The ethical dilemma is illustrated well by the fourth tenant in the NPPA Code of Ethics: “Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.”
The dilemma here is between treating the juvenile subject, in her time of immense grief, with respect and dignity, or intruding on her private moment of grief. Does the public have the right to see the image? If they do, do they have the need to see it. That’s the moral dilemma.
As with our last ethics assignment, I don’t see much room for middle ground. You either publish the photo or you don’t. Maybe the photographer took another picture that was less intrusive, or that cropped out the face, which could be used. Blurring out anything in the photo wouldn’t work either. Maybe you could publish the photo on the inside of your paper, rather than the front page. It is a very terrifying and striking image, vivid with emotion and candor. Some may find it disturbing, so perhaps there’s a compromise when displaying the image.
I would publish the image. From what we learned in class, the State Department reformed their policy to curb events like this in the future. That’s probably a benefit that couldn’t have been entirely predicted at the time the image was published, but something I’d consider. Killing innocent civilians is never acceptable for the American public, even when it was accidental or caused by the fog of war. Hopefully the image will lead to some kind of change, stopping needless bloodshed in the future.
I think the image is extremely powerful because of its candid nature. It really gives the reader a sense of the tragedy at the scene, and gives a glimpse into what is really going on on the ground in Iraq. This powerful horror is something I don’t think can be conveyed in writing. Saying “the girl stood screaming, drenched in blood, a look of pierced the darkness beside her shrill screaming,” is not as powerful as just seeing the image.
As for the identity of a minor, and consent, I don’t think a five-year-old understands either concept. This is another ethical gray area that I’m hung up on. Because she doesn’t understand identity or consent, she’s in no position to assess the ramifications (for her) of the photo being published. She is entirely dependent upon media to weigh her interests against the social gain or truth that would come out of the image.
When Samar saw her photo six years later, she looked horrified. However, the article didn’t focus so much on how the photo had affected her life, but how the death of her parents still haunts her. The scars on her hands and psyche would still be there without the picture. I think that’s what really matters. Also, if she hadn’t seen the picture in the six years it had existed, it doesn’t seem like it impacted her in a hugely negative manner.
The tragedy happened whether or not the picture was taken. The SPJ code of ethics tells us to pursue the truth, and to show both sides of a story. This photo is absolute truth. In a war where a majority of the media is tightly controlled by US military interest, this is a brief and intense look from a different angle. A view through a small window pane at tragedy amongst tales of triumph. The image is so truthful, and so brave, it may be hard for the public to swallow. That’s why it needs to be published.
No comments:
Post a Comment