Revised Introduction

Note: I didn't include the photo in the following two versions of the introduction, but noted where it is placed. The image is not one that I wish to add in a simple revision, out of respect for the subject matter. Thx.

I feel the revision is better than the first draft in that the ideas are worded more clearly and precisely. Some of the original sentences and phrasing were awkwardly written. I also think that the two sides of the debate were made clearer.

Introduction - draft #1

Even with the 24-hour news cycle keeping us constantly informed about world events, with its myriad of occurrences from the banal to the atrocious, there are still some images that have stood out as exceptional and have burned their likenesses into the consciousness of an entire generation of people. One such photo created a moral outcry against the very photojournalist who shot it.               

(photo and caption)             

A few months after this graphic image of the reality of famine was published in the New York Times, Carter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize amid heavy criticism from the public. When, a little over a year later, the photographer committed suicide, it was widely rumored that it was this criticism that prompted the act.

There are many important societal questions that can be asked in light of the events in Kevin Carter’s story. Many of those who were part of the outrage and attacks on his moral character would go so far as to ask if images of war, violence, famine, and suffering should even be published.  But barring censorship, how much social support ought the practice have, for the profession and for the photojournalists themselves? “Emotional detachment allowed Carter and other photojournalists to witness countless tragedies and continue the job,” notes writer Leslie Maryann Neal. “The world’s intense reactions to the vulture photo appeared to be punishment for this necessary trait.”

Introduction - revised draft:

Even with the 24-hour news cycle keeping us constantly informed about global events, with its myriad of events from the banal to the atrocious, there are some images that stand out as exceptional, their likenesses etched into the minds of an entire generation of people. One such photo, taken in Sudan in 1993, caused a moral outcry against the very photojournalist who shared it with the world, an outcry that resonates to this day.                

(photo and caption)             

A few months after this graphic image of the reality of famine was published in the New York Times, Kevin Carter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his work in photojournalism. Heavy criticism from the public followed the announcement. When, a little over a year later, Mr. Carter committed suicide, it was widely rumored that it was this criticism that prompted the act.

There are many important societal questions that must be asked in light of these events. Many of the people who so fiercely attacked Mr. Carter’s character have gone so far as to protest the publication of images of war, violence, famine, and suffering.  Such an extreme position on the subject cannot, of course, be entertained in any debate. Putting aside the non-solution of censorship, then, a much more appropriate question remains: how much social support ought the practice have, for the profession and for the photojournalists themselves?