ÒEthics and Images: Five Major Concerns,Ó in Journalism Ethics:
A Philosophical Approach, (2010) Christopher Meyers (Ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, pp. 351-358.
Paul Martin Lester
lester@fullerton.edu
After I told a new acquaintance that I taught at a
university, I was naturally asked which subject. ÒVisual communication,Ó I
answered quickly, Òand mass media ethics.Ó I then braced slightly for the
inevitable bad joke that always followed. ÒVisual ethics,Ó she replied, Òsort
of an oxymoron, isnÕt it?Ó Fortunately, I was ready for my usual and equally
weak comeback, ÒWell, I always have work.Ó
Because of the unique emotive
power that pictures have over words, it seems that the link between visual
messages and ethical behavior is more problematic in the lay publicÕs mind than
stories and ethical dilemmas (although conflicts of interest between the
political positions of media organizations and individuals and their editorial
products sometimes get noticed). Consequently, still and moving images
reproduced within any media are often singled out for criticism. Usually the
disapproval is justified. Most media critics name five mass communications
issues associated with visual journalism: victims of violence, rights of
privacy, manipulations, stereotyping, and visual persuasion techniques used for
commercially driven purposes.
Violent pictures sensationalize
and distract readers and viewers from the story itself. The public is made to
feel sorry for pampered and deteriorating celebrities when they are hounded by
packs (ala curs) of photographers that hound them. Stage managed sources and
digitally altered pictures stretch credibility to the point where Òseeing is
disbelieving.Ó Negative stereotypes of individuals from various multicultural
groups are the norm and no longer the exception. And finally, visual messages blur
the distinction between advertising, public relations, and journalism until the
public cannot tell the difference between the three professions.
The
opening chapter by Elliott and Ozar, ÒAn Explanation
and a Method for the Ethics of JournalismÓ is an adequate introduction to the
philosophical underpinnings that should guide professional journalism
practices. Toward that end, the two philosophy professors detail a five-step
systematic moral analysis (SMA) procedure that has a goal of classifying any
journalistic action or non-action into one of four categories—those that
are determined to be either ethically prohibited (actions that cannot be
justified under any circumstances), ethically required (actions that meet the
professionÕs expectations of behavior), ethically permitted (actions that meet
the required category and yet cause harms that nevertheless can be justified),
or ethically ideal (actions that meet the required and permitted categories and
prevent or avoid harms altogether).
With only one
category that bans an action by a journalist outright, to their credit their
system is obviously weighted to allow journalists to perform their role-related
responsibilities and keep the public informed. Stated another way, it would be
an extraordinary case in which a journalistÕs action is prohibited under the
Elliott/Ozar standards. Such a moral system is
probably a relief for most journalism professionals who would rather run a
story than not.
Interestingly,
the only example in their chapter in which it is concluded that a journalist
caused unjustified harm and should be considered ethically prohibited, is one
that involves a photojournalist taking a picture during a spot news story. Once
again, visual messages and ethics collide.
Perhaps it should not be a surprise that a visual
message is singled out for criticism in the introductory chapter. Photographers
and their products are easy targets. For centuries the visual media were
employed either as drawings only appropriate for the margins of great works or
as sensational, attention-getting tools to attract (mostly) illiterate patrons
to public shows or the front pages of newspapers. Historically, then, images
took their Òplace alongside oral culture as a signifier of underdevelopment.Ó[i]
Perhaps not surprisingly photographers, especially for big city newspapers,
were considered by many word reporters as lower class workers within a newsroom
and degradingly said to be Òreporters with their brains knocked out.Ó[ii]
But as philosophers, critics, and educators began to take image production as a
serious art, visual literacy gradually developed into a serious study with
visual practitioners afforded a higher level of respect.
