Death, as viewed through a lens
NS January 15th, 2010
Do we really need to see photos of dead bodies in Haiti?
No, I mean it. Do we really need to see them to make us understand what’s going on there, how much devastation and human suffering are flowing through the broken, dusty streets? Do we need to see a dead schoolgirl crushed by concrete at her desk? Do we need to see a grieving, wailing father holding his dead child in his arms? Do we need to see bloody arms and footless shoes and a mother with her arms raised up into the air, knowing that at that exact moment her heart was being ripped from her chest, put through the wringer of tragedy and returned to her, broken and forever shadowed by her loss?
But now, particularly since I’ve had children, I find looking at photos like the one above, from the New York Daily News, very difficult and almost voyeuristic. Who am I that I should be seeing this man’s face as he holds his dead child to his chest? Then again, who am I to protest that I don’t want to see it?
If we’d just read the headlines, with no photos, would we care as much? If we hadn’t seen the faces of the people who survived, those who are homeless and injured and searching for missing loved ones, would we be digging into our pockets to give them whatever money we are able to?
I’m divided on this issue. As a journalism student at university, I sat through many an ethics lecture. I even took an entire class devoted to the ethics of covering tragedies and natural disasters. Every time we debated a controversial photo, the room was divided: half of us thought it was unethical, gratuitous, unnecessary, sensationalist; the other half thought they were a necessary, often useful evil. What better way to get people’s attention and make them understand what’s happening than to let the images do the talking? Why write three pages trying to describe the devastation when one picture says it all? Isn’t it a journalist’s responsibility to fully report and visually convey the situation they’re covering?
I used to think it was. I was in the latter group, the ones who, though saddened and disturbed by some of the more graphic photos, found they helped the public more fully understand the situation and emotionally connect to the subjects. Especially in incidents where survivors need help and donations, using photos to convey the urgency of the situation is appealing. And it works. Studies have shown that people give more when they are confronted with images of human suffering; they just aren’t as interested if what they’re presented with is an abstract thought, a far-away problem in some far-away place.
But that still begs the question: is it ethical? Is it right to put human suffering in all its raw immediacy on the front page, especially when a newspaper is making a profit from the sales of that image? Does it disgrace and dishonour those whom it portrays? Or does it tell the stories of those in the photos; let everyone know that they are there — hurting, bleeding, grieving, dying…but there?
I’m still not sure. My journalism roots say we need to see this, we need to care. But then I find myself, in the last few days of doing my day job (in which I have to look at dozens of newspapers’ front pages), doing my work with tears streaming down my face and my stomach churning. Another foot. Another arm. Another parent’s child, crushed by chaos. Another man’s struggle to clear debris while looking for his wife or sister, furiously digging with his bare hands, looking for a scrap of clothing or an inch of flesh that he recognises.
This is death, as viewed through a lens. Should we put the cap back on it and leave those mourning in Haiti their privacy, or should we continue to stare down the tragedy telescope in the hopes that it convinces others to donate?
What are your thoughts?
- In The News , Miscellaneous Missives
- Comments(35)
I have similar feelings, and as a parent, I find it appalling that dead children are photographed. We still owe the victims their dignity.
What’s more there’s a race issue. How many dead white children have we ever seen after a disaster?
The main thing is to keep the debate going. Personally, I think that some images may be justified (not the ones you’ve linked to, I find them very disturbing), but that many I’ve seen were not and were taking the dignity of people away. Have those photographed consented to the use of the image in the way it is used? Can they consent if they are grief struck? Do we, the viewers as a whole, demand those kind of images and are the news channels just giving us what we want?
Often, showing less can tell more and there are ways of making connections (and getting donations) without showing the full impact of the suffering. But can journalists deliver this on tight time scales?
Balance. There must be balance. As a photographer (not journalistic… but still) I could tell you I would never think to myself (if put in that situation) “this picture is going to SELL!” I would be thinking how this shows our shared humanity… which is so important in our self-centered, indulgent society to be reminded of time and again.
However, that being said, there needs to be a time to put down the camera and show respect. Photographers need to look at the image and say…. ok… what does this image convey. It is voyeurism, exploitation of pain? Or is it something more? Does it speak to a larger message? Is it respectful?
