Larissa Beriswill
lb657516@ohio.edu
When tragedy strikes, there is always coverage of it. Whether it be the aftermath of a mass shooting or something as specific as the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The articles written about tragic and fatal events more often than not contain pictures. With 9/11 for example, there are many pictures that show people in mid-air because they jumped from the windows so they wouldn't burn to death. How are the reporters and editors supposed to know whether or not to attach these images?
It's a question that is asked about photos that will spark something in society, causing people to be angry that it was ever published in the first place. Journalists have a duty to society to report things like tragic events, where the public wants to see pictures. Pictures in articles help readers to understand the feelings of the event or the situation. Stated in the NPPA Code of Ethics, "Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime and tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see."
Opinions about controversial photos in journalism are different across the board. The common theme seems to be that a photo should be judged based on the event or situation. For example, a picture of a pile of deceased bodies from 9/11 would be something that is touchy for readers and would probably upset many people. However, the various photos of people jumping from the building seems to be less of an argument. The fact that is shows someone seconds before their death sends a strong message to the public about how severe and sad the terrorist attacks were that day.
Additionally, there have been many photographers that have faced backlash from society on controversial pictures and what they did or did not to help. In this article from WBUR and the New York Post, R. Umar Abbasi photographed a man that was pushed onto tracks of the subway and was fatally struck by the train seconds later. The photographer received lots of criticism for the picture but his response was that he was "too far away to help". He later says that he heard commotion and just started taking pictures before he realized what he was capturing. He was rushing to help the man, but the train was too fast and no one else had acted soon enough to help the man, Ki Suk Han.
It makes sense when you know the backstory, but seeing that picture with no explanation makes you question why no one helped the man. It's a perfect example of how a picture can have so much controversy without knowing the full story behind it. The photo did not show a deceased person, but it was inevitable what was bound to happen because subway trains do not stop like a car does.
No comments:
Post a Comment