Do you self-censor?

[FilmIs4Ever]

Yes, I do "self-censor". My criteria would be an evaluation of the effect in suffering my work may/ would cause. As an example, I was present at the scene of a horrible automobile accident, where a teen age boy and his girl friend were both killed as a result of his Camaro leaving the road and running into the front of a local restaurant. On impact, the vehicle split open and distributed *many* empty beer cans over a section of the road.
A dramatic, telling image...
Empty beer cans - and blood.

There was a local Firefighter, in full gear, sitting next to this pile of destruction, crying like a baby, a result of the frustration he must have felt in failing to save either - the terrible moment when an EMT realizes that, with all of the training, their best efforts, the work of heroes, ... the end of life is sometimes not the decision of mortals.

It would have been a remarkable image. I did not take it. I realized hat the additional pain that would have been caused by the establishment/ reinforcing of that image and its memory would have been far greater than anything I COULD be part of, in good conscience.

"Shirking my duty as a Journalist?" Not in my book. More like abiding by may own personal code of conduct and humanity.

I was not the only photographer on that scene, and not the only one to NOT photograph. No one else did, either.

If you could have gotten all of that in a photograph, you could have won a Pulitzer.

How is taking a photograph of carnage caused on the part of another person unethical on your part???

It is one thing if someone is dying and you take a photo instead of helping them.

 

[SuzanneR]

I can see what you're saying, Suzanne. However, I don't think showing the realities of an atrocity is the same as, say showing Diana and Dodi Fayed in the back of the car immediately after the accident. The purpose of showing each is completely different. I don't think squeamishness is good, but that doesn't mean that everything always needs to be shown in graphic detail (if only because that results in peoples' senses becoming dulled).

I've never worked on a newspaper or had anything to do with picture-editing. So can only comment as someone who looks at pictures - a great deal, like any member of the public. Sometimes it's easy for editors, I think, to have a particular view on what the public wants or needs to see. It's inevitable they don't always get it right.

I'm not sure about the picture in the OP - my feeling is that what takes interest away a little is the people standing up to the left and looking away - that takes away from the drama and intensity a little for me. I don't think having the face or body of the person on the stretcher would make any difference - but a crop in of the right group of emergency workers, especially with the drip held up, would focus attention. I think it's interesting not having more of the person on the stretcher...

I guess for any picture, there's no 'answer', but I do think sometimes the general public are patronised by the newspaper world, and the information given in pictures is too often spelt out to a degree that is not necessary, and the 'story-telling' is overdone, or goes too far.

Cate... in the case of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayad, I think, is where editing comes into play. Indeed, I'm not likely to have wanted to publish such pictures, and though I no longer worked there, I don't think the publication I worked for did. But, I think the destroyed car being towed out of the tunnel was fair game, and told the story pretty fully.

And to your last point... good editing is key to good story telling with words and pictures. News media have dumbed things down so much it's annoying.

 

[markbarendt]

The problem I see with censorship in a journalistic situation, by self or by others is that, that censored picture never becomes part of the context of our history.

Without clear context in the historic record how can we possibly make good decisions about how we might fix our world?

Censorship sets the stage for spin to begin. Spinning is all about political correctness (local, familial, national, whatever) or it's brother idealism (religious or otherwise).

 

[zinnanti]

If you spent all day worrying about everyone's feelings we'd have no press, and they do play a vital role.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their feedback - both positive and negative. It's a critical debate. I'm not posting to write a thesis, but to present a platform for dialogue.

A couple of other dynamics . . .

At the scene, the rescue personnel became aware of my presence. A couple of times, I could see the rescue personnel trying to obscure my view of the victim. I reciprocated by conspicuously lowering my camera. At this point, my presence was - to at least a small degree - shifting attention to me and away from the victim.

Conspicuously lowering the camera sent the message that I wasn't there to intrude. The moments at the scene just continued to develop without my presence as a factor.

