Last semester I took a photo journalism class and we talked about journalism ethics. When covering a story, how would you approach the subject when the story hits so close to home? How do you react when you arrive at the scene where people are crying and hurting? Is it appropriate to start clicking away?
Scenario I: If you were there when Robert Kennedy was assassinated with a camera in hand, what would you have done? Would you have taken the picture or would you not?
Ponder....
..................
......................
According to Kobre's book, this is what Boris Yaro did.
"When Robert Kennedy was assassinated, a bystander blocked Boris Yaro's camera. He said to the woman, 'Goddammit, lady this is history!' and took this unforgettable picture" (Kobre 365).
My immediate "intuition" is that he did right. That is also my considered judgment in this particular case. He was just a little rude. One of the arguments for showing death is that in our culture we deny its reality. We are exposed in most entertainment to a theatrical and unrealistic notion of the results of violence. That would be an additional justification of doing what needs to be done to get this picture: It shows what death/injury leading to death looks like. Are some photos so gruesome that I wouldn't show them? Sure. But the underlying ethical principle would be that it can be useful to look at a dead body. State the principle and then start the debate.
ReplyDelete