Is This Photo Ethical?

by Eric Kim on April 7, 2011

1x1.trans Is This Photo Ethical?
1x1.trans Is This Photo Ethical?

Fifteen year-old Fabienne Cherisma was shot dead by police at approximately 4pm, January 19th, 2010. Photo: Paul Hansen

Back in March there was a heated debate about this photo taken of 15-year-old Fabienne Cherisma, who was shot and killed by police after stealing two two plastic chairs and three framed pictures. It reminded me much about my recent blog post about Ethics and Street Photography.

One of the photos shot by photographer Paul Hansen, was chosen as the best International News Image at the Swedish Picture of the Year Awards.

In March 2010, Hansen discussed the image and circumstances of Fabienne’s death stating, “For me, Fabienne’s death and her story is a poignant reminder of the need for a society to have basic security – with or without a disaster.”

Looking at the image above, it is a very emotional image that does bring great amounts of awareness to this horrible issue. However when looking at the photo below shot by photographer Nathan Weber, I feel that the story changes. Rather than having the image being a positive political tool, it looks like the photographers below are more like vultures– all trying to get the best version of the image and exploiting this horrible crime.

1x1.trans Is This Photo Ethical?

Photo: Nathan Weber

It is crushing to see how emotionally detached these photographers can be when shooting the image by checking their LCD screens in a casual way  (edit: I mistook a photographer checking his settings for viewing his LCD). Although I do highly respect that the hard work and sacrifice that photo journalists go through, this image above personally jarred me.

via Prison Photography and PetaPixel.

So what do you think, do you think this image is ethical? What is your take about the job of photojournalists and having to capture scenes like this? Leave a comment below and tell us what you think.

4/10/11 Update:

In the comments photographer Chad Pister mentioned this article which showed the dead body of Fabienne Cherisma in a different position which appeared in The Guardian. In the shot by Carlos Garcia Rawlins, it shows Fabienne’s arm positioned differently while showing an image of a flower when compared to the shot by Paul Hansen. If you happen to know the true story of what happened, please leave a comment below.

1x1.trans Is This Photo Ethical?

15-year-old lies dead after being shot in the head in Port-au-Prince. Photograph: Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters

1x1.trans Is This Photo Ethical?

Fifteen year-old Fabienne Cherisma was shot dead by police at approximately 4pm, January 19th, 2010. Photo: Paul Hansen

4/11/11 Update:

Prison Photography has some more answers about the following event here.

Tagged as: controversy, fabienne cherisma, street photography

  • hana

    If you had just posted the first photo, I would’ve agreed with Hansen’s quote. The truth is that a lot of world atrocities would remain covered up if not for the work of journalists/photojournalists.

    Then, I see the second photo and I don’t know. I will say that Weber’s shot is just as compelling, if not more so, than Hansen’s.

  • http://www.glyons.at Gavin

    There should of been more photographers, I don’t care if they look at their LCD, etc. I care about the young life cowardly gunned down. Yes, the world should see this and realize all is not well. Who going to speak for this girl now ? I know we have become desensitized watching our screens day in, day out but a human life has value no matter where in the world and what a person believes.

  • http://www.fotgrafieemmen.nl Wessel Haan

    Is this ethical? I thought about it and I think it is. I know photo’s like these are hard to look at. They are confronting but on the other side I think people need to know what strange, unfair things happen on the other side of the world. Although the girl stole something that was not hers, she did not deserve to die like this.

  • http://pogophoto.blogspot.com Sarah P.

    That is highly disturbing. I can’t even imagine what the guy in the background must be thinking, looking on as these photographers take their photos and move on.

    • http://www.michaelmullady.com michael mullady

      ‘the ‘guy in the background’,Lesli Petit-Phar was mine, ed’s and nathan fixer,(we we’re a team of 3 americans)he was the first one to see fabienne dead, us 4 were the first on the scene, the others swarmed in minutes later. He is a good friend of mine and if you would like to know what he was thinking I’d love to put you in contact. Statements like ‘take their photos and move on’ are more disturbing then the photo itself, it’s both ignorant and uneducated to speak of situations you did not witness.

      • http://pogophoto.blogspot.com Sarah P.

        I meant no disrespect to the photographers. I tried to put myself in the shoes of the locals (and perhaps more importantly, as a parent) and am not sure how I’d feel in the same situation. This is the tough part of photography, in my opinion, there is a photo shown without a perspective of one of the photographers that was there. It’s all perception, and from my place, it looks a little rough to see a group of photographers gathered around this girl. I agree that the photo needed to be taken, it’s compelling and a great eye into what is happening around the world. Again, I meant no disrespect to you or the others. In all honesty, I’d really love to hear about your experience in this situation.

        • October V.

          Sarah, I completely agree with you. Personally, I don’t feel your comment was necessarily “ignorant and uneducated”, but it was simply human. You looked at the photo; the photo was in the context of “people are taking pictures, then moving on”. I don’t blame you for thinking that way. Period.