My content choice was ultimately the Vans tennis shoes sticking out, surrounded by rescue personnel with an IV bag raised above the obvious presence of the body. While I had permitted the face to be concealed, there is (IMO) great expression by the firefighter holding the IV bag. To me, that was the moment that told the story.

Editorial dynamic: The paper I was shooting for has an unfortunate history of blood and guts editorial choices. Another photographer/reporter/former editor, who was at that scene, just walked up and started snapping face on pictures of the victim's expression while she was lying on the pavement. Contextually, they sucked, by they sure showed the victim's face.

Because of the lack of . . . self-control . . . on behalf of editorial, when working for this paper, I sometimes feel the need to weed out potential images prior to presentation.

Sometimes, that's the reality of working with certain editors. (I have other editorial horror stories in case anyone's interested. lol)

 

[Ed Sukach]

If you could have gotten all of that in a photograph, you could have won a Pulitzer.

Would not be worth it. Not even close.

It WOULD have been "unethical" to add to the agony and misery at that scene... reinforcing the image of what must have happened, in effect recreating the image Firefighter who ultimately "lost it'.

I had a choice; "Pulitzer" or my status as a human being. I chose "human being".

 

[wayne naughton]

the journalist self censors and submits his work to his editor; the editor censors in accordance to his publishers whims/desires/philosophy; the publisher pays court to his political masters/acolytes....humbug!humbug!Humbug!

it's perfectly acceptable to publish an image of some skeletal African baby a day or two from death and yet it is NOT acceptable to publish a picture of a couple of middleclass kids who, due to an overdose of booze or drugs, manage to splatter themselves across the landscape?....the hypocrisy is palpable.

self censorship is NOT equitable with a personal ethic or moral responsibility. actually it's the very opposite, it's a fundamental compromise in my opinion, a bit like allowing yourself to be 'embedded' or accepting direct payment from any govt dept.,utility,public relations section (private or public), etc, etc. Honourable employment? of course it is. Moral, ethical, 'uncensored'? yeah, well....that's up to you to decide.

hypocrisy is a crime. end of story.

wayne

 

[markbarendt]

Ed, your choice is perfectly valid for yourself given your conviction on the subject, no question.

Each person's perspective defines the choices they should make.

My view though is that "losing it" is simply part of being human; nothing more, nothing less.

A firefighter showing his/her humanity is showing strength of character, not weakness.

Both of our points of view are valid and equally ethical, just as are the choices we would make at the same scene.

Would not be worth it. Not even close.

It WOULD have been "unethical" to add to the agony and misery at that scene... reinforcing the image of what must have happened, in effect recreating the image Firefighter who ultimately "lost it'.

I had a choice; "Pulitzer" or my status as a human being. I chose "human being".

 

[BobNewYork]

it's perfectly acceptable to publish an image of some skeletal African baby a day or two from death and yet it is NOT acceptable to publish a picture of a couple of middleclass kids who, due to an overdose of booze or drugs, manage to splatter themselves across the landscape?....the hypocrisy is palpable.

self censorship is NOT equitable with a personal ethic or moral responsibility.

hypocrisy is a crime. end of story.

wayne

I really do think there's a difference between photographs from Darfur and the middle class kids. Darfur photographs are intended to highlight a purposeful injustice perpetrated on the weak in the hopes of ending that horror. Parents, faced with horrific images of their dead kids will only be dealt more agony - without benefit.

I would also say that self-censorship is absolutely equitable with a personal ethic and moral responsibility. Unless, that is, we wish to "standardize" personal ethics - and I have some very real fears of those who would wish to dictate personal ethics on my behalf.

Hypocrisy too is a very much personal take. When one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, perhaps one man's hypocrisy is another's personal ethic.

I guess no-one is right. We all think we are the norm from which other people differ - but the norm is, and should be, diversity.

Bob H

 

[Ed Sukach]

...
it's perfectly acceptable to publish an image of some skeletal African baby a day or two from death and yet it is NOT acceptable to publish a picture of a couple of middleclass kids who, due to an overdose of booze or drugs, manage to splatter themselves across the landscape?....the hypocrisy is palpable.

