Photo journalism – at what point do photographers intrude too far?
As a race, we are increasingly preoccupied with documenting our own existence. At the same time, it would seem, we are becoming numbed to that which would have shocked past generations. These are the reasons, I have concluded, that some journalists now go to extraordinarily intrusive and insensitive lengths to capture the story that surprises and the photo that sells.
As I wandered around the gallery of Pulitzer Prize winning photographs at the Newseum (Washington DC), at first, as most of the other visitors, I was interested in the unique, diverse pictures laid before me. There is no denying that the photos are exceptional – capturing true emotion and documenting fleeting, poignant moments. Some even portray joyful events, but the pictures of a lifeless, hanged woman being beaten, a Vietnamese prisoner being shot in the head at close range and a girl screaming by the dead body of her classmate during a protest, seemed cold hearted and voyeuristic.
Arguably, all of the above document ‘news’. They broaden our awareness of shocking events around the world, albeit in a graphic medium. The photo that really saddened me at its owner’s insensitivity, however, was that of a young couple standing by the sea, distraught that their 19 month old son had, moments before, been swept out with the tide. His body later washed up in the surf.
OK, the picture shows true, pure emotion and stirs a response in the beholder, but what if you were that couple? At the worst possible moment imaginable, when you are panicked, helpless and vulnerable, an opportunistic photographer takes your picture. They unsympathetically immortalise the worst experience of your life and print it for millions of strangers to admire, winning a Pulitzer Prize in the process.
What does this photo achieve? Unlike the aforementioned documentary shots, this distraught couple’s private suffering does not broaden our understanding of international issues. We all know that the sea can be dangerous and accidents happen. What right did the photographer have to steal and share their grief?
What increased my anger at the sport of cold hearted photo-snapping, was an interview I saw with a journalist (also at the Newseum), who was taking pictures of a girl being swept away by a burst river. The photographer explained that she was clicking away, taking countless images of the struggling victim, when she realised that she should restrain herself. She knew that in a few moments the girl would either be rescued or drown and that was the picture she wanted. She didn’t care which way the story was resolved, only that she reserved enough film to document it.
Overall, I enjoyed the Newseum, but left seriously questioning the morals of some photo journalists and, by association, the morals of all of us – their consumers. If there was no demand for this blood sport, nobody would be taking the shots and these pictures would not feature in our magazines or on our gallery walls.
After all, I paid over $25 for admission to the Newseum that day.
Very thought provoking, I will certainly think more about where front page photos come from and the situations they were taken in from now on. Shame on us all for giving them a reason to take the picture.