  • Ben Hunter

    I believe the act of shooting the girl was unethical, the documentation of it via photograph, completely ethical, confronting, disturbing, but ethical. Acts of atrocity and the persecution of those who cannot fully protect themselves and who are in need during desperate times should be documented, so it can be discussed and hopefully stopped before it happens to someone else.

  • http://silentxpression.wordpress.com/ Simon Wallerstedt

    I agree it’s terrible, it makes me sick looking at the second image. But when I think about it, what’s the alternative? Should no one be able to see what happens? These things must be shown to the world. And that’s what these photographers are doing. That’s my opinion (with somewhat split feelings about it)..

    • http://meesotography.wordpress.com Steve

      I entirely agree.

      And to add to your statement, I think that even though some of these photographers may be completely emotionally detached and may see this as business and a way to make their name bigger, I can’t believe that everyone here is going about their work in a casual way without being effected by this at all.

      Eric, I love your stuff but I have to say you are completely wrong by assuming they are detached and looking at their LCD screen in a casual way. Think about the conversations that may be going on. Do you really think they’re talking about what a great shot they got or how what they just ate for lunch? It’s a bit much to assume by this one photo that they are all vultures. In a sense, yes… you have to be somewhat detached. But if they were all completely detached I doubt they would even be able to show the emotion in their work they did.

      • http://www.michaelmullady.com michael mullady

        ‘I can’t believe that everyone here is going about their work in a casual way without being effected by this at all.’

        ‘It’s a bit much to assume by this one photo that they are all vultures.’

        Thank you Steve. I think that people making generalizations about situations they did not take part in is ridiculous and cruel to those who where there and have to live with what they witnessed

  • cris

    War is like an aging actress: more and more dangerous and less and less photogenic. – Robert Capa

  • http://www.ardini.nl Valerie

    It has to be documented, it has to be shown- it would be unethical not to do that, in my opinion, even though pictures like these make me so sad; we can’t close our eyes and ignore these things. It’s a little weird to see all the photographers hovering there, but still- when you think about it, you can’t just expect it’s enough when one person has taken the shot. How can you be sure it will get out there?
    I do not envy photo journalists though- it’s definitely not something I could ever do. I can’t even look at an overrun duck at the side of the road without feeling completely miserable, thinking I should go bury it.

  • http://sthlmstreet.com Jimmy D

    I think the second image is a cruel image, showing the reality of how the work situation of photographers in dangerous areas. But you must remember that they are photo journalists, covering the same story. Besides, in this settings, journalists probably aren´t safe working on their own – traveling in packs keeps them more secure.

    If you understand this, I think Webers image make more sense.

  • http://docsheldon.com DocSheldon

    Having previously worked as a journalist, I will admit, I sometimes ran into “vultures” that didn’t care about feelings or impressions, beyond what their editor would say when he saw their photos. But many others took great pains to respect the rights and emotions of others, regardless of how it affected their ability to get the coverage they sought. The fact that one photographer included the others in the second shot is testament to that, IMO.
    From one perspective, such shots can have a profound effect on those that are not present to see the horror, and often play a huge part in rallying efforts to change things. I guess we each just have to weigh the pros and cons of such a shot… what is more important – your feelings, or the life of the next victim? I go for the latter.

  • http://www.fokkomuller.nl fomu

    Tough question. My first reaction on the first photo was: what a stunning and beautiful shot. Then I read what it was all about and I was shocked that this girl was shot. My first reaction on the second picture was: they look like vulgures.

    On second thought: of course they are not. It’s their job to show the world the cruelty of things that happen in the world. Of course they look at their LCD-screens. That’s what all photographers do when they shoot a picture. It is a waste to take a photo and find out that your settings were not ok. I don’t believe that these guys don’t feel horrible in such a situation.

    My conclusion is that this photo is ethical.

  • http://blog.christakisphoto.com/ Christakis Schinis

    “Ethics” is a, not very well defined, (moral) philosophical term. It is open to interpretation hence the never-resolved-question “Is this ethical?”. In my opinion, they both are.

    Both pictures above depict facts. Two snapshots of our society, our world.

    Nathan’s picture will be cited for many many years to come…

  • Shob DW

    I’ve often wondered myself at which point do we set our boundaries. By re-badging a picture as “art” or “journalism”, does it give us permission to invade into the lives of others? I’m often amazed at what lengths a photo-journalist in mainstream media will go to – to get the “winning shot”. Bottom line is do we reduce grieving people to “objects” to make the shot work, or do we try to relate to the situation so that we can channel “change”?

    I recall this short film video someone sent to me some years back. It may be the extreme end of the scale, but the point is pretty clear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxnBM4IlyP8

  • http://fotofungi.wordpress.com Will

    It is not unethical just because it makes you feel sad. It is more unethical to set a flash off in someones face than take this photo.

    Yes they look like vultures, what a terrible event.