In
their chapter Elliott and Ozar use a picture taken
during a tragic news situation as an example of journalism wrong doing. Violence
and tragedy are staples of American journalism because many readers are
attracted to gruesome stories and photographs. "If it bleeds, it
leads" is an undesirable rule of thumb. Judges of contests also have a
fatal attraction. Pulitzer Prizes are most often awarded to photographers who
make pictures of gruesome, dramatic moments.[iii] Milwaukee Journal editor Sig Gissler summed up the newspaper profession's sometimes hedonistic philosophy when he admitted, "We
have a commercial interest in catastrophe."[iv]
Photographs
have long been known to spark more emotional responses than stories. One
ethicist wrote, "Pictures usually have more impact on people than written
words. Their capacity to shock exceeds that of language."[v]
Other researchers have noted the eye-catching ability of newspaper photographs.
Miller wrote, "Photos are among the first news items to catch the reader's
eye . . . . A photo may catch the eye of a reader who doesn't read an
accompanying story." [vi]
Blackwood argued that "People who either can't read, or who don't take the
time to read many of the stories in newspapers do scan the photographs . . .
."[vii]
Nora Ephron asserted that disturbing accident images should be printed.
"That they disturb readers," Ephron wrote, "is exactly as it
should be: that's why photojournalism is often more powerful than written
journalism."[viii]
Therefore,
it is often a journalistÕs role-related responsibility to produce words and
images that often disturb sources, readers, and viewers. But certainly, to do
so that causes harm without adequate and defendable justification should be
ethically prohibited.
The case study in the Elliott/Ozar
chapter is briefly described as:
[I]magine a picture of a mother standing on the street, who is
staring in horror as her house is engulfed in flames with her young children
still in it.[ix]
From
a purely journalism point of view, this authorÕs first reaction to the
above-described scenario is that the image must be a hell-of-a-picture if in
one, presumably wide-angle shot, it shows the womanÕs anguished face, a fire
out of control, and trapped children inside a house. Nevertheless, aesthetics
alone should never be the determining factor of decision-making in journalism
but neither, it can be argued, should an initial personal and gut reaction to a
photographÕs disturbing content.
The
two authors conclude that the image is deemed ethically prohibited and should
not be published as it causes unjustified harm:
It is certainly legal to print such a picture, but
one might argue that she has a moral right to be treated with respect and not to
be objectified in such a moment. The pain caused by publication of that picture
is not what she deserves. In addition, it is hard to think of how publication
of this picture would, in any way, assist in promoting the aggregate good. Human interest stories promote human bonding, but human
bonding often occurs through the sacrifice of an individual. The harm caused
this individual (assuming that the picture is published without her consent),
would not benefit her or people who might find themselves in a similar
situation. People do not need to see this excruciating moment in this womanÕs
life to assist in their self-governance.
The
rest of this chapter will use the introductory chapter authorsÕ five-step
ÒProfessional-Ethical Decision-GuideÓ to determine if the imageÕs use can be
justified despite the assumed harm to the woman in the photograph.
Step One: Identify the courses of actions available to the
journalist.
Since
the scenario begins with the photograph in hand, obviously the choice has been
made by the photojournalist to take and make the picture available for viewing.
Ordinarily, however, the first choice for a photographer arriving at such a
scene would be to take a picture or not. There are many reasons why a
journalist would not take a photograph of a spot news story. One of the most
humanitarian reasons would be if it were possible for the photographer to help
those in need of immediate assistance. As long as it were possible for the
journalist to help, knows how to help, and is not told to stay out of the way by
rescue workers on the scene, it is a moral duty of that journalist to render
aid. After such care is given, it is professionally acceptable to resume the
role-related role of a photographer and record the scene. Of course, a
photographer might be sensitive to the anguish of the woman and decide not to
record her image out of respect for her privacy. Another reason for not taking
the photograph might be if she specifically asked the photographer not to take
her picture. Although most news stories occur in full public view and it is
legal to take such pictures in almost all cases, some photojournalists might
respect the wish of the source and refrain from taking a picture. There may
also be other reasons for not taking pictures: a camera might be defective, a
memory card might be full, it might be too dark, bystanders might be in the
way, and so on. However, technical problems, either from a broken camera or a
lack of experience, are not considered part of an ethical dilemmaÕs
decision-making process.