I need clarification...

Do you think that by NOT photographing that carnage I was, in some way, "unethical", and therefore a "hypocrite"?

Do you think that photographing starving children in Africa is "unethical" and those who do it are "hypocrites"?

Do you think there is a "one size fits all" code of moraility, applicable to ALL, regardless of individual circumstances?

... self censorship is NOT equitable with a personal ethic or moral responsibility.

Interesting. It is "wrong" to take responsibility for my own actions? The "proper" course of action should be, must be, if I am to avoid the label of "hypocrite", would be separating my moral values from what I do, and working without feeling, as an automaton?

Separating myself from .... but ... that would be hypocrisy, by definition!

... actually it's the very opposite, it's a fundamental compromise in my opinion, a bit like allowing yourself to be 'embedded' or accepting direct payment from any govt dept.,utility,public relations section (private or public), etc, etc. Honourable employment? of course it is. Moral, ethical, 'uncensored'? yeah, well....that's up to you to decide.

Embedded ..????? How did a critique of those accepting "Direct payment" get in here? -- And what Is that, anyway... would compensation for duty as a sworn Police Officer be included??? is there a question of "honorable" in ALL govt. utilities???

... hypocrisy is a crime. end of story.

There are crimes and there are crimes. If, by alleviating or avoiding the suffering of another human being I will be guilty of hypocrisy - I WILL BE GUILTY!!! GLADLY guilty!!

 

[JBrunner]

What about plain old good taste, as in the good taste not to ask the victim of an accident or perhaps the loss of a loved one "how does that make you feel?"
Ultimately I think it comes down to having decorum, and telling the story that is there without being a scumbag.

 

[markbarendt]

I really do think there's a difference between photographs from Darfur and the middle class kids. Darfur photographs are intended to highlight a purposeful injustice perpetrated on the weak in the hopes of ending that horror. Parents, faced with horrific images of their dead kids will only be dealt more agony - without benefit.

Using the Darfur pictures in Darfur poses the same ethical problem as the use of the pictures of the middle class kids does in their home area.

The only difference I see in the two situations you cite is where the intended audience is and the PC-ness of being able to bring up the topic.

Every year in the USA tobacco kills off as many people as the genocide in Darfur has killed off total. Every ten to 15 years automobile accidents do the same thing. These are issues on the same scale as Darfur, they just happen to be in our back yard.

I would also say that self-censorship is absolutely equitable with a personal ethic and moral responsibility. Unless, that is, we wish to "standardize" personal ethics - and I have some very real fears of those who would wish to dictate personal ethics on my behalf.

Hypocrisy too is a very much personal take. When one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, perhaps one man's hypocrisy is another's personal ethic.

I guess no-one is right. We all think we are the norm from which other people differ - but the norm is, and should be, diversity.

Bob H

AMEN!

 

[Ed Sukach]

Using the Darfur pictures in Darfur poses the same ethical problem as the use of the pictures of the middle class kids does in their home area.

The assumption that these "kids" were "middle class" is irritating. There was NO mention of "class" and any sort of stereotyping is unwarranted. Their deaths, wherever they were situated in life was a terrible tragedy... period.

You don't see any difference. I do. Those deaths were permanent - nothing positive - other than some form of shock therapy, generally not very effective - could possibly be the result of that photograph. At any rate - MY choice ... and I would choose the same again, a thousand times!

Children starving in Darfur... Starvation, ongoing genocide ... can be affected by public knowledge of the situation in the future. Possibly a photograph is a weak attempt at a cure, at best ... but as possibly the best that we can do, or that can be done at the moment.

...Every year in the USA tobacco kills off as many people as the genocide in Darfur has killed off total. Every ten to 15 years automobile accidents do the same thing. These are issues on the same scale as Darfur, they just happen to be in our back yard.

???? The issue of tobacco use ... is to be viewed as the same as the problems in Darfur???