  • Robert

    Christakis has it right. Both photos depict facts of our human existence.

    One can interpret voyeurism at both levels, and art at both levels. What remains unexplored is the motive of the 2nd photographer; was that person part of another emotionally detached dozen photographing the photographers? It’s a very complex set of photos that evokes nested universes and the motive of the individual. I’m sure there are opportunists in the 2nd photo as well as conscientious observers.

    • http://www.michaelmullady.com michael mullady

      He was working in a group of 3 Americans, including myself and another photojournalist. He took that image after he moved away from the pack and then moved right back in. I think it’s fair to bring this to everyone’s attention, that’s just one of the many images he took, that depicts everyone else but himself in a bad light

  • http://www.85mm.ch Thomas Leuthard – 85mm

    It’s your own personal decision. But if you don’t take the shot, someone else will (see second photo). Photography is not a piece of cake in some areas. So if you are not strong enough you have chosen the wrong topic. As long as you take a photo of the truth and show it to the World in the same way as it was, it’s fine. Ethic stops when you want to fake the situation and change the meaning of a photograph…

    I would have probably taken both shots as sometimes the view back is more interesting than the object itself.

  • http://sketchesoflila.blogspot.com Stewart Reid

    I think the revulsion we feel from the second shot isn’t about ethics, but is from the apparently profound lack of empathy of the photographers – something that most people have touched on.

    I think it’s important that images and moments like this atrocity are taken to be shown to the world. But I think the photographers who take them need to be able to look at themselves, and see if losing their empathy is worth the ability to take the shot so callously. Or do you think it’s possible to take a shot like that, while being part of a group like that, and not cut off all emotion?

  • May

    Simply ask the photographers one simple question… Its difficult to say imagine your self in the girls place… so instead lets ask:
    If that girl was your daughter, sister, cousin or anything of the sort… would you doing being the same thing, and would you be ok with the way the people around you are acting!
    What would they do?

    • http://www.michaelmullady.com michael mullady

      That’s a ridiculous question to ask any photojournalist who works in conflict situations. Death is a part of reality…and reality is what photojournalist seek to show…whether it’s positive or negative. Dead bodies have been photographed before before and will continue to be. Situations like this were ‘abundent’ in Haiti and are so in many conflict areas, as journalist often find themselves in ‘same place’ at the ‘same time’ due to circumstance.

    • TonV

      Weird question.
      The analogy that comes to mind is: Imagine a doctor confronted with for example a group of people coming in the emergency room after a bad traffic accident. S/he needs to work professionally, and with professional detachment (meaning you try not to let the drama and horror influence your work and your decisions, not meaning you cannot be warm and friendly to patients. )
      Why would a doctor be allowed professional detachment and a photographger not?
      TonV (a doc)

  • Pingback: Den etiska bilden. - - Chimping

  • http://robertkruyskamp.blogspot.com Robert

    Emotionally detaching yourself is most probably the only way to stay sane, when you are seeing horrific scenes like this every day as a photographer.

    But I bet these guys lose some sleep now and then afterwards.

  • http://www.facesoflondon.co.uk Marco

    Astonishing. It’s not really for me to say because the situation has no direct relation to me. I will however say that the second photograph within the context for the first is astonishing.

  • http://marcplouffephotography.com Marc Plouffe

    You nailed it on the head by using the term VULTURE.

    • http://www.michaelmullady.com michael mullady

      vultures are birds…the people in the photo are photojournalist.

      • markus

        Yes, photojournalists with no ethics.

  • http://www.curtfleenor.com Curt

    Images such as the first serve to relate the horrors and atrocities of war, they tell a story that words cannot and speak to a far greater audience than words could reach. They are stirring and necessary. So I must agree with the majority of the other comments that this photo is an ethical one.

    To break it down to a very base level, the second image is more of a ‘behind the scenes’ look into how images such as the first are captured. Like so many other items in our society, knowing how they are produced can often cause a people to have a different view of the finished product. But like other items, how an image is produced should not be hidden from public view.

    These images are not captured by magic, there are real people on the ground seeing these things with their own eyes and the general public rarely considers how an image has made its way to them. Photojournalism in a war zone is a dangerous and dirty business; it is not something that I could ever personally do. I admire the work that these photographers produce and do not wish to belittle the horrific death of this child but I cannot help but wonder what emotional toll it must take on the documenters of such meaningless slaughter.

  • http://awakeningtempest.wordpress.com/ Awakening Tempest

    I have no words to describe this.

  • http://www.simongarnier.org Simon Garnier

    Take the picture and you’ll be treated as a vulture. Don’t take it and you will be blamed for not reporting the horror. Whatever picture these guys will take (or not), they will find someone to think they made the wrong choice.

    IMO, we have to ask ourselves two questions. Did their behavior changed (positively or negatively) something for this poor kid? No, of course, she was already dead, and I guess they could not have done anything to save her. Can the first picture change something for other people? Maybe, at least it has attracted the attention of a part of the world.

