Charlie Hebdo and The Ethics of Photo Journalism

The events that took place at Charlie Hebdo in early January were both tragic and reprehensible. With that being said, the editors of Charlie Hebdo knew what they were getting into, and they knew the possible dangers that it could present by putting this cartoon on the cover. After reading the chapter about loyalty and the use of the Potter Box in journalism, it seemed as if the editors’ values leaned toward what would net them cheap laughs, and the controversy the cover would provide to get people talking about the magazine while they sold more copy. Even after this tragic attack they went right back to the well to publish another picture not necessarily as an act of defiance, but more likely to show that they will not back down, and that the image can be tastefully shown. With that being said, murder is never the answer. I can understand having very strong feelings toward something you feel very passionate about, but not necessarily in religion or politics. And it’s definitely not a subject worth taking lives over. This is a satirical magazine. The artists get paid to create visual humor, and nobody is off limits. Nobody discussed the option of ignoring the magazine and not giving it any type of attention, and that’s disappointing because it’s one of the first things we are taught when we are young.

The photo in question did not violate any standards and practices with nudity, violence, or any other objectionable themes. Could (should) Charlie Hebdo do something about their covers in cases like this? Absolutely. If we were to use the Potter Box in deciding to run this cover, the editors know the facts, and the facts are the first stop in the Box. The fact is that those who practice Islam do not ever want Mohammed pictured in anyway. If they’re going to continue to put him on the cover they should treat editions like that the way Americans treat pornography magazines. They should put the magazine in a plastic sleeve that nobody can see through, out of the view of customers. More than likely it would not be enough, but it’s a start. If you start to regulate free speech anymore than that, speech is no longer truly free.

CASE 8-G

Midrange

1.     Moving controversial photos to the inside pages of the newspaper does allow editors more leeway in what they show in the newspapers. The decision to make that particular move is an even easier decision to make if the option is to put it inside the newspaper or to not put the picture in at all. After going through this particular case it’s easier to justify printing a photo like this as opposed to printing a crime scene that is particularly gory even if there is no body to be shown. I can understand the argument being made for this photograph with regards to the "breakfast test" because this may disturb people to see, and especially if young children see it. Moving this photograph to the inside pages of the newspaper would also give the newspaper a chance to print a disclaimer in the story on the front page warning people about the graphic nature of what they will see inside if they choose to view it.

2.     Just like the question before, newscasts warning viewers that they're about to show something graphic allows the viewer to decide whether they want to watch something graphic, or not. At the same time it allows the viewers that do want to see what's making news to satisfy their curiosity. As we have learned throughout this program pictures and video are the most useful tools to tell a story. This is especially true when these images are not staged as was the case with this Nielsen photograph.

Macro

2.   I fully support the decision to run the Nielsen photograph in the newspapers across the country. In the end it is the job of the editor to decide whether the photographer followed the rules that were discussed in this chapter. Garry Bryant has a checklist he uses when taking photos at the scene of the tragedy. This is a checklist of questions he asks in the seconds before taking the pictures (p. 190).

·         Should this moment be made public?

·         Will being photographed send the subjects into further trauma?

·         Am I the least obtrusive distance possible?

·         Am I acting with compassion and sensitivity?

If I was the editor and I thought my photographer was using this checklist to decide whether or not to run this picture, I would say that the only question that I would have struggled with was whether or not this picture would send the subjects into further trauma. My justification to this question would be that the subject in the water doesn't have any distinguishable features that would allow him to be easily identified. In discussing the "good" versus "bad" argument, Paterson considers the "bad" as "shocking the readership" in this question. I believe that in order to educate the reader, and in order to show how truly devastating Hurricane Katrina was to this area and its residents, there needs to be certain element of shock to convey the damage done by this disaster.

CASE 10-B

Micro

1.     A sports reporter most definitely should have done this interview. I take issue with how Lee Wilkins describes sports journalists in the second paragraph of this case study. He says, "Sports journalists are boosters-- of their local high school teams to professional franchises. Objectivity, or even fairness, sometimes takes a backseat to rooting for the locals” (p. 271). This is an extremely unfair portrayal of a group of people that have to go through the same journalist classes as those that cover politics, or do investigative journalism. That's not to say that there are not sports journalists who carry their team's water, but there are journalists in every field that are not completely objective or fair to the subject they're covering.

Macro

1.     I come from a small community, so the sports journalists that I'm familiar with mostly cover several different high schools as well as sporting events going on at the local Division III university. When they’re not covering games they are doing exposés on local athletes or coaches that may be going through hardships, or have a different background that the community does not know about. Often times these journalists also double up as reporters covering stories that have nothing to do with sports. This is fairly typical for somebody who is just getting started in sports journalism field. I think it is a good barometer as to how they will do for larger franchises or outlets due to the objectivity they are required to report with when covering more than one high school in the area. Since these journalists work for small local newspapers, having to cover subjects that are not related to sports can help them by doing "real" journalism. In other words, being spread out in the community works to prevent them from becoming "boosters" or fan boys.

2.     After reading this case in going through the questions I think Wilkins is confusing sports journalism with being a host on a sports highlight show like ESPN's SportsCenter. Try as they may, sports journalists do their best to practice the same ethical standards as investigative journalists, or any other non-entertainment journalist. Sports fans can spot objectivity, or a lack thereof, in reporting as well as anybody else. In fact, sports fans may be more critical of the journalists they follow if they perceive the journalist to show the slightest bit of favoritism in the subject that they are covering. The bottom line is that many sports journalists do their best to hold themselves to the same ethical standards as any other journalist, so the standard should not change.