Photojournalism Case Studies

As life passes by
A journalist's role: watch and wait
Sometimes journalists need to give up their positions on the sidelines and intervene in events
theyre covering. The difficulty is knowing when.
By Deni Elliott
Given the choice of shooting a picture or saving a life, what do you do? Photojournalist Ross
Baughman says that if youre on the job, theres no quandary. You shoot the picture, of course.
Although Im queasy about how the theory plays out in extreme circumstances, I think
Baughman is right. Society needs one profession charged with documenting reality. If were
going to do a good job of governing ourselves, we need representations that are neither hidden in
shadows nor painted by hype. Journalists cant provide that without the special privilege of
watching lifes drama from the sidelines. They cant provide that without the special obligation
to stay out of lifes way.
Sometimes journalists should come to the aid of an individual, but in general, they should put
their duty to document first, even if someone is hurt or killed. And, not only should journalists be
free from prosecution when they witness crimes, they should be praised for their willingness to
put their own physical and psychic safety aside to provide a look at the underbelly of life.
More than a decade ago, Baughman, then a photographer for AP, persuaded a Rhodesian cavalry
unit to let him accompany them on a mission into the interior. It was rumored that the white army
was torturing and killing black civilians. The army denied the charges and the civilians werent
talking.
Dressed like the soldiers so that he could be inconspicuous, Baughman photographed the 25-man
unit while they burned down homes and tortured men, women and children. His photos won a
Pulitzer Prize. His choice not to intervene won him international disfavor.
Baughman says that he could have stopped some of the atrocities, if he had been so inclined. "I
would have been able to make the soldiers feel inhibited. I could have said, Gee, fellows, do you
think this is necessary?"
Or he could have protected the victims. "It would have been possible for me to poke my head
into the next hut and shoo the people out the back, giving them a few extra seconds," Baughman
said.
But he knew that style of reporting would have offered no more than what people already knew.
Its no surprise that military units use threats to achieve their ends. "If youre going to find out if
theyre really going to pull the trigger, you have to wait," Baughman said.

With photos and stories, voters need to be brought face-to-face with parts of reality that they
would like to deny. The disenfranchised, those living outside of the law, need their stories
presented and their faces shown.
What entices people to attend dog fights? Whats going on in the minds of young gang members
who make city streets unsafe? We wont get answers waiting for these people to come forward
and explain themselves. The explanations provided by arresting officers are obviously suspect.
Yet we dont fully understand our society unless we get these stories from the perpetrators point
of view.
Journalists should watch and wait when the reality they are collecting is information that citizens
need and when they alone can be trusted to get that information out.
No one questioned the judgment of the photojournalists who, in 1963, shot pictures of Buddhist
monks who self-immolated in protest of the Vietnam War. The world needed that statement.
However, 20 years later, when two Jacksonville, Alabama videographers shot tape while a man
attempted suicide by dousing himself with lighter fluid and lighting a match, the community was
appalled that no one interceded.
In the second instance, the journalists should have put the mans life first. The drunken, out-ofwork roofers story of individual despair did not carry the same weight the same need to be
told at all costs as the story of a religious group giving lives in protest of war.
But the line that separates one from the other is not that distinct. How about if six people had
attempted suicide in the park? What if the roofer said that he was protesting some social ill?
What if photojournalists happened upon the monk alone in a field rather than before a crowd of
hundreds on a street in Saigon?
When journalists stumble upon life-threatening scenes with no context within which to judge
whats going on, they should help if theyre needed. But when they set out to do a story that they
think may involve crime or pain, they should be prepared to watch rather than to react.
Society needs journalists who put professional duty before their desire to help. Its the same kind
of need that society has for attorneys who are willing to defend those guilty of heinous crimes,
despite their own horror at the crimes committed.
At times, playing the role of observer and documenter of events can be a dirty job, but its the
journalists job to do it.

