Photographs Are the Screams of the World

Brooke Balzano
bb240415@ohio.edu

In a world full of tragedy, storytelling through journalism often begs the question of whether the story contains information that is crucial to the public or not. Photojournalism can highlight the important message behind the tragedy but can appear to dehumanize the scenario as well.

When tragedy strikes, it is important to get the facts out and show the public what is happening. A photojournalist can shoot as many photographs that they deem necessary, but that does not mean each photograph should be shown to the public. On September 11, 2001, tragedy struck the United States when two airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. Soon after, a photograph of a man falling from the North Tower began to circulate and provided another visual of the tragedy.

Courtesy of Esquire, Photo by AP Photographer Richard Drew

Photos of the terror that filled the World Trade Center had already circulated through news stories and live news coverage provided a look into the horror people were experiencing that Tuesday morning. Richard Drew shot multiple photos of the tragedy that day, including stills of those who jumped from the tower. He followed the shot for a nine to twelve frame sequence and did so multiple times until the South Tower collapsed.

The photograph that was published did not show bodies crushed from the fall and covered in debris from the explosion but instead showed a decision someone made, portraying them with a sense of humanity in the final seconds of their lives.

If a photograph dehumanizes a situation, it is likely not going to be published. According to a NiemanReports article, the most persistent questions about how images of violence and death are framed are whether they dehumanize their subjects and whether they prioritize the suffering of certain groups over others.

In 1969, Ron Haeberle's photograph of murdered villagers in My Lai debuted on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer on November 20. His photograph brought to light the tragedy that occurred in Vietnam and showed the truth of the massacre. His stills told the story of innocent civilians who had their lives ripped away from them, no matter of their age. Haeberle had no idea at the time that the photographs he had taken of some of these people would be the last they were seen alive, which struck him when he met a survivor of the massacre in 2011. 

Courtesy of TIME, Photo by Ronald L. Haeberle

It's said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but a photograph should not tell a different story than what happened. A photograph provides a visual insight into the event that allows the audience to recognize what is happening on a deeper level.

Photographers have to be careful when deciding what to publish and tend to rely on the three following rules:

1. Keep images in context - Closeup photos provide details but wide shots provide context. Although both images portray the truth, it is important to publish images that will help the audience understand the story better overall rather than provide more minute specific details.

2. Tone and degree are critical - How often is the most graphic image shown? If an image is going to be published that is considered graphic, the public needs to be warned. Stating that viewer discretion is advised provides the audience with insight that explains the image may be unsettling.

3. Weigh the public's need to know - The job of a journalist occasionally includes displaying a graphic or disturbing image to the public to provide a deeper insight into what is happening. Although the content of tragic stories may be unsettling, it is crucial to make an ethical decision of whether or not publishing the information is momentous to the public.

Pictures Say a Thousand Words and We Need Them

Thomas Garverick
cg701315@ohio.edu

Censorship is a fundamental key in journalism. What you can say or what you can report on is important to remember. But what about what you can show the public?

This is a very interesting topic, given the fact that we just got done talking about the shooting in Pittsburgh and whether or not we should report on funerals or not. But now this topic runs into the visual aspect of the story like that.

From an article I read on Nienmanreports.org, I found this quote to be extremely eye-opening. 

"We must force ourselves to look," editor in chief of bild.de said. "Without pictures the world would be more ignorant, the needy even more invisible, more lost... Photographs are the screams of the world."

I mean, she's 100 percent correct. We as journalists have an obligation to the people that we need to paint the picture for the public, even if it's ugly. Take this picture for example:

A beach explosion in Gaza apart of the Israel-Gaza War. Photo credit: Times.

What if Times never ran this picture? If you're the editor in chief and you see this and refuse to post it, why are you withholding that from the public?

They ran this picture because the people have the right to see what is going in the world. We don't live in a perfect world and awful things like this happen. We can't live in a world where we are ignorant to things like this happening, it's not right. 

It's our job to report the truth -- regardless if it's good or bad, we have to do our job. That picture was released back in 2014 when they Israel War and ongoing conflict in Syria were going on. That's something that we can not ignore. 

However, it was interesting to read why some journalists might not be willing to post pictures because they don't want to be the one to "scar other humans." In a survey done from Times, here's a result that they graphic pictures could harm us the professionals, let alone the general public.

