary to show the reality of war to the public. It is one thing to watch a movie and know it’s fake or hear accounts of war, but to see is to understand better. Arguments can be made that the photos do not end the conflict or even change public opinion, but the alternative of not documenting the conflict is far worse.
What sets these photos apart from Sarajevo is that these are photos of military operations. They are of service members with firearms, medical personnel, and the logistical capabilities of waging war and helping their own. That was not the case in Sarajevo. During these military operations it was best for the reporter to stand back and let the service members do their jobs. In Sarajevo, the reporters could not justify standing on the sidelines. This was a civilian population being deliberately targeted. The reporters were in many ways a part of the story, whether they liked it or not. There was no cavalry coming. There were no medivac helicopters with .50 caliber machine guns coming to remove the wounded. As the chapter states, the reporters were trapped in the city with the populace they were reporting on.
There is a mini-series on HBO right now, called Witness, which follows conflict photographers. In the episode on Sudan, French photojournalist Veronique de Viguerie aids a shot man by giving him a ride to the hospital in her crew’s vehicle. While they are trying to patch the man up, she comforts him and reassures him he’ll be ok. Later, she explains that there is no universal line dividing a journalist and their subjects. Every journalist must find their own line they can live with. Every journalist must make the decision as to when they feel they must put down the camera and intervene.
More to the point of the question, these photographs are necessary for the public to have an informed opinion. It is an unpleasant side of life that must not just be ignored and left for someone else to experience under the consent of the public, while the public has no real grasp on what they’re asking of their fellow man. The journalist must find in their heart when they switch roles from observer to participant.
I think that these photos are justified.
Photographs and news coverage brought the Vietnam War into the homes of American citizens and made society look closely at its' government and the choices being made concerning international war.I think without photos, war can be sanitized so much that people feel largely removed from the action.
Before reading this chapter I was torn on the idea of publishing graphic and gruesome photos but I think Nicholson made a convincing argument for empathy, especially if the photos can help spread awareness.
Richard Goldstone is quoted toward the end of the chapter,as saying "Impartiality or objectivity or fairness isn't about finding a kind of middle ground; it's about finding the truth". (157)I think without wartime photos that depict suffering or some graphic detail, journalists are missing the truth of war. The truth of war is that it is gruesome and sometimes unnecessarily so.
One of the final lines in the chapter resonated so soundly with the idea that wartime photos are justified. "The right words and pictures can defeat monsters" (160) The word that struck me was "right". Nicholosn isn't advocating for 'any' war photos, he is advocating for the one's that will change things and make people think and question. Photos of senseless violence that do no serve a larger purpose are not justified, but one's that can create a conversation that will lead to change are definitely justified.
d
I personally believe that the photos in Life Magazine are justified.In times of extreme suffering it can sometimes be necessary to present the public with certain unsettling truths so that they have some idea of what is being sacrificed. I completely agree with the quote that states that "An overdose of such photographs would be unhealthy. But in proper proportion they can help us to understand something of what has been sacrificed for the victories we have won." I believe that we are absolutely desensitized to certain violent images, but they are often sensationalized acts of violence like movies or video games whereas these are a different type of wrath altogether. Photos of war are disturbing, but it's important that they have this effect on us. It's so easy to forget all about the individual atrocities that have become part of our "War on Terror" or any war, but photojournalism such as this takes you there and makes it personal.
However, I don't believe it is always the answer to show victims of violence. The chapter questions the role of empathy in making journalistic decisions about what is newsworthy and what is exploitation. I definitely side with an emphasis on empathy rather than journalists who believe they're job is to report, not to help. I think it would be impossible and immoral for someone to not get emotionally invested in cases of great injustice, but this should drive you to treat their situation with respect. Nicholsan said,"You can still be close to the truth as any person can be and still show a commitment, an emotional anguish." I agree with this, and rather than choosing empathy or objectivity I think a journalist can find a way to be guided by both.
