Front page photo? Really?

I recently blogged about the ethical decsions journalists and photographers have to make in real life news situations. I feel this year has been one that has seen the barrier of ethics pushed and not for the right reasons.

A few months back we had the picture of the Ambassador being dragged away as he died published on the New York Times website. We then saw a few weeks back the pictures of the clown in the Macy’s parade dead on the ground as spectators tried to revive him.

And just this week we saw pictures of a man struggling to get on to the subway platform after being pushed on to the tracks as a train approached him. Could you justify any of these pictures being taken? Could you actually take any of these pictures?

I know I can’t and couldn’t.

This recent picture taking scenario really gets to me the most. Eventhough I witnessed the Macy’s parade incident, this one seems all the more horrifying.

After witnessing a man being shoved on to the tracks with the sound of the train approaching the platform in the background, the first thing the photographer though to do was take a picture.

He defended his actions by saying he couldnt have reached the man in time. But he managed to take 49 photographs.

Photographer aside, we now have to look at the justification of the New York Post publishing the photo on its front page. Why oh why do we need to see this picture.

What is it about this picture, as I have formely said, that tells you any more about the story than words can. A man on the tracks trying to get up on to the platform as a train arrives. And even if you can’t quite muster up the scenario in your head, do you honestly want to see the fear in his eyes? Do you want to see how a man looks seconds before his life ends?

I don’t think anyone really wants to see that or needs to see that image.
People have said if it was another newspaper such as the New York Times that the image wouldn’t have been published. Yet they published the pictures of the Ambassador moments before death.

The right to privacy differs when it is a public official versus a member of public. But I don’t think we need to see anyone dying or close to death.

The problem is that the attention diverts from the story and the person involved, to the fact that the picture has been published, and so we focus on the journalistic medium.

In this case we focus on the New York Post and their decision and their paper. They are being talked about all over to the point that it feels almost like a publicity stunt. They want to show their risque and willing to go that extra step.

But that isn’t what’s important about the picture or story. A man has lost his life. We almost forget that that is what the whole situation is about. Our focus instead changes to why take the picture, why publish the picture. Words don’t distract from the focus point. Words tell you exactly what happened and what is important.

So is ethics enough?

If this is the way ethical decisions are going who knows what picture we will see next week. We really have to remember that this is real life, real people and real problems that are shown in the pictures. It’s not an episode of CSI.