Whatever it Takes

Apart from being a photojournalist, we all are human beings. We all expect something from others whether it is sympathy during time of suffering or money in time of need. In both these situations, the subjects and the photojournalists wanted their images to be published. They wanted the world to know about their conditions and injustice going on.

The reaction of Aline as mentioned in the article - "all of a sudden I hear 'clickclickclickclickclick' all over the place. And there are people in the bushes, all around me, and they are photographing me, and now I'm pissed. I felt like a zoo animal" was normal. The job of a photojournalist is to illustrate the clear and concise picture of the situation, but as a human being we should respect the feelings and privacy of others as well. I believe if it was any one photojournalist taking her photo, the scenario would be different. In the race of taking good photos for their publications, photojournalists neglected the simple law of human behavior that she needed good conversation, rather than her photo being taken by people.

Similarly, as mentioned in the video, the women standing with the banner “work for food” wanted her photo to be taken, as justified by her reply. However, as a good human being and developing sympathy towards the subject, Professor Nordell gave her some money to help her. Furthermore, he gave the money after taking the photograph, being concerned about the ethics of photojournalism.

The main essence of photojournalism is to provide clear and concise image of truth to general public and leave its interpretation up to them. The basic difference between words and images is that words involve our views, but images should not. In modern day, many photojournalists alter photographs to create different effects to the general public. Whether it is the image of a skull by Arthur Rothstein, or the cover of a National Geographic magazine discussed in the video, they do not provide a clear and concise picture of the truth. In both cases, the editor or photojournalist inserted their own viewpoints. They are not following the code of ethics of NPPA, which clearly states that images should be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.

Yes, it is okay to put our life in danger or get in trouble by trespassing someone’s private property, in order to be the eye of the common people and present the image unhampered and unaltered. Distorting images for financial benefits not only violates the ethics of photojournalism, but also removes the credibility of people from this profession.