    As a mirror question to the one of the post. Is the second picture ethical? By representing its colleagues in this position, choosing a point of view that immediately makes people think of vultures (as recalled many times here), did this photographer faithfully represent the truth about war photojournalism? Or did he simply wanted a sensational picture too?

  • Vibrant Kick

    I agree with a previous comment: Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    It sucks to have to take a photo like that but it is their job (or their art).
    And as for them making money off of it?
    It is okay to make a living.

  • M. A

    A more imperative question might–possibly–be: what does documenting the same aspect of reality do for the experiences of the people whom the responsibility of breadth and depth rests upon the journalists who are-I hope-invested in showing?

    Outside of the debate of seeing so many photographer’s doing this: if reality is often subjective and a photographer’s viewpoint equally so…then what shroud of piety can be claimed if the reportage transmitted to millions of people are mere aesthetic variants of each other? What end does this serve and in what ways can we measure the impact implied by their intent?

    These are difficult questions but something, perhaps, useful to this debate.

  • Kye

    Tasteless

  • Ewanglee

    Both show the dark side of Humanity. Whether The photos are ethical depends entirely on how they are presented and in what context. If it is to remind us of our (human) weaknesses and atrocities with the hope that we can learn from it, then I think it is ethical. If it is only to add more Images that help desensitize us from the horror of the actions then I think it’s not ethical.

  • http://www.ArchitectOfVision.com/ Henning Wüst

    Well, discussion number one should imo be to ask what “ethical” means (in terms of photographic context). And just to reply to Kye: “taste” is another category. It may well be tasteless, but for me this is something completely different than “unethical”.

    BUT: This picture shows obviously the reality. And the reality needs to be shown. Guess thats our job as photographers (read: fotojournalists). Therefore im asking: Can the reality be “unethical”?

  • Jess W.

    These photos represent the truth – certainly limited versions of the truth, but accurate ones in both cases. They exist together, and are utterly essential to have. What is it we’re supposed to think these photographers are for? Saving her? Wrapping her body in a cloth and carrying her to a medic? Really? Is that ever the journalist’s duty? It is false to assume that Webster’s image depicts a lack of feeling among the shooters – this is how we, as reporters, feel on the job. We feel in our act as a portal for others to feel.

  • http://www.pilsterphotography.com Chad Pister

    It only get’s worse. Check out this article with two different shots of the body rearranged.

    This only get’s worse! I did a TinEye search, because I wanted to see if I could find other versions of this, and I ran across the article below. With two different versions with the body actually arranged! This just gives me chills. It just went WAY beyond unethical. This looks like a bunch of college students, but two of the photographers in the article are from Reuters and the Daily News, associations that I had some respect for, before seeing these two images. This reminds me of the scene in the Public Eye, where it shows Weegee moving the dead body to make a better shot.

    http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagensmedia.se%2Fnyheter%2Fprint%2Farticle118511.ece&act=url

  • R. Lloyd

    Disturbing? Yes. Irresponsible? No. The parallel doesn’t come close but when I was a photographer at MMA and boxing events there were times when fighters got seriously hurt and I did feel a small hint of “douche” as I tried to get a shot of the downed fighter. It’s part of the job.

  • http://www.juliejoias.com Julieta Pedrosa

    For me is highly disturbing and cannot see totally the point of these photographers. They look like paparazzis. One thing is to not cover up atrocities, other thing is the respect for a human life, even in Death.

  • ILPARM

    I think all points have been covered already. This is photojournalism. Their ethics are different than the casual tourist’s. For them, it would be unethical not to shoot and document this atrocity. Having said that, at some point shooting this scene in particular was kind of pointless since all the guys there are basically shooting the same photo, reducing the eventual success of the photo to certain technical details.

    This certainly was not an exclusive. It also speaks of how none of the locals covered the body and how long it took the authorities to arrive. Or how maybe it was covered and somebody uncovered it to get the photograph, I do not know, but clearly the body lied there unattended long enough to allow this lot of photographers to arrive.

    I often find myself in similar situations -lots of photographers shooting the same scene- when practicing photojournalism and I usually end up doing the same: Shooting the photographers shooting the scene. Because at that point the news is not the incident itself, but the coverage of it.

  • http://twitter.com/acetechnica David

    Both photos are ethical. If a picture tells a thousand words, then the catch is we don’t know what those words are. Different story to each viewer. As a photographer, I see this through the lens and as all part of the story. Is it more disturbing to see both photos? Yes.

    If I’m there, I’d like to think I’d make both photos. It’s the same story, different views. Motivation differs, perspective differs. I can’t judge these guys from looking. Rearranging the body? To me, that’s clearly unethical.

  • http://www.japanphotojournalist.com Rob

    splitting hairs, perhaps, but exactly which snapper is checking his LCD in the 2nd photo?

  • http://Scorpionkiss.com Mattieu Besson

    I’m based in Cairo,and the past two months have tried me more then at any other time as a conflict photographer. I can and do, remain detached and even “stoic” if you will, when i’m on the street. I have been arrested and interrogated 4 different times by the Egyptian Army who don’t want abuses shown, easier for them to consider me a spy then a photographer documenting history. I have captured images that I have been unable to view in post-processing without a couple of stiff drinks, and this would have been one of them. I’m not sure I would have taken this picture, but I do not fault my colleagues that did. I do think the second photograph is unfortunate, out-of-context, and was ill-advised. M

  • http://mnphotographerexposed.blogspot.com Kellie

    The death of this girl is tragic. The fact that her dead body was being photographed, is not. People need to know what is going on in other countries, the inhumane treatments and daily threats of life. This is not a case of paparazzi, it is a fact that photographers from within a hundred miles likely traveled to this one location to document the murder of an innocent child. You may see it as “emotionally detached” yet there is no documentation of how many of these men went back to their hotel and called their daughter crying, or how many of them will carry this image with them forever. Photojournalism during times of crisis is difficult and as a photographer a shell, or protective barrier of one’s soul, needs to be formed in order to carry on living and not allowing such images to eat away at you. The lack of mourners for this child is more troublesome than anything.

  • http://www.facebook.com/DanielFisherPhotography Daniel Fisher

    I believe this photo is ethical, though looking at the bts image, it appears to be taken in a way that is grossly insensitive.

    This is a story worth telling, the photo in itself is pure photojournalism.

    The photogs should have quickly and quietly taken their photos and moved on. They have to be sensitive to the situation and respectful of the locals.

  • http://turkishtravelblog.com Natalie

    Yes, thanks to photographers, we get to see a lot that we would not normally see however respect for the dead. Why was this girls body not moved?

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/renekejlskovjorgensen/ Rene Kejlskov Jorgensen

    A great dilemma. My heart says it is kind of wrong to take “advantage” of the dead girl. On the other hand my objective mind says that nothing is unfit for photography.

    Rene
    —-
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/renekejlskovjorgensen/

  • Pingback: Is This Photo Ethical? | Hochzeitsfotograf Vadym Plyushchakov

  • Luís

    is it my eyes (and Chad’s), or one of those guys moved the girl to depict “dead girl shoot in the head with blood and flowers”? those anybody knows the truth of what really happened there?

  • Gary

    I’m with Luis, and puzzled no-one else seems to have mentioned it. Who rearranged the girl? It is not just her arm that has been moved, she has been turned over to face the other way. Ew.

  • Isoterica

    I know the discussion is over whether or not taking photos of Fabienne was ethical. Maybe to fully understand one needs to know what was going on. Here is an account of an actual photographer on the scene, Edward Linsmier, as to what they all were doing there, what he saw happen while he was there and what they were trying to accomplish by photographing this poor girl and later, her family.

    https://prisonphotography.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/yet-more-on-fabienne-cherisma/

    This is photojournalism at its most raw and it would seem that her family allowed this documentation– and at least Edward Linsmier to continue to photograph even to her grave. I don’t believe that the intent was to exploit the death of Fabienne Cherisema.

    http://www.edwardlinsmier.com/18468-haiti-fabienne

    Additionally, Nathan Weber, another photographer that Linsmier refers to made a video which is very graphic depicting the goings on at the time of her death and shortly after. You can see it if you feel compelled on Nathan Weber’s personal site under Haiti Video.

    Rather than extrapolate from the couple photos here and then the comments left by readers I decided to look up the information myself. It’s out there. Just google it.

    • Isoterica

      –Also you can read parts 1 through 15 of this series, accounts of the various photographers there, on the links just below Linsmier’s interview on the first link [prisonphotography] site.

  • Pingback: The Ethical Callousness of Photojournalists | Ethics Alarms

  • http://mnkimages.com melissa

    I think the ethical question should be ……… If YOU can show the world what is REALLY going on , would you?

    and the answer is yes.

    and the better the composure, subject , positioning.. the better the photo.
    People dont take these photos for public use just for the hell of it. They take these because this is HOW news is told. This is HOW news is spread. And this is how.. YOU.. sitting there feeling emotional about what you saw ENOUGH to react to, get jarred into motion.
    Things like this wont change without motion.
    Photos like this make you uncomfortable enough TO MAKE a motion..

  • kaka

    If you are doing what they do you have to switch off or with some time u WILL kill yourself like Kevin Carter did(every one remember photo from Sudan and little girl and vaulter in the background w8 for her to die. He won a pulizer price in 1996 as far as i remember) . Photojournalists are a hero who sacrifice their soul, they are not there to help but to show people around the world whats is going on and rise greater help.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/eero-b1/ Eero

    This photo (or the whole situation) if anything is ethical. The photographers really had to make an ethic choice with this one. The fact that this news actually didn’t make it to Finnish media (at least not big time) is far more unethical.
    For some reason this reminds me of the great documentary about James Nachtway, I often felt awkward about the situations they showed where he was taking photos. But in the end when they showed the reactions of upper class citizens at his exhibition. It all made sense.

