Saving lives before snapping photos

Categorized | Opinions

Saving lives before snapping photos

Posted on 03 April 2011.

Last week during my photojournalism class we discussed ethics in photography.

More specifically, as a class, we discussed Kevin Carter’s Pulitzer prize photograph of an emaciated young Sudanese child crouched on the ground in front of a vulture taken in the early 90s. If you haven’t seen this picture, it is worth finding online.

The story goes that Carter was on assignment to cover conditions in Sudan and one day while they heard whimpering off in the distance.

He went to find out the source of the noise and found an emaciated toddler crouched on the ground, resting while trying to make it to a nearby feeding camp.

A vulture landed behind the child, and Carter stopped to snap a picture. He then waited 20 minutes for the vulture to potentially spread its wings so that he could get a better shot. After the vulture didn’t spread its wings, he settled for the picture he got, shooed the vulture away, and left the child on the ground just as he found her.

When he returned to the States, Carter eventually ended up selling the photograph to the New York Times, who eagerly ran the photograph. People contacted the newspaper to find out the fate of the toddler, which was officially unknown.

People asked if Carter had helped the child, and he did not after taking the photograph.

Carter came under much criticism for not helping the struggling toddler and only snapping the picture. He said he didn’t want to be a part of the story, and therefore left the girl to fend for herself.

Depression followed him like a dark cloud, despite winning the Pulitzer prize. A string of unfortunate events happened to him in a short amount of time, and he was found dead in his truck from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Do I think the guilt that he felt for not doing such a simple task played a role in his suicide? Yes.

Do I think he should have helped the girl, such as carrying her to the feeding camp? Most definitely.

An argument can be made that he wasn’t there to save children.

Another argument could be, what difference would it make if he carried her to the feeding camp and guaranteed her next meal? You can’t save the world, so why save this child, right?

Wrong. To that child, you could be the world.

What’s the line for journalists to help someone they’re reporting on? For me, it comes down to where my ethics and morals are. I am a human before I am a journalist.

If I’m sent to cover a car accident or house fire, and am there before the first responder team, you better believe I will be there doing whatever I can to help the people in need.

Could I have walked away from that child in Sudan? No, and I can say that without a second thought.

I wouldn’t have been able to sleep at night had I walked away knowing I could have done something so simple. In fact, it’s been days since I looked at that photograph and it still bothers me, even though I was five years old at the time the picture was taken.

I’m off to spend a week working at an orphanage in Haiti during the first week of May.

This photograph scares the hell out of me because it’s so real and striking, and I know I could be put in a situation similar to what Carter was. Will I help someone in need? Yes, because I can and that’s reason enough for me.

Share/Bookmark

This post was written by:

Briana Sutherland - who has written 20 posts on University Chronicle.

Contact the author

http://scsuintellectuals.wordpress.com/ Benjamin Seghers

You are absolutely right. I like your line, “I am a human before I am a journalist.” As human beings, we have a moral responsibility to other human beings. When we have the ability, we also have the imperative to help others in need, namely because power confers responsibility. There is a difference between being neutral in journalism and avoiding your moral responsibilities as a human. It’s unfortunate Carter didn’t understand the difference (that is, if the story is true and his companion Silva’s is not), but it is equally tragic that he took his own life.
Guest

I think you have not really understood the complexities of the situation* and have also not researched enough to know that there is an alternative version of the story – or at least have not had the decency to include that as a balance to your self-righteous judgement of someone you have never met. Bear in mind the fact that the alternative version was given by someone who was there while the version you parrot is not attributable to any named individual let alone one who was there. If you look more closely at the story, as opposed to using it as a backdrop for self-congratulation on what a morally superior person you are, you would perhaps understand that there was more than likely very little he could do to ‘save’ the child without potentially making the situation worse and that the only real purpose served by him intervening would have been to make himself look better to naive (although well-meaning) people like yourself.

(*By this i’m referring not only the situation on the ground ie child, vulture, photograher, but also the wider context surrounding the child’s situation (civil war,genocide, long-term mass starvation as opposed to one starving child) and the actual consequences of any action the photographer might have taken weighed up against the actual benefit those actions may have had – as well as the context of the photographer’s career beyond this one photograph.)

I’m sorry if this comment is harsh (and so long!), but it is awful to see how keyboard crusaders so easily judge someone when it is clear they have not made the faintest effort to look below the surface of a story – this is someone’s reputation you are using as a springboard to launch yourself up onto that moral high ground of yours.
Guest

Jack – I used those words because that was exactly what came across – - I don’t think they were malicious although I did admit they were harsh – I think its pretty harsh on Briana’s part to write a piece in a public forum accusing a man of doing something deeply unethical without acknowledging the complexities of the situation – she clearly had done very little research – and I don’t think i was attacking her character – i was certainly attacking her article though. I get that it was an opinion piece, commments are there to respond with one’s own opinion which is what i did – works both ways. I wrote what I wrote in anger – not malice – there is a difference. But I stand by what I wrote – i think its unethical to publically judge another person without trying to fully understand the situation – particulary when the purpose of that judgement SEEMS to be to highlight one’s own moral superiority.
Guest

Briana, for what its worth – I AM sorry I reacted so harshly – I should have found a kinder way to express my thoughts. I find this story very distressing – 30 strange minutes of a man’s life have led to him being judged so many years after his death – by so many people – but still, I should have been more grown-up in my reaction and I do apologise.
Bill Jones

I have been a photojournalist for 25 years. I am also a former Chronicle photo editor. When I was in school it was easy to make these statements about what you would do, under certain circumstances. After 25 years I now know there is no way to say with any certainy what you would do. Every situation is different, with each one having unique problems. When photographers talk to each other, we tell stories of what we’ve been covering. We always ask how we handled the situations. We do this to help each other try to figure out how to, maybe, handle a similar story. There is no certain answer, no standard way. Everytime is different, and some are too difficult to figure out the correct action. I don’t know the photographer in question’s story. I would never judge his decisions. I wasn’t there. I just know that his photograph jolted the world into trying to help.