Ethics of Photography: Is There Any One Right Answer?

Ahh…ethics….that sneaky little work we seem to stumble upon no matter where we turn or what work we are involved in.  Most of us would like to be handed a list of do’s and don’ts, and call it a day.  Unfortunately, it is not that simple.  It seems that even the three basic ethical frameworks mentioned by Kobre, utilitarian, absolutist, and the golden rule, are not enough to always provide a direct answer to a photojournalist’s (and any other professional for that matter) ethical dilemma with any particular assignment.
I like the suggestion in the readings that every photographer and every assignment carry with them different ethical implications and thus must be handled separately.  This is important to remember in any situation.  As human beings, I believe we have the unfortunate tendency to try and simplify things too much, in this case ethical standards, to try and fit every case with one set of answers.  Kobre makes it obvious that this line of thought is not helpful.  Every situation is different and must be considered as such.

Then comes the question I have heard in so many of my mass communication courses here at UF: Are we journalists before human beings or vise versa?  It is this “professional versus good samaritan” dilemma, as Kobre terms it (313), that we seem to struggle with so much.  This question, too, does not have a definite answer.  In some situations, where we have the ability to assist those in danger, such as when Joe Fudge of the Newport News Daily Press Times Herald (pg.314) alerted a family that their attic had caught fire and helped them evacuate before he ever took a shot, it seems that our duty as human beings overrides our duty as journalist and providers of information to the public.  Interestingly, in a different situation, as when Pennsylvania’s former state treasurer R. Budd Dwyer committed suicide at a press conference (pg. 314), Kobre suggest that there was nothing the photographers could have done and thus the job overrode the human factor.  These examples, I believe provide a good dichotomy on which to judge this long-discussed dilemma of professional duty versus our duty as human beings.  I think I see Kobre’s point in using these two situations to illustrate this point, do you?

Finally, I especially enjoyed Kobre’s discussion about whether to print gruesome pictures or to sometimes shy away from printing these to avoid offending viewers.  In my opinion, yes, some pictures can be so gruesome and violent that they have the potential to really offend and outrage viewers, but is it fair then, as communicators, to yield the public from the reality that exists in their world without first giving them a choice to decide whether they want to know or not?  I think these kinds of photographs should always be published, as long as they provide some kind of crucial information to the public, and then individuals can choose whether or not to turn the page.  The media should be careful in censoring itself by going on what they perceive will be readers’ reactions, something they can never know for sure. 
This then reminds me of a time during my freshman year in college when I checked my mailbox at the dorm and found a seemingly harmless envelope.  When I opened it, I remember screaming, because there on a 4 x 6in.  postcard was a picture of a horrifying, blood-laden aborted fetus staring at me.  At the time, yes, I was very offended and upset by this unsolicited photograph.  Now, several years wiser, and many communication courses and ethical discussions later, I can respect that group’s offensive postcard, because they had a message to communicate and simply found the most effective way to do so.  Amidst all my screaming, that post card did serve to provoke some real thought on the issue of abortion.  So I ask, do we as a society wish to be thought for or do we wish be given the opportunity to think for ourselves?  Food for thought…pardon my cliché!