"Frequent, repetitive viewing of violent news-related video and other media raises news professionals' vulnerability to a range of  psychological injury, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder."

It's a topic that will probably be debated our entire lives. It's crazy to think that people build studies to show it effects us journalists just as much as it would harm the average person. 

This may just be me, but if there's something going in this world that's not legally or ethically right, I want to know about it whether through that's words or having to see a visual image to have it make an impact on me, I want that feeling. Everyone should too. 

Photojournalism: Where Should We Draw the Line?

Ryan Everett
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

Viewer Discretion: Graphic Images

Natalie Butko
nb861214@ohio.edu

With technology continuing to increase and capture much of what goes on in the world, graphic images are continuing to emerge after tragedies. Newsrooms are faced time and time again with the decision to publish images depicting mass shooting, plane crashes, violence, tragedies, and so on. If you find yourself having to make that decision, here are some things to consider.

In regards to ethics, you must consider your purpose for publishing a graphic image. Is this image something the public needs to know? Will the image change the story or meaning?  The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics instructs journalists to minimize harm by showing compassion to those who will be affected. When deciding to publish a graphic image you must keep in mind stakeholders such as the person(s) in the image, their family, companies, and countries, to name a few.

If you have decided to publish the image, you may consider warning your audience of the content they will see. Before some movies and television shows, a warning pops up saying "viewer discretion is advised." This warning lets viewers know that the following content may be mature or disturbing to some viewers. These type of warnings are becoming increasingly used in the news.

Source: BBC News

Consider adding a warning to your viewers in these places:

1. Before the content in a live broadcast. If you decide to show graphic content in a live broadcast, have the anchor issue a warning of what is to come so viewers can change the channel if they chose.

2. Before a pre-recorded video. Similar to a live broadcast, if you have a prerecorded video on your website or social media consider adding a pre-recorded warning.

3. Text warning. Before being able to access graphic content, add a text warning about the content to follow. This can be done on images, videos, website links, and social media.

Warning your audience of the graphic content you are sharing is often the safest option. The choice to view the content is in their hands. Warning your viewers through more than one of the above methods is best.

If you decide to publish graphic images or not, it is important to be transparent about the process. Consider having a section of your website or publication that describes your process for publishing graphic images. Adding a footnote explaining why an image was or wasn't included can help your audience understand your decision. As Poynter explains, it is important to monitor your audience's reactions to your posted content so you can make a more informed decision in the future.

Deciding to publish a graphic image is no easy decision. It is important to consider your audience and their need to know. If you choose to publish a graphic image, consider warning your audience before they view it. This can be done in several different ways depending on the platform your content will be viewed. Finally, no matter what your decision is, be transparent with your audience and take their feedback into consideration for future decisions.

The Good, The Bad, & The Graphic

Cole Bellinger
CB284414@ohio.edu

(CONTENT WARNING: THE ATTACHED LINKS MAY BE GRAPHIC TO SOME VIEWERS)

The taking and publicizing of graphic photos is something that has sparked heated debate in American history. We can trace back photos as far as 1862 with Alexander Gardner's photo series "The Dead of Antietam". This was shocking to the public when it went into an exhibition where it was shown to civilians in New York City. Prior to this battle, no battle ever had seen this many American casualties in a single day and no civilians had ever seen such a depiction of wartime violence. Alexander Gardner was able to capture an image that brought America closer to understanding of the horrors of war.

An exhibition is one thing, people have to pay to get in and typically are fully aware of the nature of the content they are about to witness, but what happens when we start taking graphic pictures, ones like Alexander Gardner's and show them on broadcast news or heavily circulated print publications? It sparks a new, polarizing debate on what is to be shown and what is to be hidden. Gary Knight, co-founder of the VII Photo Agency, believes that publishing and capturing the photos are two different jobs and are to be treated as such. Knight believes that photographers "need to record those things, but they do not need to be published." Knight's sentiment is widely shared and he claims that when the photographer captures and image a discourse needs to be held in order to ensure that the photo is accurate and newsworthy prior to publication. In a society where many journalists and photographers are looking for the most provocative or most sensational images to place on their front page, it's hard to understand why we need to show these images, but I believe there is a reason to show these images as a way of understanding the human condition.