A photo that had to be used

Anatomy of a newspaper's decision
A photograph captures an event as no words can. But should the photo be used if it will cause
pain to the already grieving family of the pictures subject?
By Robin Hughes, editor
[Online editor's note: After a shooting spree at Standard Gravure by one of the printing
company's former employees, The Courier-Journal published a front-page photograph of one of
the victims. The photograph showed the dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs,
his arms spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper.
The photograph prompted more than 500 complaints and a lawsuit - won by The Courier-Journal
- that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Although the photo was republished in the original
FineLine case, The Courier-Journal has denied permission to republish the photo here. A copy of
the photograph can be seen in FineLine, October 1989, p. 3.]
When Louisville Courier-Journal photo and graphics editor C. Thomas Hardin saw the
photograph of the shooting victim lying dead on the floor of Standard Gravure, he knew that it
was a "photo that had to be used."
To Hardin, the picture captured the horror of September 14 when a disgruntled former employee
of the printing company walked into the plant with an AK-47 military assault rifle and turned it
into a killing ground. In a half-hour shooting spree, the gunman wounded 13 and killed 7 before
turning a pistol on himself. (Another victim later died.)
"In 25 years, I dont remember a situation in our coverage area where an event was so tragic or
public, " Hardin said. "Coupled with the national debate on automatic weapons, the use of the
photo was validated. "
Readers quickly let the newspaper know that they disagreed and did not appreciate the vivid
reminder of the previous days events on the front page of their morning paper.
How would you feel if it was your relatives body, asked many callers to The Courier-Journal.
Showing a body is in taste bad and insensitive to the victims family and friends, others said.
The victims family has since filed suit, alleging that the newspaper intentionally and recklessly
inflicted mental distress on the family and that publication of the photo was an invasion of their
privacy.
Don Frazier, president of the Graphics Communications International Union of which the photos
subject was a member, calls the picture "obscene." He said he "was shocked to see it."
"This man was my friend and I know what it [the photo] did to me. I kept thinking whats this
going to do to his family? Why did they have to show his face? They could at least put a shirt or

a sheet over him. . .Weve got over 100 members at Standard and I havent heard one of them say
anything good about that picture."
In the week following the shootings, the newspaper was inundated with 580 calls and letters, the
overwhelming majority opposed to the picture. "Some people said they thought we ran the photo
just to sell newspapers," said Editor David Hawpe.
Hawpe emphasized the decision was made after careful consideration and discussion with other
editors, some of whom voiced the same concerns about insensitivity that hed later hear from
readers. "We did think about the impact such a picture might have on the family and friends of
the victim," Hawpe said. "And we also thought about the need to confront readers in our
community with the full consequences of gun violence."
This larger public purpose took precedence, Hawpe decided. "I talked with the [victim's] family
to explain why His widow rejected my reasonsI deeply regretted any pain the photo caused
them."
Hawpe said, "We thought that after the first edition we could always change our minds if we felt
we made a mistake."
But no change was made.
"The photo did what I wanted it to do by showing the reality of what assault weapons are capable
of," Hawpe said. "A less graphic photograph would not have been as effective."
Photo editor Hardin agrees. "We dont make a habit of blood and gore, or showing pictures of
accidents, it goes against our tradition. But this photograph was tasteful and dramatic. . . in the
same vein as some of the Vietnam photos which brought home the horrors of that war."
After articles were published explaining Hawpes reasons for using the photograph, more
positive calls and letters trickled in. The wife of another man killed by the gunman made a trip to
the newspaper to deliver a letter stating her support. Sarah Wible, widow of James Wible, wrote:
"I would want people to remember that my husband died violently senselessly and I dont
want anyone to forget it."
Union president Frazier concedes that "maybe the picture did raise the consciousness of some
about gun violence like he [Hawpe] said he meant to do. "
Frazier adds, "We [Standard Gravure employees] dont need our consciousness raised, we were
there ."
Considering the reaction of the public and the photo subjects family, would The CourierJournal publish the photograph again? "Yes, Id do the same thing again," Hawpe said. "I am
comfortable with our decision. No, thats not the right word. We made a defensible decision."

