Ethical Dilemna

Jeremy_Johnson · #1 04-06-2006, 02:44 PM

Recently I have seen a couple shows on television that have raised some questions about an ethical dilemna PJ's may face. The first show I saw was about riots and how quickly they can get out of hand. It had the typical riot footage, mob mentality, etc. What was burned into my mind though is one scene where a couple of rioters, maybe 3 or 4, were smashing a window, and there were probably 5 or 6 PJ's in the scene as well taking photos of this handful of people. The second show I watched was called "Shooting Conflict" it was about two Videographers in Israel, one was Jewish, the other Palestinian and they were friends. Anyway, one of the scenes was an Israeli soldier getting hit with some small bomb/firecracker and being injured. The scene that played out was 8 or 10 PJ's surrounding the injured soldier while a handful of other soldiers tried to help him. Eventually, somebody with authority cleared the press out of the way for the help.

Now that the background is explained, here is my question: Do you as PJ's ever feel like your presence escalates the situation? Does the presence of a camera embolden rioters/protesters? How do you feel about this and is there anything that can be done? I've shot protesters before who were sitting idly in a park, as soon as they saw the camera it was a different story. That incident led me to question not the integrity of the image, but the integrity of the event/protest and whether the image is really an "accurate" portrayal of what happened. Thank you in advance for what I hope are some different views on this.

Asher_Kelman · #2 04-06-2006, 03:24 PM

Jeremy, this seems to be a downsde of modern photography, where we have endles capacity to shoot image after image and we have unprecidented access to trouble spots.

Time was, in covering a war, that the best one did was run with the charging troop are duck when they ducked but hardly ever was the photographer the essential part of the process.

Without TV/press coverage, chere is little point in poing over the top and the fever stays fervent, agitated but not necessarily murderous, unless of course it is time to "overthrow the Bastille" so to speak.

In many countries, much prior organisation and even payments are needed to ensure a large turnout and then provocateurs are laced into the crowd or someone fires from the crowd to elicit a response from authorities which then is the "News" that the whole effort is all about.

When women in Darfur demonstrate against rape and hunger, they don't need orgainization and the press merely records and documents the crimes, pain and tragedy. The dilemma of the photgrapher is that of conscience when going back to their secure lodging with a full plate of food waiting them.

The press is in the Darfur example THE MAIN avenue for stirring the worlds conscience without filtering for political reasons.

Demonstrations, however, when manipulated, can be traps for the photographer and can in cases lead to more tragedy than would otherwise occur.

IMHO, looking at the people in their own environments is the only way to get at the truth, That requires getting to families away from the wildness.

Unfortunately, as with David Pearl and many others, such an honest approach can lead to the photographer becoming the victim and the toal new instead!

Reporting is hard WORK!

Asher [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Milutin_Labudovic · #3 04-06-2006, 03:59 PM

I am very pleased as a photographer to see press freely reporting from the scenes.
i`v shoot civil protests (or unrests) for my paper against Slobodan`s regime (and protested at the same time :-) , and the police when they clashed with riot protesters, aimed at photographers and TV crews from the spot to beat them, so my own police anatemized press because what we pictured did not please the authorities.
i came home tired, turn on TV, and in korea some students clash with police and press photographers are in the middle of the clash - many times i saw them TV footage, PJ with wide lenses in the middle of the police/riot clash where bones are braking, NOBODODY touches them.
-wow, in my mind
where is the press, there is the evidence for the truth. I am all for it.
Some downsides to that approach are insignificant do the gain of the archive DOCUMENTARIES that PJs and TV crews do.

Jeremy_Johnson · #4 04-06-2006, 05:22 PM

Asher, I agree, sometimes there are events that are clearly organized and feed off of the coverage. I think the question becomes whether or not, ethically speaking, a PJ should keep covering knowing that they are contributing or feeding the violence. Seeing a dozen photographers around a couple of protesters smashing windows, I have to ask myself if the PJs are encouraging the protesters. Are these riots being fueled by press coverage and what, if anything, should a Journalist do if this is realized?

I think you are right about seeing the people in their regular environment to get an accurate story of the situation. I have to say that after seeing the "Shooting Conflict" last night I got a different perspective, and that is directly related to the story not being about the riots, but those who cover the riots and what their views are.

I absolutely believe that there are events that require the full attention of the press to spread a message. On the same show about the Israeli/Palestinian PJ's, the Palestinian PJ went to cover a peaceful student protest and the Israeli's brought in tanks and then began firing on the students and reporters with rubber bullets(which can be lethal). I think in these situations, people absolutely need to know how far the situation has gotten out of hand.

Jeremy_Johnson · #5 04-06-2006, 06:44 PM

I found an excellent online article/book covering this very question and more:
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/les.../chapter7.html

The entirety can be found here:
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/les.../pjethics.html

Milutin_Labudovic · #6 04-08-2006, 12:26 PM

I`v started reading this book, it is a vaste that it is earlier edition for digital era.
i`v noticed a part on your dilema too
(Jeremy_Johnson - "Now that the background is explained, here is my question: Do you as PJ's ever feel like your presence escalates the situation? Does the presence of a camera embolden rioters/protesters?")
In the book is the example of KKK (Kyu Kluks Klan) protest and the police asking the photographers to leave the spot.
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/les.../chapter3.html

-the police asking press to leave on such event, i would find insolting and impossible to please.
-by all means I don`t see why would a PJ encourage protesters to a riot. It is not logical, i would asume that with out press protest will go out of the control, because there is no one to document it. so there is no evidence on that event.
-I agree that some protesters can become violent to a photographer, but is very much connected to WHY or WHOM is protesting