The ethics of publishing disturbing photographs

¶ … Ethics of Publishing Disturbing Photographs

Looting the truth: Post-Katrina photography in New Orleans

Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters to impact the United States in recent memory. The photojournalists present in New Orleans at the time found a rich source of narrative images as residents attempted to cope with the crisis. However, no image can tell the whole story of an individual's life: every image by definition is only a limited snapshot of reality, selected and taken out of the context. As in the case of every historical event, a depicted person's response is not representative of the subject's entire existence. There is always a real human being behind a photograph: a photograph is only a symbol, and no person is merely a symbol in his or her everyday life. No resident can be reduced to his or her response in the wake of Katrina, no matter how shocking the event -- or the image. The ethics of using disturbing photographs demands that photographers consider how the public will perceive the photographs and not that all information is valued simply because it is 'more news.'

During Hurricane Katrina, many people were used as symbols by the news media. One picture, meant to show the lawlessness provoked in the wake of the chaos of the natural disaster showed a young black man, who, according to the accompanying caption, was walking through "chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store" ("Hurricane Katrina and the 'Two-Photo Controversy,'" Media Awareness, 2010). The young man had a case of Pepsi under one arm and a full garbage bag, presumably of food, in his other hand -- at least according to the caption. The photograph was taken by Dave Martin of the Associated Press and published by Yahoo! News. According to Yahoo! "It is Yahoo!'s policy to use photo captions that are provided by the photographers and not edit them before posting the images online" ("Hurricane Katrina and the 'Two-Photo Controversy,'" Media Awareness, 2010). But how did Yahoo know that the young man was a looter? After all, the photograph merely showed him mid-stream, holding on what seemed to be his only belongings in the world. It was not clear where he was coming or going, only that he was half-drowning in the midst of water and desperate to obtain what was in his grasp. The perception created by the publication, despite Yahoo's protestations, reinforced cultural stereotypes and calls into question the ethics of the photo's publication.

The photographer stated that he "personally witnessed the subject of his photograph entering a grocery store and leaving with items, thus witnessing the man looting" although it remains unclear how the photographer defined 'looting,' other than not paying for items in a severely damaged city where entire buildings were under water, swept away, or leveled ("Hurricane Katrina and the 'Two-Photo Controversy,'" Media Awareness, 2010). AP Wire was effectively forced to take the man's story on faith, as they would for any other reporter or witness 'on the scene.' But in contrast to the subject of a news story, where a balanced perspective may be given, as one point-of-view may be nuanced by another point-of-view, a photograph of a supposedly 'looting' man creates an indelible image rather than provokes debate and thought. Moreover, unlike an interview, the young man cannot offer his view of his actions, he merely exists on the page to be judged by the viewer, rather than is allowed to articulate and judge what is transpiring around him, like the subject of an interview. Photographers must recognize the distinction of their media, versus print journalism.

The photograph of the 'looting' man in post-Katrina New Orleans became particularly controversial because of its unintended juxtaposition with another photograph, taken almost at the same time by another photographer, for another news agency. The second photo, depicted a white couple, also wading through chest-deep water, holding food, but, it was said, "after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store" ("Hurricane Katrina and the 'Two-Photo Controversy,'" Media Awareness, 2010). How does someone 'find' food, presumably without paying, given the devastated nature of the town, where many houses and businesses had been washed away? How is such an act of finding different than looting? Only the caption of the photo can suggest something else is going on, only the selective presentation of the photographer and the news organization using the photograph can suggest something different.

As with the photograph of the young, black 'looter,' the previous context of the white couple is not evident from the photograph, other than the fact that they were suffering, desperate, and hungry. Chris Graythen, the photographer of the white couple, stated that although he did not see them in the act of taking the food, "I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word…There were a million items floating in the water -- we were right near a grocery store that had 5+ feet of water in it. It had no doors. The water was moving, and the stuff was floating away. These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics. They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow" ("Hurricane Katrina and the 'Two-Photo Controversy,'" Media Awareness, 2010). Finding is a more morally neural word, of course, than looting, and in Graythen's view, reflected the ambiguity of the scene.

But surely the '5+ deep in water supermarket' scenario was also true of the young man holding the case of Pepsi, wading waist-deep, holding a garbage bag. Of course his photographer said he had seen the man 'looting,' but given the state of New Orleans at the time, it is worth asking if the man's circumstances were really any different than that of the white couple's. It was the perception of the photographers that were different, not the likely actions of the individuals in the photographs. The viewer of a photograph is not privy to seeing the state of the grocery store or the city when the food was being taken, to judge for him or herself the weight of either the young man's or the couple's crime. Only the image and the photographer could judge them, as the photo created an image of life, frozen in time.

Of course, a verbally-told story is also filtered through a journalist's perception, and is a mere version of the truth as well. But the perception created by photographs is that they have an additional level of 'fact-based' truthfulness, because of the common cultural notion that 'seeing is believing,' that 'a picture is worth a thousand words,' and that 'eyes don't like.' But a subtly worded caption can change the perceptions of the viewer to distort the truth even of a visually-rendered tale. "Photojournalism has a long and cherished tradition of truthfulness. The impact of the visual image on a viewer comes directly from the belief that the "camera never lies." As a machine, the camera faithfully and unemotionally records a moment in time. But a machine is only as truthful as the hands that guide it" (Lester 1999).