Thank you for sharing.
I’m also really divided on this. I saw the pictures. It’s horrifying. Part of me thinks “WHY would you stand there and take a picture?! That’s inhuman!” But another part of me thinks “The people there cannot avoid these images – and we will never understand their pain and need until we see them as well.”
So I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t know that there is a right answer. Like most ethical issues, there is rarely a perfect answer.
I suppose, for historical documentation purposes, it’s better to have the pictures than not. That’s where I arrive if forced to come to a conclusion.
I think that those particular photos are too much, too invasive to the individuals portrayed. In my isolated world of news, the new York times and public radio, I had not even seen such images up to ths point, but am still reeling from the enormity of the tragedy. Photography is powerful and an essential component of modern journalism, but it can go too far.
Though I suppose if photos like those prompt people to act and donate money, maybe they are justified. I’m inclined to say not.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Amity Reed and Amity Reed, Melissa Wardy. Melissa Wardy said: RT @thenoblesavage: New blog post: 'Death, as viewed from a lens'. Are these photos coming from Haiti ethical? http://tinyurl.com/yk974yc [...]
I have to admit that I have stayed very far away from the Haiti print articles and television stories and have only barely managed to listen to a radio story about it…because of the dead bodies.
As is often the case, I am unable to separate myself and my own personal history from a debate like the one you are raising. At 8 months pregnant, I can not bear to see dead bodies, particularly of children. As a mother, my heart breaks for the families whose loved ones are used in these images. And as a survivor of a tragedy myself, in my experience, long after the immediate devastation and life is being rebuilt, those pictures come back time and time again to reawaken hurt.
Growing up in Iowa, pictures of dead bodies was actually not allowed on TV and in the media (no legal reason, just considered in very bad taste). I don’t feel that it meant we responded less to tragedy, it just meant that we didn’t need the graphic details of it.
What does it say about your society now that its felt we have to see the dead to really understand the full effects of the devastation?
@ Heather – there were plenty of white children photographed during the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, and other pictures affected by earthquakes in Kazakhstan etc.
Personally I think it is about dignity. If I had been that school girl I would not want the world to see me in this state and she has no opportunity to express that. I would hate to have the press intruding on moments of such intense emotion as demonstrated by the other photos.
But occasionally there is a need to document what has happened. This is not to say it needs to be widely publicised. For example, in the conflicts in Bosnia, photographs of Arkan’s men kicking the body of a Muslim man they had recently killed was important to demonstrate that ethnic cleansing was occurring.
This is not a new debate. The photographer Kevin Carter who took that famous picture of the starving Sudanese child being watched by a vulture was heavily criticised for not doing more to help the child. He later committed suicide.
For an idea of the wider debate surrounding the media and the way in which they report disasters, conflict and death I recommend reading Susan Moeller’s Compassion Fatigue.
It’s a difficult one. I haven’t been able to watch the news or read the papers since I heard about the earthquake. Since I became a mother it breaks my heart even to think about the suffering of these people. I haven’t seen these images, but I can imagine. If by showing them it prompts people into responding then it has served its purpose, but I don’t need to see it to know that these people need our help.
I think the world has shown its capacity to ignore suffering & need so many times over, that the pictures are necessary to (maybe) jolt people into an action. If people are able to ignore it they will. Is that unduly cynical? My partner & I argued about this – sort of – last night, when he changed the channel from the DEC advert, because he couldn’t stand to watch it. I couldn’t stand to be turning away.
i was going to say some of what Brit in Bosnia said.
suffering is everywhere – does documenting it *inherently* strip people of dignity? or is that partly our own feelings of guilt speaking?
when hurricane katrina hit, and there were horrible pictures of floating, swollen bodies everywhere, and people’s evident, shocking suffering, were people asking the same questions about “dignity”? i remember lots of people talking about rage and horror, but not “dignity”. or is it something we only assume requires more sensitivity in poor countries?
i don’t know, just wondering. and would anything have FINALLY been done if not for those hideous pictures? would the vietnam war have ended without photos like this and this?
photos are just photos – i think it’s how we interpret them that matters most.
ooops, messed up that last link. it’s the famous Kent State picture, with the woman grieving over the slain student.
