To Shoot or Not to Shoot: An Ethical Question for Photojournalists

As a journalist, one is taught to be objective and to be observant reporters of the news and maintain their distance from the subjects of their stories and photos. They are told that they are only there to cover the story, despite how tragic it may be. They have to just report about those in trouble and those involved in any rescue efforts, not become involved themselves.

One of the 10 questions Bob Steele of www.poynter.org suggests, asks "What are my ethical concerns?" For photojournalists deciding whether or not to take a photo of someone in need raises the question: When, if ever, does a photojournalist step out of the bystander or observer role and take action and help?

Journalists and photojournalists are told to simply report (photograph/document) the story. Do not get involved with the news. But as caring human beings when other people are in need, it's human nature to want to respond. Photojournalists need to know when to put down the camera and lend a hand.

Photojournalists have taken pictures poor living conditions with malnourished children and sick elderly people. They have also shot photos of people in tragedy and disaster situations. Does the journalist have an obligation to provide aid to his or her subject that is higher than their obligation to remain neutral as a journalist? The decision is if they should remove themselves from situation and remain as just an observer or if they should step out of their role as a journalist and become involved in the story by giving aid to the needy.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, under the Minimize Harm principle, one rule journalists need to abide by is "Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews [photographs] of those affected by tragedy or grief."

Being sensitive means respecting their right to privacy and trying to understand how much more traumatic (if at all) it would be to have their photo taken and printed.

According to the fifth edition of Media Ethics: Issues and Cases by Phillip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, a photojournalist has to make an important decision immediately upon arriving on a news scene: To shoot or not to shoot? The book also states that the subjects of these situations are usually in a state of grief or shock and become vulnerable. They lose some control over their level of intimacy with certain people who then take control of that intimacy, including people of the media.

With the control in the hands of the photojournalist they are faced with a decision: To shoot or not to shoot (page 217). Shooting would invade the privacy of the person grieving but it would also satisfy the public's right and need to know. It would depend on how much public need to know there was in each individual situation. The SPJ code of ethics mentions that only a significant public need can justify intrusion of privacy.

According to the Media Ethics book, a staff photographer with the Deseret News, Garry Bryant, has a checklist that he goes through when he arrives at a scene. Bryant's checklist, four questions to ask yourself, include: Should this moment be made public? Will being photographed send the subjects into further trauma? Am I the least obtrusive distance as possible?

Am I acting with compassion and sensitivity? Along with this list, Bryant has a disclaimer: "What society needs to understand is that photographers act and shoot instinctively. We are not journalists gathering facts. We are merely photographers snapping pictures. A general rule for most photojournalists is 'Shoot. You can always edit later.' "

While going through Bryant's checklist and respecting the sensitivity of the situation, it is hard for a photojournalist to just shoot and have no reaction or feeling toward the situation. This is even more true in more tragic situations that tug at people's emotions.

In a monthly column (Ethics Matters) for News Photographer magazine, Dr. Deni Elliott, a nationally recognized scholar in media ethics and founder of the Ethics Center at the University of Montana, and Paul Martin Lester, a professor in the department of communications at California State University, Fullerton, wrote that photojournalists are not as black and white as some ideals set them up to be, and sometimes it is impossible to be neutral to a story.

The column, When Worlds Collide: Ethical Behavior is a Life-Long Journey, said: "We are sometimes told that an ideal photojournalist should be as neutral as the flat plane of film that lays silently and ready against the backplate of a camera. But of course, we are not pieces of film or 0s and 1s on a chip."

Elliott and Lester also wrote To Shoot or Not to Shoot: When is it Not OK to Take a Picture? for the magazine column. Elliott and Lester give ten reasons not to shoot a photo or video of something. Ethically, they wrote that it may violate a person's privacy. Most people have an expectation of privacy in their daily lives, including while in public locations. This is why, according to Elliott and Lester, why some photographers will not take photos of people in certain situations without their knowledge or consent.

"This is when being sensitive to privacy rights and having a strong news sense go hand in hand," they wrote in the column.

