It happened in 2003 in Azerbaijan, during one of the rallies held by the main opposition parties against the results of the presidential election. A male photographer of Reuters news agency did not tried to defend a female college being beaten by a police officer in the rally, though took the pictures whole the beating process.
How he could do that?
Did not he feel pity for the female college being beaten?
Did not he think that the woman could be even die of the police punch?
How would he feel if the woman died?
Was he not interested in anything but getting compelling pictures?
This is one side of the ethical dilemma, I would say
The another side is about the profession and loyalty to the audience and to the company he worked for.
If he did not take the pictures of the police severely beating the female journalist no one would be aware of the brutality of the Azerbaijani police at that time. He might defend one woman, but thousands of women and men would be still suffered from the illegal behavior of the government, or millions of people would be deprived of chance to be aware of the fact!
The journalists in Azerbaijan still argue about the position of the Reuter’s photographer. Coming to my position, I have been thinking about solving this dilemma for a long time and to be honest have not found a net answer until today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Would it have been possible to take a few photos and then assist the woman? I would say yes. But would that have been the ethical thing to do? I would say no. People are not a means to an end. So, in photographing the incident without helping the victim, the photographer used the event to tell what he apparently thought was a bigger story. Is there a greater good argument to be made? I don't think so.
Post a Comment