Ethics of Photojournalism

As with everything else in life, I think there are two sides to everything. When you have the profession as a photojournalist, you will do basically “whatever it takes” to get the photo you want. However, the question is, are there boundaries within doing whatever it takes to get that perfect photo? In my opinion, there are boundaries, but they are situational and a very gray area when it comes to photojournalism. 

One of the examples used was a woman named “Aline praying outside St. Rose Lima Church in Newton, Conn., on the day of a school shooting.” Is this considered an okay moment for a photojournalist to take a picture or is it crossing oral boundaries? I think that taking pictures discretely or waiting until Aline is done praying and asking her if she could pose in that same way again so a picture could be taken is more appropriate. If a person does not want their picture taken I do not think they should be put in a position where a photographer takes a picture without permission. 

Similarly to this idea, Aline has every right to deny a photojournalist of taking a picture. In no way is she obligated to be the subject in someone’s picture. However, if she grants permission then that is a different story. In that particular moment, while Aline is praying, she might feel that a photojournalist is invading her privacy or personal space by photographing her in a moment as vulnerable as that one. Another example like this would be if Professor Nordell photographs a woman holding a “Work for food” sign. Obviously, the woman could feel like he is exposing her in a time of vulnerability and would take great offense to take a picture. She has every right to feel offended by this as she would not know what his intentions are with the photo. She should also have the ability to say no to taking a picture and some photojournalists don’t give people an opportunity to opt-out of a picture, which could be considered invasive in certain situations. However, most conflicts of this could be avoided with sympathetic communication with the subject. 

In his video The Ethics of Photojournalism, Professor Nordell talks about what it is like to be on the opposite side of the camera. I believe that there is a code of ethics when taking pictures of people interacting with each other and sometimes defining those ethics are difficult. Something that would help photojournalists is communication. If they are asking to take a picture of someone in a vulnerable state, explain what they are taking it for and ho it would go towards telling a story. In Professor Nordell’s situation, he talked about traveling to Russia as a “tourist,” to take pictures of people involved in activities that are frowned upon in Russia. He traveled there leading people to believe that he was just a tourist but when confronted by an officer he used his morals and good judgment, to tell the truth about his presence there. Photojournalists should use the saying “If you were in their shoes, how would you feel?” and this could help them draw the line between “whatever it takes” and having good morals. This falls under number four in the NPAA code of ethics for photojournalists, “Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.”

Going along with this idea of photojournalists using good morals, is it okay for them to alter their pictures to get across a deeper message or make it more aesthetically appealing? My answer to this would be no. If the photojournalist needs to alter the image in order to get a deeper message across or make it more appealing to the eye then they need to spend more time trying to get the picture the “perfect picture.” Picture should not be manipulated because unlike words, pictures always tell the truth and in today’s day and age, pictures are losing their significance because people now have the ability to change and manipulate them to convey something different from what the picture tells.