 

[Chazzy]

What about plain old good taste, as in the good taste not to ask the victim of an accident or perhaps the loss of a loved one "how does that make you feel?"
Ultimately I think it comes down to having decorum, and telling the story that is there without being a scumbag.

I think that you've said something very important here. Maybe somebody else will be the scumbag and win a Pulitzer prize for a powerful picture which treats a victim badly, but it doesn't have to be me.

 

[markbarendt]

The assumption that these "kids" were "middle class" is irritating. There was NO mention of "class" and any sort of stereotyping is unwarranted. Their deaths, wherever they were situated in life was a terrible tragedy... period.

The only reason I used the term was to maintain continuity in this thread. The post I replied to specified middle class.

I agree with you on your point.

You don't see any difference. I do. Those deaths were permanent - nothing positive - other than some form of shock therapy, generally not very effective - could possibly be the result of that photograph. At any rate - MY choice ... and I would choose the same again, a thousand times!

Children starving in Darfur... Starvation, ongoing genocide ... can be affected by public knowledge of the situation in the future. Possibly a photograph is a weak attempt at a cure, at best ... but as possibly the best that we can do, or that can be done at the moment.

I'm comfortable with you making that choice.

Are the deaths in Darfur any less permanent or horrific?

Public knowledge has changed our tolerance of drunk drivers in great part due to the horrific images that are plastered on billboards and used in driver safety classes.

Public knowledge has change societies tolerance of familial violence due to seeing the problem.

???? The issue of tobacco use ... is to be viewed as the same as the problems in Darfur???

Tobacco is actually a much larger problem for society having killed more people than the genocide in Darfur by a full order of magnitude in just the last ten years. The real cost to the world in loss of life and hard cold cash (health care expenses) is far greater.

This is not to say that the genocide doesn't need to be dealt with, it does.

My point is simply that there is more political will to deal with Darfur than there is to deal once and for all with "BIG" tobacco.

 

[wayne naughton]

Oh well, if you guys don't know the difference between censorship and selfcensorship we could just go on arguing here forever and a day.......

 

[Ian David]

Hi Wayne
Not much to go on there. It would be more constructive if you spelled out what you think the difference is, and why you think it is important to this discussion. Then the other people following this thread can work out where they might be going wrong.
Ian

 

[2F/2F]

I self censor by putting clothes on before I go out in public. Isn't that enough for you people?!

 

[Ian David]

It's a good start!

 

[wayne naughton]

Hi Wayne
Not much to go on there. It would be more constructive if you spelled out what you think the difference is, and why you think it is important to this discussion. Then the other people following this thread can work out where they might be going wrong.
Ian

There is no difference...none whatsoever. You can dress it up in some selfserving sanctimonious cloak of righteousness if you want to, but it is still bloody censorship AFAIAC. Read phillip Knightley's book on the history of war correspondents. it was published about 1975 and is a bit out of date but he makes a compelling case that censorship, both state AND selfimposed, cost millions of lives on the western front and that the force of public opinion (both british and german) would have finished the war years earlier.

And it's the very same moral culpability (tho to a far, far lesser degree of course) that has been shown in the the image that started this thread. The journalist has sanitised the image, he has provided a myriad of possible agendas that may have nothing at all to do with the tragedy depicted, he hasn't provided a complete coverage, in truth he has decided himself what the story will be. his job is to gather facts, truths if you like, NOT to interpret the facts. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. It's all black and white for me you either believe in censorship or you don't. there is no grey area here.

 

[2F/2F]

There is no difference...none whatsoever. You can dress it up in some selfserving sanctimonious cloak of righteousness if you want to, but it is still bloody censorship AFAIAC. Read phillip Knightley's book on the history of war correspondents. it was published about 1975 and is a bit out of date but he makes a compelling case that censorship, both state AND selfimposed, cost millions of lives on the western front and that the force of public opinion (both british and german) would have finished the war years earlier.

