The Powers of Photography

[UNSW, 2009]

           On 1 February 1968, a photograph was taken in Vietnam. Its subject was a Viet Cong soldier being executed by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, a South Vietnamese National Police Chief. The picture was plastered on front pages all across the Untied States, and is said to have helped sway public opinion in the United States against the Vietnam War[1]. The man who captured the moment, Edward T. Adams, went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography in 1969[2].  Images have the power to not only shape public opinion, but to influence the reception of the some of the world’s most important events. As photojournalist Tim Page notes, images have been “locked into almost all of our collective minds: the Kim Phuc image of the girl on fire…the plethora of Life magazine…they just kept on assaulting us—changed the course of history.”[3]

            Yet ethical debates over the publication of certain photographs in the media continue to exist. In the case of Lamphone Keovoravoth, the use of the photograph is an ethical matter for numerous reasons. Its publication is a matter of right or wrong, and both sides of the argument have reasonable defences. Is it right because it fulfils the journalistic duties of reporters and editors, bringing truth to the public eye? Or is it wrong because it exploits grief, possibly offending the family and community of the victim?  When considering the people at stake in this issue, it becomes even more obvious that this case encompasses an ethical dilemma. Who has a greater stake—the public or the subject’s family? In other words, who should we prioritize when considering our audience? After taking into account these and other questions, it is my belief that the photo should be published.

            It is first important to consider the purpose for writing. The story would most likely be a feature article in a newspaper, calling for front-page coverage with the photo as the centre of attention. The aim of writing in a feature story is to inform, not to entertain. It could be argued that the photo seeks to sell papers, not to provide information that is essential to relaying the story. But by showing the photo, the newspaper is providing the reader with an informative, visual aspect of the story. It depicts the scene of the drowning that words could only attempt to describe, leaving the reader with only aspects of imagination. Unless the reader was there, he or she has no sense of placement; what was the weather like that day? Was the boy small in size, making him weaker and more vulnerable to the currents? These are all questions that could have been answered with a single photograph.

            The stakeholders are the most important elements to consider in an ethical issue. In the Keovoravoth case, there are several people involved and thus affected by the decision of whether or not to publish the picture: the readers of the publication, the boy’s family and community, the photographer, the journalist, the policeman in the photograph and the Drowning Accident Rescue Team (DART).

            The readers of the publication and the boy’s family are unquestionably the most important stakeholders in the issue. The public has a right to know every aspect of the truth in any story, including visual aspects. The story is a matter of public interest, and people will want to see the photo. From what can be gathered about the photo, there is no blood, no guts, and no nudity. Furthermore, the boy is still alive and breathing in the photograph. It’s not a photo of a dead body; it’s a photo of a rescued boy.  At this point in the story, in fact, it is uncertain as to whether the boy will live or die; it is a picture of hope. Mike Zerby, photo editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, once noted, "the standard line is ‘we don’t bleed on your eggs.’ But I think at this particular newspaper we’ve grown past that.”[4] Our society has gotten past a point where a brutal photo on the front page of a major newspaper is offensive to readers. Terrible things happen in the world every day, and if one is going to read the paper, it is expected that those events will be not only described, but shown through imagery.

            Opponents of publication might argue that the photograph is not essential to the story. Readers can still be informed of every detail of the story without seeing the actual photograph. While it is the journalistic duty of the reporter to convey every aspect of the truth to the public, one must also remember the very heart of journalistic duties—the art of writing itself. Journalists simply need to do their job, and use the power of words to convey to the readers what the picture depicts. Just as mechanics use wrenches and doctors use scalpels, so too do journalists use words as tools in the field. They can employ descriptive language, similes, metaphors and other literary devices to convey the power of the photograph without the image itself. Alliteration and anthropomorphism are on your side! This is a strong point, but I still argue that the value of the photograph outweighs the journalist’s potential to describe the scene using words. As “Bringing death close” states, the photograph is the story, and it has the power to really bring the anecdote to life. The image depicts emotion that is instantaneous and effective; you can see the water still dripping from the boy’s hair, and you can see the desperation of the policeman as he searches the boy’s face for any signs of strength and life. Deadlines must also be considered. While any good journalist could easily craft a moving story that would put readers at the scene of the drowning and in the hearts of the family, time constraints as well as space limitations in the publication limit the writing process to a large degree. An editor may only give the story half a page and four hours to fill it; arguably, a photograph is an easy solution to the problem of writing, editing and fitting words onto a page in a short amount of time.

            The boy’s family and community are the other essential stakeholders in the story. It could be argued that publishing the photo is insensitive and offensive to the family, because the grieving period—especially for a small boy—calls for privacy and respect. Furthermore, it is known that the family is Cambodian refugees. Such a family has been through enough hardship in the past; publishing a photo of their dead little boy would only add salt to the wound, making the photo’s publication even more unethical.

