Analyzing Context

Key Perspectives
and Major points
Two key perspectives on this issue can be briefly stated as such: the public's right to know vs. the right to privacy. These perspectives aren't exclusive to any one group or demographic, although both do have characteristics, or values, that are typical of one or the other. A basic idea of the first perspective states that it is a duty and an obligation to call attention to the issues at hand, such as violent conflict, particularly if the conflict is unpopular in the international arena. Likewise, a basic idea of the second is that the victims of tragedy have a human right to privacy and dignity. When the issue being focused on has particularly disturbing images to accompany it, the division between the two sides intensifies.

Another perspective stems from competition concerns. There is no doubt, states this perspective, that there is a market for such images. If the stories and images don't come from one source, it reasons, they will come from another. Ethics aren't much of a factor in the strictest sense, only in the sense that public outrage or distaste will override any short-term gain.

A major point for the 'right to know' side of the debate is that if the photographer has no chance of actually helping a victim, there is no obligation to make the attempt, particularly if doing so compromises the safety of others.

An interesting point that may not be a main point, but one I'd like to include in my analysis, is the question of relevance. It challenges the notion that the public knowing about what is occurring will not change the situation because it is not, strictly speaking, truth, but an interpretation of one moment in an endless timeline.

Possible points of agreement are mostly ethereal in nature. Truth is a staggeringly complex concept, as is perception, but the idea of giving information to those who have an interest in knowing it is common to the different sides of the argument. Concern, whether professional or moral, is also a common thread; the subjects are those who are experiencing something that is harmful to themselves and the larger society, and it is a shared view that such situations must be stopped if possible. It seems to follow that the more complex the debate gets, the clearer the opposing ideas are delineated.

Ideas of morality and practicality seem to differ between the two main sides, even though each has its own manifestation in ideological thought. This manifestation highlights the different interpretations of these two ideas. For instance, a person who protests the publication of controversial material may see morality as not harming any further the victims portrayed; even though they understand the significance of practicality, the concept isn't as important as morality. Practicality, likewise, may be viewed as indifference to the suffering of others by ideologically moral people, while others downplay or ignore the idea of morality if it isn't feasible.

The perspective of the public's right to know asks the audience to demand not only information but objective truth in this information. It also asks for activism inspired by this information, and passing on the issue to others who weren't aware until then. The perspective of the right to privacy asks for protest or advocacy for victims.

The perspectives useful to my argument are those that value the people's right to know. The issues cannot and will not be addressed unless they are made public. Knowledge is the beginning of change, and of wisdom. True, may not aways result in change for the better, but it has no chance at all if it is not known.

Photojournalism has always been controversial, but with the onset of digitalization and the increasing number or outlets willing, or feeling pressured, to publish controversial material, the profession has suffered a loss of credibility. There are more than enough examples of fraud and incompetency to give this argument some heft.