Naked came the rider

When readers complain about a photo, they usually say the picture was too much. In this case,
they complained there was not enough.
By Robin Hughes, editor
When The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star published a photograph of a nude man mowing
his grass, some people complained about the coverage, or actually, the lack of it. It wasnt
exactly naked rage, but about 60 readers said they found the photo offensive; some felt it was
even pornographic.
The photo, which was four columns wide and about 6 inches deep, ran on the front page of the
local news section. The subject of the photo is a member of a clothing-optional group. His
decision to do his yardwork in the buff landed him in court on charges of indecent exposure.
Assistant Managing Editor Ron Speer said the decision to run the photo required no "soulsearching." He simply looked at the picture closely "to make sure nothing was revealed that
shouldnt be."
After the initial round of complaints, the Norfolk newspapers decided to ask readers whether the
photograph offended them. Using Infoline, the newspapers telephone information service, 4,361
calls were logged 65 percent of them disagreeing with the readers who said that the photo was
in bad taste.
One supporter responded, "Once again, we have 60 people out of how many in your readership
trying to tell me what I should read. I find that more offensive than any picture." Another reader
said, "To me its not as bad as some of the photos the newspaper runs when there has been a
tragic accident." From another supporter: "Neither my 95-year-old mother nor I thought the
picture was offensive. To tell the truth, the first thing I thought of was, He isnt afraid of skin
cancer."
A "pro-photo" caller who said she was the 83-year-old mother of two sons said she found the
picture of the man "perfectly beautiful." She added, "God help us, if we had to look at most men
in the buff, my sons included."
But these comments were in the 1500 calls objecting to the picture:
"I have a 9-year-old daughter who now knows what a naked man looks like thanks to you
. . . I will no longer buy your paper until you raise your standards."
"The editor who decided to print this needs counseling."
"Nudity is not expected in a newspaper. Nudity is abnormal. If it were normal, the editor
who put this picture in the paper would be sitting there with no clothes on.
Speer (who does wear clothes to work) said hes been amazed at the amount of reaction. He said
if he had the decision to make again, he "perhaps wouldnt play the picture so big."

In case youre wondering, the indecent exposure charges against the naked rider were dismissed.
The story accompanying the photograph said the judge decided "its OK to expose ones private
parts in the private parts of ones yard."

Distortion of reality?
"Punk for Peace" photograph draws fire
Pictures never lie, the saying goes. You would have a hard time convincing some anti-war
demonstrators of that.
By Robin Hughes, editor
Was The Sacramento Bee letting its "pro-war" bias show in its choice of a photograph to
accompany a story about an anti-war demonstration? Some of the demonstrators let The Bee
know that they believed it had; even more complained that the photo misrepresented the reality
of the event to its readers.
On January 19, (1991) several hundred people gathered in Sacramento to take part in a peaceful
demonstration against the Gulf war. A story noted that the protest "took a decidedly middle-class
turn as attorneys, social workers and liberal lobbyists . . . joined hands with students."
Yet the picture to illustrate the story, which was played prominently, was of a young man
wearing a "Punk for Peace" T-shirt. He had decorated his face like a death mask with bullets and
cartridges.
The Bees ombudsman Art Nauman said most of the callers about the photograph had the same
complaint: "You have tarred us all with the same brush and misrepresented who we are
middle-class, ordinary folks. This character was an aberration and your photographer honed in on
this aberration."
The day after the "Punk for Peace" picture ran, The Bee had yet more picture problems when it
did a photo layout of anti-war demonstrators to go with a feature on San Franciscos history of
civil protest.
The story was published after a weekend of peaceful demonstrations in San Francisco. But the
photographs used were all taken on the previous Thursday, the day after the war began, when a
demonstration had resulted in some arrests and acts of violence. The dominant picture used was a
color shot of five people vandalizing a U.S. Army recruiting office.
Once again, callers to The Bee charged distortion because the vandalism picture wasnt
representative of the peaceful protests over the weekend.
Bee executives involved in the photo selection told ombudsman Nauman that they had no ulterior
motives the "punk" picture offered variety, the vandalism picture captured an actual event.
Nauman writes in his column on the photo controversy that the editors should have asked and
answered a key question: "Why is the photo suggesting one thing but some of the word
coverage another? The apparent contradiction should have been cured before the presses rolled."