And it's the very same moral culpability (tho to a far, far lesser degree of course) that has been shown in the the image that started this thread. The journalist has sanitised the image, he has provided a myriad of possible agendas that may have nothing at all to do with the tragedy depicted, he hasn't provided a complete coverage, in truth he has decided himself what the story will be. his job is to gather facts, truths if you like, NOT to interpret the facts. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. It's all black and white for me you either believe in censorship or you don't. there is no grey area here.

As I said to another guy's post recently; word. Someone on an Internet forum who really understands what journalism is (or at least what it should be).

...though there is no reason to get terribly upset about it (at least not here), and I might not make the argument that there is no gray.

 

[catem]

And it's the very same moral culpability (tho to a far, far lesser degree of course) that has been shown in the the image that started this thread. The journalist has sanitised the image, he has provided a myriad of possible agendas that may have nothing at all to do with the tragedy depicted, he hasn't provided a complete coverage, in truth he has decided himself what the story will be. his job is to gather facts, truths if you like, NOT to interpret the facts. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. It's all black and white for me you either believe in censorship or you don't. there is no grey area here.

I don't think he has sanitised the image. I think you are making far too much of it. In my own view the shot does not need the person's face. The way the workers are concentrated on what they are doing, the way the drip is held above, is telling. The emergency workers were uncomfortable with his presence. Was it really worth sticking the camera in everyone's faces, regardless?

I think the use of 'self-censorship' over this question, though, is a bit laden - what about 'sense of judgment'...or even, at times 'common sense'....though I suppose I'll be called a hypocrite for saying so (there again I shouldn't have broken my promise to myself to steer clear of these sort of Apug threads).

And if you don't think that war correspondents such as Don McCullin and James Natchwey have ever decided, at certain moments, not to press the shutter, then I suggest you look a little further at their writings.

 

[2F/2F]

IAnd if you don't think that war correspondents such as Don McCullin and James Natchwey have ever decided, at certain moments, not to press the shutter, then I suggest you look a little further at their writings.

There is a HUGE, ENORMOUS, VAST difference between what these guys are best known for (documentary work for weeklies, monthlies, and personal projects) and spot news reporting for a local newspaper (which I will call "journalism" as a category of photography for purposes of this rant). Documentary photography is far more personal in nature, is far less directed by an editor, and can acceptably be FAR, FAR, FAR less objective than spot news journalism.

The very act of clicking the shutter is an edit. We all self edit; if not by choice, then by physical necessity of the craft: You can't shoot everything that's going on all the time with a camera the same way it is experienced at the scene. Your job as a journalist is not to literally interpret every detail of an event. It is to experience the event in person, and figure out how best to tell others about it, using your available tools. One thing 90% of photographers just don't seem to get about photojournalists: THE FIRST JOB IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY. It is JOURNALISM: to be a professional witness for the purpose of increasing the public information. The camera is your tool, and you are to use it to do this accurately, fairly, objectively, and in a timely and relevant fashion. (Notice that "perfectly", "coldly", and "literally" are not on the list.) Your camera is your equivalent of a writer's words. Just like a journalistic writer's main goal is not the creation of a literary piece for sake of a literary piece, the journalistic photographer's main goal is not the creation of a photograph for sake of a photograph. We all make decisions as to how to do these things; how to cover an event and tell the story in accordance with fundamental journalistic standards. We can't be PERFECTLY objective, but if we are good, we do our damned best to TRY, and also to work as a TEAM with the ENTIRE editorial staff who will end up touching the story; not make heavy-handed personal decisions that will sway the coverage away from proper standards. Our personal decisions while shooting should be made with the final goal and its required process in mind: the spread of important information, and the editing process that will follow our own work in the field. Are there shots to not take? Of course. You make those calls at the scene. Are there shots not to use? HA! YEAH! About 35 out of every 36 is trash. The editors make this call, and the better the shooter does his/her job, the better the editors can do theirs. But you do NOT make the decisions based on overwhelming individual emotions or opinions. It is called being a professional. It involves understanding that what you are doing is not about any individual, but about the community's need to have important information delivered in a timely, accurate, fair, balanced, and objective manner (and, at least in this country, the vigorous practice of the legal LIBERTY of journalists to perform this service).

