re962714@ohio.edu
Photojournalism is essential for any strong story as it gives context and insight into the story being covered. However, some feel there is a line that should not be crossed. What types of images should be used following a tragedy? Should images of war be presented to the public? Where should we draw the line? While there is no clear answer to this question, there are certainly steps journalists can take ensure they cover these stories effectively.
Covering a Tragedy
Unfortunately, tragedy is all too common in modern society, but journalists still struggle to effectively cover these stories, especially regarding photography.
Following the tragic mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, local and national news networks worked to cover the story in the best possible way. However, some might say the images and videos these networks used following the tragedy were inappropriate or at least insensitive to the families affected by the shooting.
NBC News posted an article shortly after the shooting with a leading image of a student on a stretcher being place into an ambulance. Families of the victims, especially the family of the student pictured, may find this difficult to see so soon after the shooting. Fellow students may also find it difficult to see these images.
The New York Times posted an article following the shooting that includes a video that shows footage taken during the shooting by the students. The video shows students huddled in classrooms as sounds of gunshots ring through the hallways. The article also links to another article that gives a step by step look at the path the shooter took, and everything that happened during the shooting. This would clearly be traumatic for those affected by the shooting and begs the question of whether it is necessary or not.
This brings up a major dilemma in photojournalism. A tragic event such as a mass shooting should obviously not be taken lightly, and journalists must cover it for what it is, a tragedy. But journalists must also keep the feelings of the families in mind, and understand the grave nature of these events and the trauma that comes with it.
There is no easy answer to this dilemma but journalists must do everything they can to balance the public's right to know with the privacy of the families.
Moments of tragedy are not the only cause of these dilemmas, as photojournalists often struggle with what to show in times of war.
Covering a War
In times of war, photojournalists are often the only ones, aside from soldiers, who see the true events of a war. This was the case for photojournalist Ron Haeberle during the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.
Haeberle photographed the horrific massacre carried out by United States soldiers and presented it for the world to see. Haeberle's journalism went against the preconceived notions the United States citizens had of the conflict in Vietnam, and portrayed the US military in an obviously negative light.
Haeberle's work shows how journalists must cover major conflicts, honestly and objectively. The public has every right to know what is happening in a conflict even if it shows the country's military in a poor light.
There is certainly some question of whether images of war should be shown in journalistic works as they could trigger instances of PTSD in veterans and bring forth bad memories for families of soldiers who died in combat.
However, I think it is necessary to show war as it is. War affects the entirety of population, and they deserve to know the truth of what is happening. Unlike a tragedy such as a mass shooting, I do not think journalists need to show as much discretion when depicting war.
Despite my personal opinions, this will certainly continue as a debate as journalists struggle to find the most effective way to cover a story.
 |
| Image via Cleveland.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment