Introduction to the History of Photojournalism: Chapter 7: The Ethics of Photojournalism

Many people believe that photo manipulation, exploitation, and tampering are relatively new phenomena which are inextricably linked to the digital revolution and the rise of programs such as Photoshop. However, in reality, this unethical practice has existed from the beginning, especially for propaganda purposes during times of conflict and war zones. However, in today’s society, it is much easier to engage in digital manipulation. It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between truth and reality in many images posted in the media. As a photojournalist, it is your goal to sell images and some individuals are willing to do absolutely anything to get “that” shot. As a result of this, news organizations are losing credibility and respect from readers. This kind of practice is not taken lightly and ultimately could end a career. Exploitation is another serious offence in photojournalism, benefiting from the pain and suffering of others cannot be justified and this notion too causes a lot of debate within the field of photojournalism.

A more recent controversy relating to ethics and photojournalism is an image used on the cover of the New York Post (December 2012), this raised universal “questions about the editorial and ethical decisions faced by editors and photo journalists” today (source 1). The front page image illustrated a man seconds away from being hit and killed by an approaching subway train. The image was accompanied by a chilling headline, “Pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die, and in larger all-capital letter below, “DOOMED” (source 1). The photographer behind the camera was R. Umar Abbasi and instead of offering his hand to the victim, Ki Suk Han, he opted to take this picture. Although professional opinions are clearly divided on whether this image should have been taken in the first place, never mind later published in the Post, Abbasi maintains it was in his best interest to photograph the victim (source 1). According to John Kaplan, a photojournalism professor and Pulitzer Prize recipient, “The blame in this controversy lies directly with the New York Post for publishing such a callous, crude and truly tasteless headline while at the same time wrongly splashing the tragedy on the front page.” On the other hand, Kenny Irby believes that this story should have been covered but using different language and an alternative image (source 1).

Personally, I was horrified when I saw this image for the first time. I cannot fathom how any human being (no matter how cold and heartless you are) could stand and watch an innocent civilian be brutally murdered right in front of them. I’m sorry but I do not think the photographer R. Umar Abbasi has any ounce of conscience - no inner sense of right or wrong or gut wrenching feeling. Or maybe he did but chose to ignore it and put his career before his morality? I guess only Abbasi himself will truly know his motives behind not helping Ki Suk Han escape his death. Referring back to my personal ethics map, loyalty and respect, happiness and equality and opportunities are all applicable values here. Firstly, Abbasi’s decision demonstrates absolutely no allegiance or respect to the human race. Secondly, who is happy in this scenario? It certainly isn’t the victim and I would hope that the photographer would not be and instead feel a sense of intense guilt and remorse? Overall, maybe the editor is the only person who is content with this image, however, I would hope they too feel disgust and regret at such a poor and unethical decision. Additionally, there is zero equality in this situation, an innocent man loses his life. In contrast, proponents may argue that Abbasi used his initiative and viewed this incident as an opportunity to take an award winning photograph. In all honesty, I cannot comprehend the latter whatsoever. I understand that I wasn’t actually there in the moment but taking a photo at a time like that would not have crossed my mind, not even for a spilt second.

Although this is not the first controversial image to make the front page of a major newspaper, I strongly believe that stricter sanctions must be imposed to prevent the reoccurrence of such cruel and heartless behaviors. This poor man Ki Suk Han lost his life ultimately because a photographer was more concerned with documenting the event rather than reaching out a hand and saving him. At the end of the day, I would much rather be hailed a hero than a Pulitzer Prize winner, at least I could live my life guilt free.

The image (below) ran on the cover of the New York Post and has been a huge talking point in the media ever since: