I’ll be looking forward to your comments next week.

But, quickly: Earlier this summer I heard an interview with a photographer on NPR on the topic of photographing war and genocide. And he made an interesting point: Sometimes the photos get in the way of the story. This was a reaction to the pathetic appeal of photography. The rhetoric of photography can’t do logos (medium doesn’t use words) and ethos (of the photographer) seems to me to be largely ignored by the medium (i.e. who pays attention to photo credits?).

That’s not to say photos can’t be factual, but, then, remember that facts belong to the inartistic proofs (the artistic proofs being ethos, pathos and logos), i.e. we don’t have to construct them.

I have photographed the dead on just a few occasions. I hated it. And I’ve pointed my camera at some emotional scenes that made me ashamed of myself later on. But the camera is like the hole in the sand for the ostrich…when I’m behind it, it’s like I’m not really there. I’m concentrating on what I see playing out on a little screen. It’s this phenomenon that costs photographers their lives. I tell students about the time I was photographing a protest march in Charleston, WV during the ’78 coal miners’ strike. I was right up on a guy, walking backwards, getting some great shots of an angry face–thinking: “Man! This is great stuff!” Well, the guy was getting angry at me. And I didn’t realize it until he hit me with his sign. I never saw it coming.

Where is this going? Okay, this: Shooting is a complex and emotional experience.

In terms of the pictures themselves: I think the press should make the pictures and then think long and hard about how/if to use them and under what circumstances. And, for the most part, I think editors do a good job of agonizing over these issues even if the public isn’t always happy with the result. What the public doesn’t see is that there is nearly always contention in newsrooms about how/if to use such pictures. There’s no standard.

I’ll try to address your questions specifically next week.

I’m asking you these questions Doc, because I know you have experience in photojournalism. So many in the press think the “story” can’t be told without photos of dead people. I know that other cultures routinely show death in their media, but for myriad reasons, we sanitize death and destruction. Do you think this contributes to the Disneyland mentality of so many in the press who thought “this couldn’t happen in America” and who thought NO was like being in a “third world country”? I’m sure a review of news stories would show that death and destruction is every bit as common here as abroad, but the press shelters us. Another questions for you is, should this change? Why do those in the press believe we are above the laws of God & Man? Are they letting us down by not showing the 9/11 photos of people jumping out of buildings?

The most disgusting thing I ever heard from a network news anchor was last year when Brian Williams said that pictures of flag draped coffins were like a “drug” for the press. I suppose like many “drugs” the attaction is unavailability. How should the press use these images?

Jay Rosen, from the comments to yesterday’s entry: Yes, except that, Andrew, you should do a post on this idea that…

Jay Rosen, from the comments to yesterday’s entry: Yes, except that, Andrew, you should do a post on this idea that…

Instead of developing new and necessary rule sets, what journalists usually do in that situation is ignore the fact that they’re making an (arguable) decision. Of course it only leads to more arguments.

If I want to add historical context right to Katrina coverage (“come on, provide some context”) is it the history of Gulf Coast Hurricanes? Of other public disasters? Or cities that died? Of Levee funding? Of race and class in New Orleans? It sounds good, “provide context.” But it’s actually just a name for a big black box with unsolved journalistic problems in it. Thus the need for your post.

Maybe you can figure out what people mean when they say it.

Increasingly, as I have complained about before, news organizations have less ability or willingness to present complex stories with any nuance or sophistication. Their technology allows them to present more vivid images, but they don’t provide context. Whether this is intentional to increase ratings or a lack of ability, I don’t know. But there seems to be little incentive for journalists to practice restrained and thoughtful journalism.