Given
the parameters of the authorsÕ scenario with a decision to take the photograph
already made, the only actions available to the photojournalist are whether to
turn in the image to the city editor or not.
Step Two: Does
the action fulfill the journalistÕs role-related responsibility?
A
photojournalist is employed by a news organization for the specific purpose of
providing facts in (mostly) a visual format (photojournalists are sometimes
asked to provide caption information—names, titles, and sometimes
observations and quotations). Not providing an image to an editor violates the
contract the journalist has with the news entity. The only possible action that
fulfills the journalistÕs role-related responsibility is to give the picture to
the editor.
From
this point on, the ethical dilemma is lifted from the photojournalist and given
to the editor who must decide whether to publish the picture and how it should
be presented to the news organizationÕs audience. In many enlightened news outlets
when a potentially controversial picture is being considered, a photographer is
asked to participate in a newsroom discussion that might include other
photographers, the principle reporter of the story and other journalists, and
the editor-in-chief and publisher, if they are available. Regardless, the final
decision to use the image is, in most cases, now up to the editor and not the
photographer. Therefore, the following steps in the ÒDecision-GuideÓ apply to
the editor.
At
this point an editor has two choices: to publish the picture or not.
Any
decision to publish or not publish a picture should not be based only on the
story of the day. Perhaps there is a larger context for this story that the
reader should know. This house fire might be one of several recently started
within the city limits. Fire and police officials might suspect an arsonist.
Perhaps there is a problem with the electrical grid or natural gas lines within
the city that are causing numerous fires. Perhaps no other photograph
taken during previous fires were of high Òdecisive momentÓ quality as
the imagined image briefly described in the case study. Perhaps the children
and others in the house were killed or seriously injured. Maybe with high winds
the house set other homes in the neighborhood ablaze and caused millions of
dollars in property damage. Suppose the mother left her children alone in the
house and went next door to drink in the neighborhood bar. Maybe there was a
domestic argument and the estranged father set the fire deliberately in a
murder-suicide plot. With such larger contexts for a news story, an editor
might certainly be inclined to include this strong visual message along with a
story on the front page.
If
the decision by the editor after consultation is to not publish the picture,
the authorsÕ qualms about the scenario—the motherÕs plight and the
(assumed) negative reaction if she were to see her image published in the next
dayÕs news—are alleviated (although who can say that she would not react
equally negatively to a story about the incident).
If
the choice is made to publish the image, the editor must now decide how it
should be presented to readers. The editor has at least 13 choices. The image
can be published:
1.
On the front
page,
2.
On an inside
page,
3.
With only a
caption,
4.
With a
caption and a story,
5.
In color,
6.
In black and
white,
7.
Large,
8.
Small,
9.
With other
images in a picture spread,
10.
With an
informational graphic,
11.
With a
detailed description of covering the story by the reporter and photographer,
12.
With a
warning for readers that an inside page contains an image that might be
upsetting to some readers, and
13.
On the
newspaperÕs website.
If
this story were a Òone-offÓ event, a tragedy, but not one within a more
complicated context, an editor might be inclined to downplay the story
graphically but still report it visually. The justification might be that the
unusual nature of the strong photograph requires publication so that readers
and viewers know in words and images the womanÕs pain, think of their loved
ones and make sure to check the smoke detectors in their own homes. In that
way, the aggregate good is served more by the publication of the image than
without it.
Step
Three: Will the action cause potential emotional, physical, financial or
reputational
harm?
Certainly, there are differences between running a
photograph large on the front
page where it might be seen by many readers and
non-readers (in paper boxes, for example), publishing an image on an inside
page (where mostly those who have purchased the paper would presumably see it),
or presenting it on the newspaperÕs website (in which only highly motivated
viewers would see the picture). However, it is difficult to determine if the
woman in the picture or if anyone who views the printed image will experience
the harms listed in this step. Additionally, how can it be determined if a
ÒharmÓ is negative? For example, a reader who has a strong, emotional reaction
to the image might be helped by the experience. The woman might be aided
financially if the picture is used successfully in a court case in which
damages are sought in a lawsuit.