I will reply to everyone a bit later but just wanted to quickly reply to you, Jen. I get what you’re saying and am inclined to agree but I do have a harder time processing the images lately, or thinking they aren’t at least a bit sensationalist.
I thought I remembered you being vociferously against the photos the media printed during 9/11 of people jumping from windows, etc..? How is this different?
I think that some photos do go too far. I wouldn’t want to be the parent of that schoolgirl seeing that photo over and over, having to face the horror my child suffered. Showing the bodies lying in the rubble is disrespectful. Photojournalists should be very cautious to capture the true essence of the story without crossing that line of disrespect. However, I think the human expression of grief and horror shown in photos of the survivors serves to jolt the collective conscience of the world into action. It is a necessary part of journalism, and one that I think the survivors would approve for the most part because they are desperate to convey how horrible their situation really is. If you are not there to see a disaster in person it is very difficult to fathom the extent of the destruction in one’s mind. The photos make a human connection to a story that needs our immediate attention.
One other comment. There is the risk of news overload when broadcasters air the disaster 24/7. It gets to the point that people tune it out and turn it off because they can only take so much. That is when people lose interest and move on to other things, not because they don’t care, but because they can’t cope. Tuning out will not serve the Haitian people in their most desperate time of need. Broadcasters need to be careful that they bring us the necessary details and not turn it into an endless drone.
@Brit in Bosnia I respect the fact that the news coverage you receive or have received may have shown more white victims.
I still have my doubts that the Washington Post would have put a picture of a young girl with her skull crushed under the weight of a building on the front page if she had been white.
My issue is not so much with the photojournalist, but with the editors who have more than a few pictures to choose from.
I completely understand what you are saying – Time magazine has a series of pictures, and there is one of a woman carrying her child with her breasts exposed. I don’t think this would have been available if it were a picture of a white woman in the same situation.
But – the short answer is these pictures ARE essential. There is a reason that photographers were the sent in first to camps such as Auschwitz after liberation – because what is happening is beyond the realms of human comprehension and a picture is a shorthand way of capturing a situation.
The most upset I have become recently was listening to a report from Haiti from a R4 reporter. I was trying to get the kids ready for school with tears streaming down my face. The reporter was obviously upset and it translated.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by pigtailpals: RT @thenoblesavage: New blog post: ‘Death, as viewed from a lens’. Are these photos coming from Haiti ethical? http://tinyurl.com/yk974yc...
To see those images of people dead and suffering, there is a lack of dignity about it. If it were me or my child would I want that on the front page of a newspaper? My grief and pain, my most personal and private of moments spread out like that for all the world to see without a choice over whether the images were used. well, no. But if on the other hand it helped other people, people that were suffering as I was, or people that had outlived me in my death, other children that had outlived mine but were going to suffer on because of the devastation, then i would like to think I would be, not happy, that’s not the right word, but okay with seeing that image there knowing it was doing something to help others.
The shock factor sells. I think it’s unethical to invade people’s suffering and misery in this way. I don’t need to see these images and I avoid them. I remember the furore over the photos in the press of victims of the Hillsborough disaster. Papers were forced to apologise. It was unacceptable to show suffering so close to home. But overseas and for different cultures a different rule seems to apply. Is it ok to use these images if it’s proven to raise more money for the cause? I don’t know, maybe the permission of grieving families should be required first.
It’s difficult. I also feel very upset by some of the pictures, and in fact have been avoiding news coverage of the disaster in Haiti. I completely understand why some people feel it’s gratuitous and unnecessary.
I do believe though that ultimately journalists and photographers have a duty to report the reality of what’s happening. That is their job. I don’t think they should try to prettify it, or dilute it, in order to protect me and my sensibilities.
My problem is with how disturbing images can be used in such a cynical fashion though. It often feels to me that the more sensational pictures are used on front covers in order to generate better sales, which is completely demeaning to the people in those photos, wether dead or alive.
Thanks for such a thought provoking post.
My feeling is that some of it should be shown in order to truly understand the scale of this. I’d feel the same if it happened in ANY country, including my own. No matter what race.
