Ethics in Journalism and Kevin Carter Controversy

There is a moral obligation for news articles, investigations and feature stories to all approach their subject in an ethical way. The angle must usually be delicate, not accusatory or unethical, especially when dealing with death. The angle has to be thought out and direct to the point that they wish to make. They have to enlighten the public but not offend or force a particular view onto the reader. News that is insensitive or too controversial can harm the audience as well as the author of the text.

One troubled photographer, Kevin Carter, is a well-known example of a photo journalist that come into controversy with an "unethical" photograph.

In March 1993, Carter was on a job in Sudan, Africa. His job was to capture an image that depicted the severity of famine within the country. Working near the village of Ayod, Carter stumbled across a tiny girl, who had stopped her crawl to rest, on her way to a United Nations food center. The girl was being watched by a vulture. Waiting for 20 minutes, Carter waited for the bird to open its large wings. When it became apparent the bird would not comply with this, Carter took his shot, then shooed the bird away.

Practically overnight the New York Times, which first published the infamous image, received hundreds of calls of criticism and concern for the girl. Much of the public was outraged that the photographer waited so long for his shot and did not shoo the vulture away sooner, they were appalled that the girl did not receive his help- that he walked away instead of helping her to the food center. Carter had actually been advised not to touch anyone, no matter what the situation.

The 'Struggling Girl' photojournalism, one of the worlds' most controversial images, was awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography in 1994. Just two years later, Kevin Carter committed suicide by carbon monoxide. In his suicide note he wrote "I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, of killer executioners."

This photograph is obviously extremely controversial. Even today, the image still circulates social media and divides opinions, creating discussions on what would personally be done in that situation as well as how ethical the picture is.

In my opinion, the image is not unethical. Carter did not follow everyone's views on what is ethical and what is not, but he certainly did bring awareness to his cause- to enlighten the world on the diabolical state of famine in Africa and in particular, Sudan. Everyone has different ideologies on what is right and what is wrong, as well as personal opinions and preferences on what actions they themselves would have taken.

A journalist' job, especially a photojournalist, is very specific. Get in, do your job, get out. Carter was not there to help the people he saw- that was the United Nations' job. He was understandably ordered not to touch the people he saw, in case of passed on sickness. He was an experienced photographer who was in a poverty-stricken place to photograph what he saw in regards to famine. He needed a shocking image to startle the nation into action and he achieved the confrontational image without manipulation.

No, the photographer did not risk his own health and safety by carrying the child to the food center, but the harsh reality is that there is no guarantee the child would have survived anyway. It is probable that there were many bodies, both living and deceased, in the area around the young girl. It would not have been his decision to shoot and publish the most convenient image, but the image that was most powerful, the image that told a thousand words. The intention from capturing the image will have been to reveal the truth, give people around the world the knowledge that famine was (and still is) happening and to shock them into doing something about it.

There is no compassion in the image, just the cold, hard truth. Judging from his actions before, during and after shooting the young girl, he did not show compassion here either, aside from finally shooing the vulture away. If Carter had not told the truth, had not placed himself in a position open to ethical debate, the reactions to the image would. It would still probably be controversial, but it would not be recognized as an image in which the photographer did nothing to help, but a confronting truth about the extreme famine in the world.

~

Paula Gortázar's blog, 'Not just a document: Ethical limits in document photography' states:

Carter did not kill himself only because of the controversy arisen after this shot –though most sensationalist press like to say so- but because he had seen far too much suffering during his whole career and could not cope any longer with living with all these memories. Whether or not he did the wrong thing when photographing the struggling girl in Sudan, the truth is that Kevin Carter gave his whole life for the sake of information. He communicated reality in the most truthful way, hoping to make a change by increasing society’s awareness of the world’s injustice. No one said that dealing with human suffering was easy and it should be understandable that one could lose the sense of what is moral or not after witnessing the world’s worst human tragedies. From my point of view –and probably for Carter too- it is a pity that the photograph will only be remembered for its ethical controversy and not for what for the human tragedy it depicts.

(Quote and 'Struggling Girl' image):

http://www.paulagortazar.blogspot.com.au/p/ethical-limits-in-documentary.html

(Kevin Carter image)

http://www.roads.co/S=0/roads-blog/documentary-the-death-of-kevin-carter-by-dan-krauss/