While the subject of an event may have temporarily given up the control to the photographer, they still do have that right to privacy. Knowing when that right to privacy is more important than the public's need to know is important. According to the SPJ code of ethics, under the Minimize Harm principle, "only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy."

Another ethical reason, Elliott and Lester point out, for not shooting a photo would be that it may support a negative stereotype. It may support a negative stereotype. They wrote that if the photo would depict a negative stereotype cliché, supporting that is unethical.

"If the mental adjective that accompanies your view of a subject sounds like a negative cliché," Elliott and Lester wrote in their column. "The picture probably is a visual statement of the stereotype and should not be taken. Reinforcing negative stereotypes is an ethical mistake that is easy to make. "

According to Greater Good, a publication by University of California, Berkeley, During Hurricane Katrina photojournalist Ted Jackson went to cover the story, but found it hard to shoot and stay neutral. Jackson faced the ethical challenge of juggling his journalistic responsibilities with his desire to help the people he saw through his camera's lens.

"I felt there were many times during Katrina when I was not just the first responder, but in a way I was the only responder, and if I didn't help, no one else would," he said. "I had to try to muddle through it and figure out when to shoot and when to try to help."

According to Greater Good, Jackson sometimes shot photos and helped at the same time, shot photos when he could not help, stopped taking photos and helped when he could and also shot the photo because he believed that was the greatest good he could do for the subject.

The ideal for most photographers, when faced with a situation where hey could save a life, would be to help and shoot as Jackson did during Hurricane Katrina. Fulfilling both roles in their lives: That of the caring human being and that of a independent, objective reporter. While asking the 10 questions from Steele at www.poynter.org again, this would be the answer to number nine: What are my alternatives to maximize truth-telling responsibility and minimize harm? Doing both would adequately answer this. Still telling the truth by documenting what was happening while also minimizing harm to the people who need help.

The second approach that Jackson also did, shooting when he cannot help, is a controversial idea. Some would say that while he could not help, he may have been making it worse by taking their photo. But, using the Potter Box method of ethical decision making would explain why (answering the last wustion of Steele's ethical decision making questions, Can I clearly justify my thinking and my decision?) a photojournalist would keep shooting. First, understand the facts: People are in need, it is a major news-worthy event, impossible for the photojournalist to help, and has a camera ready. Second, outline the values: Truth-of the situation and compassion-to help the people. Third, apply relevant philosophical principles: John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, an act's rightness is determined by the outcome. The outcome would have been the same whether the photojournalist took the photo or not, because there is nothing he or she can do. The photos, at least, tell the story of what happened at the scene and to the people involved. Fourth, articulate a loyalty: To the newspaper and public to tell the truth of what happened and to the people involved (as well as to humanity, to do the right thing). Since the photojournalist cannot do anything about the people involved, his or her loyalty lays with the newspaper and public to tell the truth.

The third situation Jackson was in was when he could help and he decided to put down the camera and do something about it. Most people, in this situation where they are able to help, would lend a hand, and most definitely when it is a matter of life and death as it was for the Hurricane Katrina victims. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, act so your choices could be universal law, would fit in appropriately in this situation. If someone was in danger and another person had the opportunity to save his or her life, presumably everyone would want that person to help. Also, the eight question of Steele's list asks: What are the possible outcomes of my actions? Short term? Long term? If Jackson had kept on shooting photos, the outcome would be injury or death for the people involved. If he stopped shooting to help, the outcome would be lives saved and having to describe in words what happened instead of photographs.

In the last situation Jackson had come upon a huge crowd of rioters with some other photojournalists. They came toward them yelling "They'll be able to tell our story!" The woman that grabbed Jackson yelled, "Help us, please!" And Jackson knew that the photo was more important than anything else. Again John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism principle applies here. The outcome would be the person involved got what she wanted from the photojournalist, their story to be told. The truth about what happened would be told and the public would be informed and possibly take it upon themselves to help however they can.

"And it was so clear-she knew it and we knew it-that we were all kind of a cog in the wheel there. It was a powerful moment," Jackson said in the Greater Good publication. "It's moments like that when you suddenly realize the power of journalism, and the importance of it."