Photojournalism has always had a way of capturing events in a style that words can't do. Most people are familiar with Jeff Widener's "Tank Man." Though this photo isn't graphic, it is a perfect example of how a photo can be seen as something more, in this case Tank Man's solitary act of resistance was a beacon of justice for many in Beijing and around the world. Even heavily criticized photos have something to say that can't be portrayed in words, with this we can look at the example of Kevin Carter's Pulitzer Prize winning photo "The Vulture and The Little Girl". Many people were upset with Carter for his not "helping" the child on the ground. This controversy brings up a question about what the job of the photographer is. I believe that Carter was within his ethical duty by just capturing the image. It is to be considered that he was there to document the famine and show how the UN was not fighting the famine properly, his job was not to save people, no matter how tragic the situation.

So how can photojournalists know when they're in the right for capturing an image? Al Tompkins of Poynter writes that any photojournalist should remind themselves of three things when capturing an image. The three things are:

- Keep images in context - This is important because context and framing s everything to an image and can completely change the way the audience looks at it.

- Tone and degree are critical - Tomkins believes that how prominently and how often you show the images is an important factor in the ethics of images. He claims that you should always give a warning if you're showing graphic content.

- Weigh the public's need to know - Tompkins says that we should always approach photos from a journalistic standpoint, which means adhering to the same high ethical standards of journalism.

                          Jeff Widener's Tank Man - A great example of a newsworthy image.

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.

Source

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. 

Depicting Tragedy

Ally Campbell
ac076015@ohio.edu

Photography can be an important tool for storytelling, but it must be used delicately.

In instances of tragedy, images may be an effective way to convey the emotion and truth of the situation. Photos can, however, be easily misinterpreted, misrepresented or troubling. It is important to weigh the consequences of sharing an image of violence or trauma.

Photojournalism covering tragedy can be done very well or very poorly.

Photojournalist Ron Haeberle is an example of photojournalism done well. Haeberle exposed the truth of the My Lai massacre through his photos. Though the content is troubling, Haeberle's work shed light on the tragedy in a way that little else could have. His photos show the lack of humanity and the devastation of war. With unaltered content or context, the photos truthfully and accurately represent what happened in My Lai during the Vietnam War.

Photojournalism Ethics
According to NPPA's code of ethics, those involved in visual journalism and news should represent their subjects accurately and comprehensively. The code is similar to that for written journalism and requires that the provided context should not be altered. Thinking of photography in terms of traditional journalism ethics, it holds true that photojournalists also have a responsibility to uphold the truth, representing the news accurately and fairly.

Journalistic purpose is an excellent way to consider ethical decisions around photos. At its core, journalism is intended to provide information in an accurate and truthful manner. Photojournalism is no different. As with written journalism, photojournalism does not serve its purpose if it is sensational, faulty or misrepresentative.

The Good and the Bad
Both journalism and the accompanying photos should serve some higher purpose. Again drawing on photojournalism examples from the Vietnam War, they had greater purpose. Photos from Vietnam, such as those by Ron Haeberle, revealed government deception and the harsh reality of war.

On the other hand, a photo published by the New York Post several years ago drew controversy because of its questionable journalistic purpose and ethics. It was argued that this photo had no journalistic purpose and was simply published because it was horrifying, yet sensational.

Source

Too often, photos of violence are published because they are sensational or shocking, not because they provide deeper understanding or shed light on serious issues.

This can also happen when photos are not framed correctly or given the appropriate context. For example, the graphic photo in the New York Post was published with the headline, "Doomed: Pushed on the Subway Track, This Man is About to Die." The headline is not false, but it is not sympathetic to the man who died or his family, nor is it inactive of a greater story. For this reason, the New York Post received additional criticism for sensationalizing the tragic event.

Ron Haeberle's My Lai photos showed sympathy and desire to share a story, albeit a tragic one. The New York Post example, however, showed a photo both published and framed with a lack of compassion for human tragedy.

Exercise Compassion 
"Look for ways to exercise your compassion," said Kelly McBride of the Pointer Institute.

McBride's statement encompasses the essence of ethical journalism and photojournalism. Use compassion in your ethical decisions and strive to uphold truth and accuracy, whether it be with photos or words. Compassion will take you pretty far as you make ethical decisions.