I used to do that job for Reuters, while I didn’t do Africa, I did cover a lot of the Texas death penalty cases in the late 1990s as well as various natural disasters. It’s a tough business. But you have to be detached enough or the world never knows the truth. My good friend Adrees Latif (multiple Pulitzer winner,) covered the violence in Myanmar, the migrant caravans and a bunch of other tough stories and it can definitely take its toll, but it’s a vital profession. One photo can change the world as Eddie Adams proved in Vietnam.
“Max Hastings, writing in 2018, noted that Lém was in civilian clothes and was alleged to have just cut the throats of South Vietnamese Lt Col Nguyen Tuan, his wife, their six children and the officer’s 80-year-old mother.[7]
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution”
So by the circumstances, the execution was likely completely justified and in keeping with the Geneva Convention, but the photo did not present that context. As such, it served as North Vietnamese propaganda and undermined the entire US war effort.
Was "breaking the Geneva conventions or not" an aspect of that photo the public primarily cared about it?
How is undermind the US war effort in Vietnam a bad thing in and of itself? That war and the justifications for it undermined the US in a way that still keeps giving. The protest sparked good things and bad things -- the rationalizaton of the war produced only extremely bad things, fit to kill a persons soul and intellect, with god knows what half-life. I didn't downvote you, but I disagree.
It's a great example of how to be factually correct while completely missing the point. Saying "well, his summary execution was completely legal" is a bland form of words. The photo shows us what that looks like, and how intuitively horrifying it is. A million deaths is a statistic (or in the case of Vietnam per wikipedia, 1,353,000). An individual death is a tragedy - and here is a photo of that.
The casualness and lack of ceremony of the execution is a key part of the impact of the photo. Was means the casual extinction of huge numbers of lives. Modern war means this happens at a distance and is comprehended statistically. "Another few hundred people were fed to the meat grinder today." Photographing it reconnects people to the dead as humans.
As for "undermining the war", America's role in Vietnam was always on a really shaky moral footing since it was essentially colonialist; it was always right to question this and "undermine" it.
There is a really great documentary about Kevin Carter and the bang bang club called "when under fire, shoot back" [0]
It's much better than the fictionalized version that TFA references. Although it doesn't seem to be widely available so it might be a bit of a chore to hunt down.
most photos and films were too inhumane for mainstream media. A few acquaintances sold most of their material, recorded on a trip paid by some news agency or another to cover the war du jour, to exploitation gore producers. like the "faces of death" series, who could buy the footage for close to nothing after it was rejected by a single news outlet, and then sells it as VHS compilation.
On a related note, one of the main characters in House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski is based heavily on Kevin Carter, in case you wanted to read a fictional, psychological-horror take on some of these issues.
There is an inherent and inescapable ethical tension in photojournalism. On the one hand, these images are part of a market- they are bought to sell advertising, clicks, newspapers. That’s grubby, dark shit. On the other hand, they’re vital to public understanding and action. That’s as noble as any calling. But that tension attracts quite strange and often unbalanced people to the role. I read the Bang Bang Club years ago (read the book, don’t watch the film). And Carter did sound a bit unbalanced. And the job - and tension I describe above - probably made it worse.
> The worst thing is to feel that as a photographer I am benefiting from someone else’s tragedy. This idea haunts me. It is something I have to reckon with every day because I know that if I ever allow genuine compassion to be overtaken by personal ambition I will have sold my soul. The stakes are simply too high for me to believe otherwise.
and
> The act of being an outsider aiming a camera can be a violation of humanity. The only way I can justify my role is to have respect for the other person’s predicament.
and
> I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated.
and
> I used to call myself a war photographer. Now I consider myself as an antiwar photographer.
and
> But everyone cannot be there, and that is why photographers go there – to show them, to reach out and grab them and make them stop what they are doing and pay attention to what is going on – to create pictures powerful enough to overcome the diluting effects of the mass media and shake people out of their indifference – to protest and by the strength of that protest to make others protest.
and
> Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which has existed throughout history by means of photography? The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance. Yet, that very idea has motivated me.
Is it possible to know if it’s morally right to take & share photos of a person in such a state of starvation and without real permission from the person.
My perception thinks it’s cruel as if the existence of the person is for the benefit of human existence to progress but this person was to suffer so harsh for it if so and without any choice in the matter of wanting the photo shared.. if there was any benefit in the end.
Also if there is potential positivity for humanity that overrides personal permission, maybe all human dread should be forever documented by some type of medium forever. Seems impossible to know and justify whatever side. Someone could have taken a photo or video of the suicide of the photographer and shared it online. I can assume that would be upsetting but maybe bring awareness more so than what did happen or is writing equivalent?
The cruelty is in causing these scenarios, not documenting them. If anything, sweeping them under the rug by not photographing them makes the situation so much worse, as unseen horrors are much easier to ignore.
Most newspapers have strict rules around reporting suicide specifically to reduce copycats, not out of respect for the dead.
Which, of course, exposes a reality that most media outlets are inadquately contrite about: Most active shooter incidents are indeed suicide attempts, and indeed copycat crimes, which continue to perpetuate specifically due to the attention they are permitted to seize.
Were it not for the horrendous coverage they get, we likely would not have seen nearly as many. So what’s really going on?
This media industry absolutely knows the ramifications of such publicity, and has known what it would feed into from the beginning. They can control themselves. They do it every day. They reduce some catastrophes to a blip or nothing, and amplify others.
Why are active shooter incidents granted such coverage, by a large, tightly controlled apparatus?
Exposing a person's misery without their consent is usually not ethical, for example the last stages of someone dying of AIDS. There is nothing to be done and the person deserves some dignity in death.
That is not the same for someone in a critical but reversible or preventable state, their misery is intrinsically a public cry for help and relaying it is similar to shouting "someone is drowning over there", calling attention to their urgent need. For large scale, social issues, an argument can be made that the public good realized outweighs the rights of the anonymous individual used to ilustrate the issue.
As a species, we are hardwired to seek and react to such messages of vulnerability - hence the temptation for the first type of exploitative, undignified depictions of gore.
These things need to be known. I don't think it should require the permission of anyone, whether the subject or the surrounding guerrilla soldiers.
What journalists should (and many do) think about is the impact on the good reputation of the subject. But the child is certainly not victim of any kind of libel here.
I think this is a good solution to the smartphone age questions of "revenge porn" and "creep shots", taking and disseminating photographs of factual events is essentially an act of journalism and should be subject to journalistic ethics.
