Violence and visuals: How should we handle violent images?

Shelby Campbell
sc568816@ohio.edu

When capturing images of violence and terror, photojournalists must consider the ethics behind what they will inevitably be sharing with the rest of the world. Photojournalists have the power to change public opinion and shine light on powerful institutions, but they also have the power to force disturbing violence on an unsuspecting audience. 

Photojournalistic precautions

Violent images can expose institutional problems, such as with photojournalist Ron Haeberle's photos of American forces in My Lai. American forces terrorized the village, raping and murdering the residents. Haeberle's photography exposed senseless violence against innocent people in Vietnam. 

Americans were outraged. There had been protests, but average Americans who supported American intervention in Vietnam began to question its involvement. Haeberle's depictions of violence were with a purpose, and he provided a clue into what kind of warfare was being used. He did exactly as a journalist should: act as a watchdog upon a powerful institution.

Although the images were violent, they had a purpose. Violence without a purpose is potentially harmful. Photojournalists must keep in mind the context in which they frame their photos. A photo of violence without a story to surround it has no power to change an institution. 

Souvid Datta, a once-prominent photojournalist, was criticized for the wide circulation of a photo he called "Beauty," which depicts a 16-year-old trafficked girl being raped. The photo was used as an advertisement for a photojournalism contest. The ad removed the photo from its original context, meaning the violence depicted had no explanation or purpose other than exploitation. The photo does point out an overarching societal problem when presented in the right context. But the photo is personal, and the violence it depicts does not have the power to solve the problem by itself. 

What does the public need to see?

Photojournalists must decide whether the public needs to see the images of violence. Violence without a purpose may not be within the public interest. But in the case of Haeberle, the public was left clueless about American actions in Vietnam. Because the public was largely blind to the injustices, Haeberle felt it was important that the public see for itself the violence left behind by American forces. 

Violence just for the sake of violence is not within public interest. When 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, a photo of his body lying face down on the pavement was circulated widely on social media. But authorities were concerned about an official release of the evidence photos sparking similar unrest to the initial reaction to the shooting. 

The shooting itself was cause for unrest. The photos, however, would not expose any more of a problem than was already being made clear by the coverage and reaction to the shooting. Photos of Michael Brown's body would have been more harmful to his family and to the public than not releasing them. 

Photojournalism is an important watchdog for powerful institutions. It has the power to show the public personal accounts of violence and injustices to marginalized people. But the depictions of violence must consider the tone of the photo, how it fits in with public interest and, most importantly, it must provide context about the meaning of the photos. Images of violence are meaningless without the proper tone and context surrounding the story.