The photos from the New York Times archive are justified because they have an informative value that surpasses their entertainment value. Beyond being 'newsworthy', they are documentary in nature rather than sensational. They are of historical significance and tell a story that would otherwise remain unseen. This quality is hard to describe or codify, but is easily distinguishable from photography produced at the expense of the subject or story.
While journalists may have to rely on their own ethical instincts in deciding whether a given situation warrants direct intervention, the very act of reporting and documenting suffering or injustice can be a transformative act. However, if the intention is to entertain rather than uncover, expose or transform, then the documenting of pain and suffering crosses into the realm of unethical behavior that should be deplored. An example of such behavior is the photo of the Empire State Building shooting that was discussed early in the semester.
I believe the Life magazine and New York Times photographs are justified. They accurately portray the horrors of war our soldiers have to see every day they are in the battlefield. The issues we read about in Welcome to Sarajevo dealt largely with the idea that you should not just stand there as if a spectator at a zoo, snapping photographs of dying people, while in a war zone. But there is a clear distinction between taking a photograph of someone who is already dead, who is beyond help, and taking a photograph of someone who is in pain and needs to be helped. With these pictures, the wounded soldiers are already being helped by those much more adequately trained than a photographer. It’s not as if the photographer really could have done anything except get of their way as the trained professionals try to save lives. The only thing a photojournalist, or any journalist, can do is his or her job. As Henderson says, “The best way we can help is by getting the news out.” (154) They are there to record history and make sure it gets back to the public, who needs to be informed as to the atrocities of war. It’s not voyeurism. It’s not sensationalism. It’s reality. There’s no pleasure in seeing another human being suffering. It just stands to serve as a reminder that this is happening out there somewhere, and we should be aware of these sacrifices as we’re going about our safe, happy lives. The photographs and videos from Vietnam sparked protest and led to an end of the war, which of course saved the lives of the soldiers who were able to make it home, because the public outcry at the sight of such images was so strong that it rendered the government incapable of ignoring public opinion any longer. The U.S. military has censored the press throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, creating stipulations for what photographs can and cannot be published. This has only served to insulate the public from the atrocities happening so far away, creating an out of sight, out of mind attitude that has let the wars, of which we are still involved in, despite official stances to the contrary, continue for over a decade. If more photographs such as these were prominent during the last 10 years, perhaps the public wouldn’t be so apathetic. I would agree with Martha Gellhorn when she said, “I think anything is better than silence. If nobody puts it down on the record anywhere, then the monsters win totally.”
I believe that the photos in the article are completely justified. The chapter talks about how in order to feel empathy for a situation there must be something that triggers it in you. Putting yourself into someone else's shoes will be a lot easier if you have some sort of visual. Photographs I believe are the closest thing you can get to seeing something in real life, and war photographs are without a doubt the closest anyone not involved with a war will get. It's always been said that seeing is believing, and I feel that this is the truth in this situation. Without photographs to prove what is happening, people might feel out of touch with what happens on the other side of the world. Americans especially I feel become very disconnected with war because we are almost never involved with war on our own turf. Photographs are necessary to bring people the truth and illustrate what they need to know.
The argument that war photography is too graphic is brought up over and over again and I'm sure it will continue for a long time. But I think that something that we need to consider is all the people who are actually living through the violence. They see it first person, we generally only see things through a second person perspective. This might be a little bit of a stretch but if it's alright to wage war and to condone the violence of war, why would we sweep images of it under the table? It's just the truth. It's what's happening.
In my opinion it is unfair to consider this in terms of 'justified,' or unjustified. A journalist's job is to report the facts and give an unbiased account of events (or at least give both sides of an event) so that the public can form their own opinions. These photos in particular are beautiful works of art, which can be appreciated as such in addition to their newsworthiness.
The chapter in the text, Welcome to Sarajevo, discusses empathy and a journalist’s obligation to put themselves in someone else's place- or not. “If we haven’t lived through the distressing, disturbing experience of another, then the more removed we are from understanding or relating to it," said psychiatrist Sandy McFarlane. I would argue that it is likely impossible for the photographer or reporter to remove his or her emotions completely, especially when in a war zone or dealing with a crisis or natural disaster. However, the photographs serve the purpose of relaying to the public the most realistic view possible of what is going on away from their own doorstep. As such, they allow readers and viewers to experience their own reaction to the image without getting their information only through the words of the writer, which would seek to describe the photo anyway.
I think it’s possible to show empathy and compassion and still be objective. As long as you don’t become personally involved with a child or a victim, but rather feel empathy for all as a whole. As humans we can’t stretch ourselves to “care” about everything in the world. It is only natural that we feel stronger for what is directly in front of us. It is better to reveal the photos than to conceal them. As Martha Gellhorn said in the documentary War Reporters, “anything is better than silence. If nobody puts it down on the record anywhere, then the monsters win totally.” Journalism can make a difference.
It is immoral to use a person solely as a means towards a purpose not of their own. This is especially true when a person is dead and has no choice or say in the matter. In order to act morally we must always treat each person as an end in themselves. One common goal professional journalists share is to seek and report the truth that people in our society need to make good decisions. As a nation involved in multiple wars, our citizens have a right to know and a need to to know news and truths regarding the conflicts in which we have invested thousands of lives and billions of dollars. When it comes to publishing graphic photographs from war that involve soldiers or civilians dismembered, injured, dead, etc., it seems there is a thin line between a photo that shares the visual truth with the public so that they can more readily grasp the reality/consequence of war, and publishing a photo that is invasive of a persons privacy in death or turmoil (in other words using that person as a means and giving them or their families no choice in the matter). I think that the nature of a photo regarding its context, content, and aesthetic is of utmost importance when making an ethical decision about publishing. One example of a powerful image that seems to me in bad taste to publish was the AP published photo taken by Julie Jacobsen of the mortally wounded marine in Afghanistan. The AP asked the fallen marines father for permission to publish this photo. The marines father did not lend them permission and the photo was published anyway. The AP had no regard for the privacy of the marine or the choice of his family to honor his death by not allowing permission for it to be exploited as a great visual example for a news story. Even though the photos content is newsworthy, its use is too invasive to be morally just. In contrast I believe the picture by George Strock that showed three American servicemen sprawled on Buna Beach in New Guinea is a more morally sound powerful picture to be published because the soldiers are unidentifiable. You can not see their faces yet the overall aesthetic of the paper still invokes empathy in the viewer for these unidentifiable men.
I believe that the photos from Life Magazine are absolutely justified, especially under these circumstances. In a time of war, it is important for the citizens--for the nation--at home to understand what it is exactly we are fighting against and what we are fighting for. Also, these photos, in my opinion, do the opposite of sensationalize war an violence, unlike the television show "stars earn stripes". In this case, the photos do the opposite: they invoke sorrow and pity--a necessary human emotion and exactly how one should feel when they see their countrymen dead on the ground. In the right doses, these photos inform the public about whats going on outside of their comfy living rooms while they sip their coffee. And although it may not be pleasant, seeing a dead soldier--someones son--ont he ground because he was fighting for us if different than just reading about it in a paragraph of words.
As for the arguments from the chapter, I find that the whole argument falls into a gray area. In certain circumstances, I would say that photographers should not get involved, that by getting involved only puts more soldiers in danger because the photographer could be getting in the way. Also, a reporter who saves someone is a story but it isn't stopping a war; however, photos of such atrocities that everyone sees can rally people--and that can turn the tide of battle. On the other hand though, if you can feasibly save someone and preform a good act without endangering anyone--without being RECKLESS--then I think that could be a situation where the rule does not apply. In most cases, I would say that a reporter should report--and not get involved. Because to get involved would be favoring one side over the other, and immediately the information gathered during the transgression becomes invalid and skewed.
basically we should try not to be these guys...
http://interesting2008times.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/banksy-art.jpg
or this guy...
http://www.stencilrevolution.com/photopost/2012/09/Camera-Man-Flower-by-Banksy-560x840.jpg
Post a Comment