Step
Four: Is causing this harm justified?
For the sake of this argument, letÕs assume that
the woman is harmed emotionally
by the fact that the photograph of her anguished
face amid flames and trapped children was shown on the front page of the
newspaper the next day. Many times, and on a daily basis, persons through no
fault of there own are victims of violence and consequently lose their
anonymity. Some of the most important Pulitzer Prize photographs testify to the
importance of documenting for the publicÕs consumption scenes that no one would
seek to witness due to their gruesome, graphic content. Nevertheless, the
images and the photographers who captured these tragic moments are praised for
their ability to tell in pictures what words alone can never reveal. The woman,
her family, and her friends may be harmed by the publishing of such a
photograph, but such publication is justified by the simple fact that the
public has a right to know what happens to their fellow citizens not out of
prurient curiosity and not because of sensational consumerism, but because of
the fundamental mission of journalism—to report and explain events that
citizens need to know in order to navigate successfully through their lives.
Step
Five: Which type is this action?
To not report even in words the story of the
womanÕs plight is ethically prohibited
as it cannot be justified by the standards of
traditional journalism.
Depending
on the related news events that occurred before the case studyÕs description
and any additional information about the scenario itself, including a
photograph with a story somewhere within the pages of the newspaper is
ethically required, publishing a picture on the front page is ethically
permitted, and putting this news story within a series of articles that speak
to a larger social and economic context either in print or on the website is
ethically ideal.
In
the end, using the Elliott/Ozar SMA a journalist can
be thought ethical after publishing a graphically disturbing, private moment of
a woman caught in a horrible situation because, as difficult as it might be,
the profession is charged to provide, at times, that kind of news visually.
The
mission of a photojournalist, as is the mission of all journalists, is to
report news
in a
balanced, fair, and accurate manner. The profession can only improve in quality
and stature when photographers care about those they see in their viewfinders
and when editors consider the potential harm published images might give to
those pictured and those they seldom see, their readers. Journalism decisions,
however, should be guided, never ruled, by sources, readers, and ethicists.
It is important
to note that good, caring persons, both academics and professionals, will agree
with Elliott and OzarÕs conclusion of not using the
photograph they described and others will agree that the image should be used.
As my father used to remark whenever there was a disagreement between two,
equally valid considerations, ÒThatÕs why thereÕs horse racing.Ó The important
point to make is that any decision should be made through a long-term,
rational, systematic process and not a quick, subjective emotional response.
The five-step analysis described in the opening chapter is an excellent method
to use toward the goal of ethical professionalism.
[i] Brian Goldfarb, Media Pedagogy Media Cultures in and Beyond the Classroom (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), 19.
[ii] Clifton C. Edom, Photojournalism (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1980), 26.
[iii] Eugene Goodwin, Groping
for Ethics in Journalism (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1983).
[iv] ÒKnocking on death's door,Ó Time (Feb. 27, 1989): 49.
[v] Goodwin,
Groping, 190.
[vi] Susan H. Miller, ÒThe Content of News Photos: Women's and
Men's Roles,Ó Journalism Quarterly,
52: 70-75.
[vii] Roy Blackwood, ÒThe Content of News Photos: Roles Portrayed
by Men and Women,Ó Journalism Quarterly,
60: 710-714.
[viii] Nora Ephron, Scribble
Scribble Notes on the Media (NY: Alfred Knopf, 1978), 62.
[ix] As a necessary disclaimer, the author of this chapter received a bachelor of journalism degree from the University of Texas at Austin with a major in photojournalism. Subsequently, he was a staff photographer for The Times-Picayune newspaper in New Orleans. In 1977 he was asked to cover the site of a natural gas explosion that destroyed a home. While covering the news story, he took a close-up photograph of a woman looking in horror at her leveled house.