  • writerman242

    For me the second image doesn’t change my view that these images are ethical. Of course a lot of an ethical question has to do with motivation, the “why” we do something. The second image was in my guess, taken to demonstrate how “vulture like” photogs can be. But then, how do people think we get to see these images? One person is chosen to respectfully walk in alone and take an image that is then shared? of course not. We want to be told these stories and we SHOULD be told, so we have to that people have to go and take them. It’s just part of the deal we make.
    Naturally there are going to be times when the taking of and use of a photo of a dead person is unethical, but not this time. This is a legitamate story that the public need to see. we should be grateful that there are people who have the courage/nerve/adventuraous spirit/strength/whatever to take and tell these stories. I think to say the second pic c hanges one’s mind is hypocritical. It’s as if I shouldn’t ttake a pic on the street if i see another photog taking a similar image. Most of us would think that idea absurd

  • http://www.brokenfotografy.smugmug.com Stephen Lebovit

    In this case, the girl had already been killed, so this is a document of that event. Nothing the photographers could do would change that. But if any of those photographers moved her body in any way, then it is not a true reflection of the events that transpired and I would hope that any shots of the repositioned body would never be printed. That is tantamount to using Photoshop or any other kind of photo manipulation.

    However, if she was still alive, I think that helping her survive would be paramount. If a photographer first takes the shot then helps her, to me it shows a lack of respect for life itself, and a lack of humanism. Unfortunately, there will most certainly be other opportunities to take grizzly photos as we seem to be really good at killing one another.

  • amman

    It’s unethical to call the photojournalists vultures. Yes, it’s true, the overall image of the big media is that of vultures. But the world needs to see these pictures. Would the rwandan genocide have any significance to the outside world had it not been for those photojournalists who risked their lives? and talking about emotional detachment-James Nachtwey did not shoot just for completing assignments.

  • chispa

    I would be more concerned about the ethics of killing a looter by the police than I would be of taking a picture of the victim. What was stolen was not worth killing someone over.
    In so far as the picture, you can look at it as being sensationalized for a newspaper like the National Enquirer or something similar. There is a segment of society that likes (enjoys) the depiction of blood and gore in these kinds of newspapers.
    On the other hand a picture like this may appear in a magazine like National Geographic, where it would portray the senseless tragedy of the story that it is.
    Myself, I would not take a picture like this even if I worked for a news organization. I have seen more than enough dead bodies while in the army and working for a local police department crisis response team.

  • Kevin

    Why is this ethical, and taking a photo of the homeless unethical.

  • GettinPix

    Hey guys, the question here: did anybody noticed that somebody moved the girl’s body in the third photo? Do you think any of those photographers did that in order to take a better shot????????????????????? Would it be ethical???????????????????????????

  • http://dailybreadpa.com Bill Niels

    someone definitely moved this girl to get a better pic, which is not ethical. People get shot everywhere though, why do we need to be any more aware of violence? what good did it do anyone to see this pic? did someone send the bitches family a million dollars? no nothing happened you all just wana look at this shit til it happens to you. BANG. fck off.

  • http://dailybreadpa.com Bill Niels

    In the first pic, shes a little suspiciously organized, with the pics nicely stacked in her arms there Paul…good job. Really ethical of you. thank you so much for bringing to my attention that little girls get shot for stealing wherever the fuck this is.

  • http://www.shannonedwardsphotography.com Shannon Edwards

    I say yes. We need the truth. Period. This image tells the story. That should never be silenced.

  • braille

    …it seems that the term photojournalism is now a useful excuse/shield for the lost of respect for human life…
    I wouldn`t be surprised at all if the corpse has been modified by “them”

  • http://bestcamcordersunder.com John McGraw

    It’s an extremely powerful image and everyone who sees it will do some thinking. So yes it is definitely and ethical image.

  • Guest

    Someone moved the body? Why I saw two different pose of the girl?

    If a photographer actually went to move the body of the girl to make it a better photo, that is utterly unethical and disgusting!

  • Cyllwen

    You can even kill someone for ART, can’t you?

  • http://www.dreamtimeimages.com Nathan

    I actually think I like Nathan Weber’s photograph better, particularly with the guy in the blue pants in the background. The additional layer of his image tells all three parts of the story. I have no problem with the photographers taking the shot — they’re doing their job. I just hope someone with a camera didn’t move her dead body…

  • Pingback: Photography Ethics - Vancouver's Top Classifieds and Automotive Forum - REVscene.net

  • Zoossh

    The same if someone feels that one should not ask the deceased family for organ donation of the deceased. Their views are myopic, and they could not understand the impact at the other end, however they think they knew the best, some of which are themselves photographers but are not photojournalists. The same ignorance got the Pulitzer award winner – Kevin Carter, into suicide.

  • Pingback: How far will you go for your craft? | Sex Drugs and Wilders

  • Pingback: Is this photo ethical? « caseyp28

  • Moushphotography

    Sometimes I feel people don’t understand that photojournalists often have to be stoic in such situations. They are doing the job, that’s it. Yes, if they have reworked the position of the hand, that is pretty unacceptable, because in that case they are actually trying to alter what we are seeing to a certain extent, but otherwise they are representing the truth to us. If we are OK with them risking their lives i war zones to get us the reality, why aren’t we OK with them shooting a crime such as this? If we call this invasion of space/privacy, what is street photography all about?

  • Troy

    Kind of disturbing that many people jump to the conclusion that since the body is in a slightly different position in the last photo, the photographers must have moved it in order to get a better photo and exploit the victim. Cynical armchair detectives much? There is no reason to think that at all. Most likely it was a passerby trying to help/identify her, or see what she stole. Let’s not assume that photo journalists are now manipulating things to make better snuff footage. There is plenty of tragedy out there for them to shoot and you all know that.

  • Pingback: 1 Month Left to Submit for the International Street Photography Award in London 2012! « Professional Photographer « Professional Photographer

  • Andyparker5

    Do we need pictorial illustration to help us comprehend the horror and disgust that a young girl (or anyone) was shot for petty theft ? Are we running the risk of becoming desensitised by the media saturating our vision with ever more shocking imagery?
    I would remind you, that there are despicable crimes that are committed against children, that will never, I Pray, be described photographically; we do not need a visual aid to feel the abhorrence, shock and revulsion at these hideous crimes. I amongst the majority of the human race do not need pictorial proof that murder, especially the murder of a little girl is evil.

    • Van C.

      Unfortunately that outlook on humanity is more of an ideal. While it’s true that most will find the reading about a girl being shot as horrible, few will actually be affected afterwards. It is not because we have been desensitized by the media.

      Rather, humans have been desensitized ever since we realized saber-toothed tigers could kill 4 out of our 10 sons while they’re hunting, and maybe 6 out of 10 daughters will die giving birth. Not to mention half the babies dying from environmental causes. Humans in general have built up emotional defenses to grief.

      That said, we at present are not as hardened as the hunters of old. Many do feel the evil that is the murder of a young one. However, those emotional defenses are still present. It’s the same defenses that allow us to heal after emotional distraught. It’s not all bad. But it can make us feel less for something horrible that we merely read about.

      We NEED more impact. The idea needs to pierce us straight through our thick skin, and into our hearts. We need to be pierced by the image, so that our souls bleed as the girl bled.

      It is in knowing that we act, and visual media gives us knowledge through an emotional experience, in addition to the factual knowledge given by words. Photographs, videos, and other media do that for us.

  • http://philhart.edublogs.org philhart

    Failure to record life (and death) is to dishonour the work of dedicated photojournalists. In my opinion, the only way to cope with such horror is to laugh at it, otherwise you risk the death of your own conscience.

  • Bianca Garcia

    Wow. Seeing that photo with all of the photojournalists is very jarring. It looks like a press lineup for a movie or something. I don’t know why, but whenever I see pictures from disaster areas I assume that the photographer is the only one with a camera around to take that specific picture. Obviously that is a very naive assumption. I guess I just want to believe that these type of photos come out of a desire to show the plight of others, rather than a capitalistic and competitive need to meet a bottom-line. I’m sure photojournalists over time become immune to certain things to a degree, but I really have to think about this. I shoot street photography in NYC and have no problem getting close or invading people’s privacy (or what they think is their privacy on a public street), but I still don’t know if I could do this.

    Great Article!

  • Pingback: Vicki's OCA Blog | this made me uncomfortable

  • Van C.

    I’m sorry, it’s as if nobody read the Prison Photography article that was linked. It tells you the whole story.

    The girl moved positions because some of the other looters attempted to steal some of the items she had (money in her hand). Another local moved her head to identify her face and alert her family members.

    Everyone is projecting their own impression of the photograph without properly looking at it. Can anyone see all the photographers’ faces? How do you know they lack empathy? Those struggling with internal emotions often exhibit blank faces. Jumping to conclusions is one way the truth of a situation is skewed.

    Most people take photos of something and walk away. These photographers know an important moment when they are in it. I don’t know how many images each photographer must have taken, but they could have been there for a long time, taking photos of everything that happened in that site:

    - Looters running past
    - Looters trying to steal money from her body
    - Family that came to take her body home
    - Family members in their grief
    - Even returning to photograph her father at her grave later

    This isn’t street photography. They’re not looking to create compositions that can be interpreted in different ways. They take photographs to relay a story with facts, and for that you REALLY need to see the rest of the photo series, AND read the articles they come with, or you’ll totally miss the point if you start jumping to conclusions.

