Week 7: Abstract
How Do You Photograph the Amish? Let Us Count the Ways
Let me start off by saying that this article was very well written. Liz Cox Barrett was smart when she interviewed so many different journalists to get a picture of how you can deal with touchy situations, like the one that occurred in Nickel Mines, Pa., with the Amish school shooting. She talked to local photographers, big AP photographs, and newspaper and magazine editors.
My favorite of her interviewees was AP photographer Carolyn Kaster. She’s got a great outlook on being sensitive to people’s needs and getting the picture. Yes, the event is a news story, but it’s also someone’s personal moment that you may or may not be intruding on. Kaster has a funny quote at the end of the story that is so true. “It’s a small world.” You never know what you’ll come across tomorrow. If you step on someone’s toes and then you meet then again at another event, they aren’t going to be very receptive and you may lose the shot. Journalists have a bad enough reputation as it is. It’s important especially for photojournalists to be extra sensitive. A photo certainly identifies someone and he or she might not want that.
I took a photojournalism class last year and there are a few tricks you can use to help keep the space between a grieving person and the lens. Some of the editors that Barrett interviewed used these tactics. For instance, try shooting from a distance with a long lens. That keeps the photographer from being right in a person’s face. Also, don’t single out an individual or make them completely recognizable. The Amish believe that having their picture taken is a violation of the Bible’s second commandment. The editors were able to get great shots and still keep a comfortable distance from the Amish by utilizing these techniques.
News is news, but you have to remember, at the end of the day, you’re still dealing with real people who have real feelings and real opinions.
What the F—K Are They Driving at?
This article in the CJR is hilarious. We’ve always been told as journalists to never change a quote or to paraphrase if we can’t get it right. I think the same should be said for expletives used in quotes. Gal Beckerman uses the example of Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his use of the F word in referring to former Pentagon official Douglas Feith. The New York Times ran an article, took out the expletive, and avoided any controversy over using a curse word. But, by omitting that word, it literally changes the entire interpretation of Franks’ quote. Beckerman is right when she says that it tones down his anger into mild exasperation.
I think news organizations should stick to the no expletive rule, but they should also be flexible with that rule. I’m not saying that every Jo Schmoe who uses a curse word in his interview should be printed, but high standing officials and people in the public light should be taken into consideration. A general is someone who is very high up in the military ladder and is also looked upon with respect and dignity. The fact that Franks would call Feith the “fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth” is something that people should know. And like Beckerman says, if you’re not going to print the word, then at least let the readers know that you’re not so they can make their own assertions.
You Be the Editor
My abstracts deal with taste and sensitivity, and the article “You Be the Editor” is one that asks readers for their opinions regarding some gruesome photos taken in Fallujah, Iraq. Author Roy Peter Clark lists a bunch of questions one might ask oneself when considering a horrific photo like the one the New York Times ran showing burnt and dismembered American civilians hanging from a bridge while Iraqi citizens cheer. Clark asks whether you’d print it if the bodies were military, whether they were women or children, whether they were naked, or whether or not you could distinguish a face.
While I was reading some of the responses from people, I felt the same. One person said that the media coverage of Iraqi and the war has been pretty mild, yet it’s not giving Americans a chance to see the “truth” of what’s really going on. Another reader is disgusted over the photos and says there’s really no reason to publish them except for the shock value and the desire to sell more papers. It seems that most of the responders were in favor of running the photos because they represented a news event and also helped hit home what is really going on in the Middle East.
It’s so hard to tell what I would have done in this situation if I was an editor of a major newspaper, but I think I would have leaned more toward running the bridge photo. It’s a clear indicator of the kinds of horrible things that are going on because of the chaos in Iraq and beyond. The job of a newspaper is to report the truth and let readers make their own assertions and opinions based on that information. Yes, the photo churns my stomach, but sometimes I need a little reminder of just what people are really capable of.