The government of Haiti has let it’s people down. Mass graves. Disgusting. What can be done? It’s HORRIFIC and I don’t think that words can convey anything as well as images. Images of bodies being dumped out of a dump truck like rubbish.
Someone posted earlier on balance. That’s a good idea. But who decides what that balance is? If these images are being used to generate more sales, then that’s absolutely shameful.
Interesting topic to ponder further.
@ Heather.
I totally agree, the editors hold the responsibility for making the decision and in this case it was unnecessary.
I do think though that it isn’t a case of racism that governs their decision. I think if the tragedy had been an American one they would not have shown an American citizen in that way. However, were it to have been Chechnya, Bosnia or any one of those more distant, less developed countries, they would consider the photo. I’m thinking of some of the photos of the seige in Beslan that made the papers for example.
One of the things that the photos do perpetuate a sense that in these countries, the countries that editors feel they can print the more graphic images from, they are less developed and in some way less able. So Africa is forever associated with famine and not so readily associated with its vibrant cultures and music of their more usual day to day lives.
[...] Noble Savage » Blog Archive » Death, As Viewed Through A LensI also feel very upset by some of the pictures, and in fact have been avoiding news covera… [...]
@NS – funny you should mention that, because i almost linked to pics from both 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, but then decided Katrina was more analagous, as a natural disaster.
my point about the 9/11 stuff (if i recall correctly) was that it was for the 1st “anniversary”, and people were already making films and shows about it, and *that* felt exploitative and too soon for such images, particularly since many people were still in a state of shock, even a year later.
i guess i’ve heard a lot lately about how the coverage is stripping Haitians of their dignity… and i have a hard time understanding what’s inherently undignified about being the victim of a natural disaster.
i feel as though a lot of lefties (myself included in that category) are so sensitive about not portraying people as poor=incapable, that we sometimes lose sight of the actual facts.
the facts are that they *don’t* have the resources to cope with this event, they *do* have a government which is inept and an infrastructure which is highly corrupted. the fact is people *are* dying for lack of basic food/sanitation/shelter.
people only lose their dignity when you don’t treat them with any.
now yes, news outlets make money off the news, and to a certain unavoidable extent off of disaster and suffering. but they also exist to communicate a story. hopefully they try to do that in an honest but sensitive way. and “sensitivity” is such a subjective notion, that everyone’s tolerance will be different.
i suppose what i would also HOPE to see is photos of Haitians pulling together to help, pictures of people who survived in spite of the odds, people who are working to rebuild and renew. THAT would demonstrate a balanced viewpoint to me.
but ultimately, i feel like if people are dead and dying in horrible conditions, it doesn’t serve them (or their families) any to elide that, to avoid showing it because we’re too worried about *our own* sensitivities. while there is an obligation to show balance, there is also an obligation to honour the truth.
okay, enough waffle from me
sorry for the ramble!
I fully understand the point you are making. The images are horrific and I would strongly argue that printing some of the them strikes me as distasteful and disrespectful to the dead. Your last post hit home the horror of rape without any images being required, but in this case people need to actually see what horrors are going on in Haiti, I think the shock value does help people understand what is doing on and the urgent need to donate if they can. Of course careful consideration needs to be given to the images used, and clearly this is not happening in many cases.
I don’t think photos of human suffering are anything more than voyeuristic and invasive. Do they make people give any more? Do they shake people up any more? I don’t think so. All it does is makes us more immune to horror. We could all understand the suffering just as much without seeing photos of people’s dead children and relatives. The imagined is often far more appalling than the real. I’m not sure that I agree with disseminating links to such photos either to be really honest. Interesting post though nonetheless.
[...] journalism, op-ed, reporting by dadwhowrites Noble Savage, whose blog I greatly admire, stuck her head above the parapet to question the nature of some of the reporting that’s gone on about the appalling tragedy in [...]
I’ve blogged about this as my comment ran on, but I feel that the reporting and commentary have taken a wrong turn and that your post is a welcome and sensitive corrective.
@Heather – Good point, and one I meant to raise in the post. The only photo of a dead white child I can think of in recent memory is the firefighter carrying a lifeless little girl out of the ruins of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
@cartside – It’s hard to say whether the media gives us what we want or if we’re simply subjected to what they *think* we want. I think the press should call a moratorium on these kinds of images and see if it doesn’t affect their ratings or news coverage at all. I bet it wouldn’t.