There are very different ways to cover different sorts of events. With spot news, purposefully missing an obvious safety shot is not one of them. It is irresponsible, irrational, and ignorant of professional standards and practices in the field, and of basic journalistic concepts and ethics. The concept of the "safety" shot and "coverage" (left, right, vertical, horizontal of every event, if possible) are things that you should (or even MUST) adhere to when shooting journalism, and have the choice to adhere to or not while shooting documentary. Journalism is FAR more formulaic and entails far more responsibility than the type of photography that it seems *most* of the people on the "nay" side in this discussion have ever practiced. This is not a put down. It is just a statement that a better understanding of the profession and its practices, and actual training and experience in the field seem to grant a different perspective. You can't apply fine art standards to journalistic shooting, or even documentary standards. That is a terrible trap that most photographers fall into unless they have actually received training and worked in this sort of job.

BTW, censorship is a bad word for this. It is simply choosing how to cover an event. Censorship is too "loaded" a word.

 

[Ian David]

There is no difference...none whatsoever. You can dress it up in some selfserving sanctimonious cloak of righteousness if you want to, but it is still bloody censorship AFAIAC. Read phillip Knightley's book on the history of war correspondents. it was published about 1975 and is a bit out of date but he makes a compelling case that censorship, both state AND selfimposed, cost millions of lives on the western front and that the force of public opinion (both british and german) would have finished the war years earlier.

And it's the very same moral culpability (tho to a far, far lesser degree of course) that has been shown in the the image that started this thread. The journalist has sanitised the image, he has provided a myriad of possible agendas that may have nothing at all to do with the tragedy depicted, he hasn't provided a complete coverage, in truth he has decided himself what the story will be. his job is to gather facts, truths if you like, NOT to interpret the facts. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. It's all black and white for me you either believe in censorship or you don't. there is no grey area here.

Thanks Wayne. Your position is now much clearer. So, once given a story to cover, a news journalist's job is to gather all the relevant 'facts' he can about that story. If the journalist consciously exercises any discretion at all in deciding to exclude certain information from his photographs, that is the same as censorship and should be condemned. Is it possible that a good news journalist could feel sufficiently uncomfortable about presenting complete coverage of a particular story that he/she would refuse to do it? Or would such a person by definition be inherently unsuited to being a news journalist, no matter what the story he/she found uncomfortable was about? Is there any distinction between what a paparazzo does and what a good news journalist does, in terms of coverage of a particular event? I am not trying to start a fight - just interested.

 

[wayne naughton]

.....

I think the use of 'self-censorship' over this question, though, is a bit laden - what about 'sense of judgment'...or even, at times 'common sense'....

i agree, and i didn't pose the original question, ie that of censorship, either. it must of been in the mind of the originator of this thread tho, otherwise he wouldn't have posted and made the statements that he did.

 

[wayne naughton]

Thanks Wayne. Your position is now much clearer. So, once given a story to cover, a news journalist's job is to gather all the relevant 'facts' he can about that story. If the journalist consciously exercises any discretion at all in deciding to exclude certain information from his photographs, that is the same as censorship and should be condemned. Is it possible that a good news journalist could feel sufficiently uncomfortable about presenting complete coverage of a particular story that he/she would refuse to do it? Or would such a person by definition be inherently unsuited to being a news journalist, no matter what the story he/she found uncomfortable was about? Is there any distinction between what a paparazzo does and what a good news journalist does, in terms of coverage of a particular event? I am not trying to start a fight - just interested.

i don't know whether they'd have a job at the end of the day if they felt like that..... grin

look mate i can't answer you questions.... better ask the working journalists on this site i suppose. all i would ask of any photojournalist is that he produce a body of work with a bit of integrity and honesty. once his pictures pass onto his editor's desk his job is done and dusted. it's up to him and his conscience after that.....shrug. Paparazzi are nasty little creatures that add absolutely nothing to the collective wellbeing of this planet....but gee, they do make a lot of money don't they.

wayne