    • Dust

      Exactly. While it appears quite “mercenary” this is their job, the task that keeps them alive, no matter how macabre it gets.

      In no way do they gain much from this other than a few nights with food on the table, in-fact I’d say they came away from it with a lot to think about.

  • seshu babu paturi

    DEFENETLY NO, BUT THE GUY WITH A NICELY COMPOSED PIC, WHO IS FROM BIG AGENCY WILL GET A GLOBAL PRESS AWARD like ARCO DUTTA FROM INDIA.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7HTJ6YUSEE44CFQCPYAUGCGVSU alan

    the days of eugene w smith are long gone.
    journalism does not exist anymore photographic journalistic essays do not really exist in the mainstream.
    what we have is corruption,moral decay from the highest levels of government down.
    when elected officials start wars for financial gain,collapse systems for profit steal,rape and murder,what can you expect from this sorry scrum.this pack of filthy european dogs.
    these press men.
    from news corporations,corporations that feed the medicated public lies and propaganda.
    capture is the cry great capture that should get an award.
    capturing actuality in high resolution megapixels.
    i suppose if they gave barry obama a nobel peace prize why not a photographic vulture.
    did capa move bodies for effect ? who knows.
    did eugene smith spill his humanity across his frame yes.
    what corruption,what moral decay.
    bill hicks wants said it’s funny how all the beautiful spirits die young while the old demons run amok.
    the girl should have lived the digital capture clowns deserve death,not for the first decisive shot but for going into camera sub menu’s and fucking around with settings and for working together like a pack of rats.

  • Siddharth Jain

    I do agree that the photogs do get vulturous at times in order to have the best angle and the shot. But in such cases as the case at hand, with due regards to the deceased, I can only say that the photographer is doing his job. It is the overpowering feel of empathy over the death of the innocent and the anger at the heartlessness of the police which is making us feel otherwise. What else could these people do?

    And secondly, the job of the photojournalist is to bring the “truth” of the society out in the open. So, if not in this way, then how ?

    But, I, along with all others before me, am deeply sorry for this pre-mature death. May her soul rest in peace.

    For others, they should remember that there is something called as a JUDGMENT DAY.

  • zorbathegeek

    Regardless, there is nothing they look more like than vultures huddled around carrion.

  • Hake

    Do we need to see a dead body in every position to relate what happened ?
    Can’t anyone think the first thing to do seing this little girl was to cover her body and wait for the family to treat her and prepare her grave ?

  • VH

    I highly recommend reading ‘Where War Lives’ by Pulitzer Prize winner Paul Watson. He agonized over the ethics of shooting the American soldier shot down in Somalia and dragged through the streets (which led to the infamous Black Hawk Down movie). He struggled with the importance of getting the news from war fronts out with how something like the soldier shot would affect the family of the victim.

    • VH

      I should have said ‘…over the ethics of photographing‘…poor choice of words on my part for this particular situation.

  • Pingback: Is This Ethical? « Miyamoto Radio

  • Pingback: Photojournalism and Debate 3 | UB Ethics of Journalism Fall 2012

  • Pingback: To Shoot, or To Help? | Allons-y!

  • aaronbbrown

    So it appears from these photos that her body was moved, so what, these photographers placed her in that position to create a more dramatic image? So if that’s the case then they staged these photos, which is a violation of journalistic ethics.

  • aaronbbrown

    If this photo is staged, I would say it’s a direct result of what’s happening to the press And the people who get hired these days, as well as a statement about the corporate ownership, who will reward anyone willing to give them what sells most effectively. Morality was long ago jettisoned by the people who call the shots in the corporate world, the fact is you can’t rise to the head of a corporation and be a moral person of conscience any longer.

  • Pingback: 58-Year-Old Ki Suk Han Fatally Struck by Subway Train | OurChinatown

  • Pingback: Ethical issues in photography | Magnetic Eyes

  • Pingback: Ethical? Yes and No. | Digital Media

  • Pingback: Fabienne Cherisma | Dubitability

  • David Blumenkrantz

    It’s a fair discussion, at what point is what these photographers do become gratuitous…. is it really necessary for a dozen or so different images to be taken? Not at all, that is about earning a living. And earning a living off the dead is what vultures in fact do. So the analogy is not completely false. However it is also true that many, if not all of the photographers were operating under the utilitarian ethical philosophy, with the objective of informing the public about an important issue.

    Having said all that, I have no idea why this is in a “street photography” blog. This is news photojournalism, the very antithesis of the street photography of Robert Frank, Winogrand and others. Check it out…. http://pinterest.com/pin/114771490475711648/

  • JohnC

    It is not possible to have an “unethical” photo! Whether it is appropriate (maybe ethical is the right word for this) to publish the photo is a different matter.
    Why should anyone regard the publication of a shot looter inappropriate? She got what most people in Haiti would believe she deserved.

Previous post:

Next post:

"Like" me on Facebook!