@Corina – I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. There has to be balance.
@TheFeministBreeder – It really is a tough one, isn’t it?
@Geekymummy – The thing is, both ‘respectable’ and ‘trashy’ newspapers do it. I wish it were as easy as just not reading certain publications.
@slugs on the refrigerator – I’m sorry for your personal tragedies that make this even harder to view.
@Brit in Bosnia – Oh yes, I remember hearing about Kevin Carter committing suicide over that picture. So sad. It’s a tough call for journalists and it’s often a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ kind of situation.
@Sandy Calico – I can understand wanting to stay away from the coverage.
@anna – The last line of your comment sums up the dilemma well — do we turn away in respect or do we owe people enough respect not to?
@Lyn – Beautifully said and well-articulated, as usual.
@Heather – Again, I agree with you on that count. I really don’t think WaPo would have put a dead white (American) girl on the front page. My issue is mainly with the editors as well.
@earwicga – I’m not sure if the Auschwitz analogy works since that was a man-made atrocity that many people didn’t believe had actually happened or weren’t aware of, whereas earthquakes are pretty indisputable.
@Emily O – Good point re: Hillsborough.
@Gappy – I agree.
@JMIH – I disagree that the Haitian government is disrespecting its people by burying them in mass graves. It’s obviously not ideal to be dealing with the bodies in this way but what are they supposed to do? Leaving them there would only hasten the spread of disease and contamination of what little water supplies there are and the resources and man power required to give them all proper burials would take away tremendously from the help that should be directed at the living.
@jen – Thank you for clarifying. I respect your view and, intellectually at least, mostly agree with it. But man oh man if it doesn’t get me round the aortic valves and make me all lachrymose.
@Rosie – That’s the thing isn’t it — “careful consideration” is not used nearly enough, I think.
@PVLIF – I’m sorry if linking to the photos upset anyone but I couldn’t very well talk about them without providing some kind of reference, which is why I put a link up instead of embedding it into the post; that way people had a choice whether to click on it or not. As it is, the links are dead now. Thanks for your comment!
@Dad Who Writes – Thank you, and thanks for continuing the discussion. I read your post and will comment shortly.
I’m torn, the images are so powerful they do push people to action but there is an element of not putting out images that are intrusive and borderline offensive
I hate that in this media saturated age we need images like these in order to get a reaction
I’ve been shocked by the images coming out of Haiti. Obviously the subject matter couldn’t be more shocking, but the chasing of the emotive story has seemed incredibly insensitive. Just one example: footage of a congregation outside the church arguing over whether to bury or burn the body of their preacher. In the end, they showed the body being dumped into a tangle of other bodies in a pit. How did this deepen understanding? And broadcast before 7pm, which meant my children saw most of it. I understand the argument about needing to show the full horror to make people react to it: ‘Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America – not on the battlefields of Vietnam’ (Marshall McLuhan). But there’s also the argument about ‘disaster fatigue’, not to mention being unable to mentally formulate the horror when shown endless twisted corpses. In the meantime, I guess we all keep giving and perhaps a silver lining will be improved lives for those left behind when the media circus moves on.
After the 9/11 attacks I watched the towers crumble a hundred times, numb and dazed, for days. A few days later I vowed to never see that again. If a commemorative coin commercial, news show, or a blog uses the image of the towers ablaze, I turn it off or close the page immediately, even 8 and a half years later. I simply can’t stomach it.
This past 9/11 anniversary was the same for me. I was very angry when I kept tripping across the tower images on blogs I read and I sent gentle, yet firm, emails to them telling them I found it in bad taste. They apologized and replaced that particular image with something less emotional. (And yes, I know my emotional might not be everyone’s emotional, but there are some common ground among us all as you’ve mentioned.)
I think there’s an expiration date to seeing raw pain and carnage. I’m not clicking on your links deliberately because I have already seen them somewhere and they are tattooed on my brain. I think after a few days journalists should switch to the survivors fighting, not mourning in open mouthed agony.
But that’s just me. I’m a little bit the necessary evil camp and a lot of the it’s not ethical camp.