            The photographer is another person to keep in mind. After all, he or she worked hard to capture the moment. The end result of the photographer doing his or her job—and rather well, apparently, if debate exists as to whether or not it should be published—shouldn’t just be thrown away. Then again, all photojournalists should be well aware that most of the photos they take won’t end up on the front pages of newspapers. They need to learn to listen to the advice and opinions of editors and others involved in the publishing process.

            The community of the boy and his family are also affected by the story. People who live near and may swim in the Sacramento River should be aware of its dangers, and this is a matter of public safety. The photo could strike an emotional chord for readers, as they come to understand that the boy in the photo could have been their own child or loved one. It would emphasize the dangers of the river, and provide further incentive for swimmers to take caution. However, it could also be argued that the community should already be aware of the dangers of the river, due to the warning signs posted near the water.

            Finally, it is important to consider the other subject of the photo besides the boy: the policeman holding him. He might resent his presence in a scene that ultimately led to a child’s death. He may feel like a failure in a situation that might have otherwise been a hero’s shining moment (if the boy had been successfully saved). The photo also shines a negative light on the DART, as the rescuers were unable to save him, as well as the doctors who were caring for the boy during the last moments of his life. These are just minor players in the game, however, and none of these people would be blamed for the boy’s death nor resented for their failed attempts to save him.

            The options for action in this situation are quite simple: either print the photo or don’t print the photo. Negotiations can be reached, of course, perhaps with the photo being shown on the inside of the paper instead of the front cover. Alternatively, the newspaper could seek the family’s permission before running the photo, or emit the boy’s name or blur his face to protect his identity.

            However, there is a way to achieve the goal that will not raise any ethical issues. The newspaper could show a picture of the warning signs near the water, with the dangerous current of the Sacramento River in the background. Instead of having the boy in the photo, a DART member could be standing near the sign, searching the water for troubled swimmers. This option would help everyone involved participate more fully in the life they share as a community and society: readers could see for themselves the scene of the drowning, the photographer could use another one of his or her works, the journalist could use the power of words to describe what the boy looked like as he emerged from the water in the arms of the DART rescuer, the family could avoid extraneous grief and offense, the community could be warned of the dangers of the current, and the editor could still publish the story on the front page of the newspaper.

            The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) and the Press Council each have their own opinions on running photographs in the media, and both bodies work both for and against the ethical arguments of publication. The MEAA insists that publishers “respect private grief and personal privacy,”[5] giving opponents legal justification for withholding the photograph. The Press Council also insists that “publications…should balance the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence.” However, it also notes that “the right to privacy is not to be interpreted as preventing publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest.”[6] The Keovoravoth case can be seen as a matter of public interest, which— according to Press Council standards—is reason enough to publish.   

As in any ethical dilemma, there is no right or wrong solution for the use of photography in the media; most issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. A compromise could make everyone happy, but the alternate photograph may not do the story the same justice as the photograph in question would.  Would the American public have felt the suffering of the Vietnam War without Adams’ Pulitzer-winning photograph? Would young Americans across the country have rallied together in anti-war protests? Would the Kent shootings have occurred? The Sterling Hall bombing? Indeed, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Works Cited

“Archive for the ‘Controversial photos’ category: A picture of controversy.” Indiana University School of Journalism. 8 October, 2007

     <http://journalism.indiana.edu/resources/ethics/category/controversial-photos/> accessed

     10/8/2009

“Australian Press Council Statement of Principles.” Last updated 3 March 2009 

     <http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/sop.html> accessed 10/8/2009

“Cultures of Journalism: photojournalism.” Radio National: Lifelong Learning.

     <http://www.abc.net.au/rn/learning/lifelong/stories/s1174637.htm> accessed 10/8/2009

Lester, Paul Martin. Chapter Four: Victims of Violence, Photojournalism An Ethical Approach. New Jersey:

     Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, 1991. Digital Version, 1999.

     <http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter4.html> accessed 10/8/2009

“Media Alliance Code of Ethics.” Alliance Online: The people who inform and entertain Australia.

     <http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html> accessed 10/8/2009

“The Pulitzer Prizes: 1969 Winners.” <http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1969> accessed 10/8/2009

---

[1] Paul Martin Lester, “Victims of Violence,” Photojournalism: An Ethical Approach (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1991), Digital Version,

     1999: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter4.html accessed 10/8/2009

[2] http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1969 accessed 10/8/2009

[3] http://www.abc.net.au/rn/learning/lifelong/stories/s1174637.htm accessed 10/8/2009

[4] http://journalism.indiana.edu/resources/ethics/category/controversial-photos/ accessed 10/8/2009

[5] http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html accessed 10/8/2009

[6] http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/sop.html accessed 10/8/2009