It was the type of assignment that makes cynical reporters and photojournalists outwardly groan: Go to the airport and meet 80-year-old twin brothers – one local and the other flying in from Ireland. They hadn’t seen each other in more than 40 years.
There were many reasons for not wanting to go on the job. Most reasons come down to the greatest detriment a journalist can exhibit – previsualization. To cement the buzzkill while driving to the airport, Jack, the reporter and I discussed what we would experience at the reunion – a long wait at the gate (note: This anecdote happened before the airport restrictions mandated by 9/11 in 2001), an excited family, the ancient brothers seeing each other and giving a quick hug, and inarticulate or clichéd explanations of how it all felt to them. As a photojournalist with my role-related responsibility to make sure I visually recorded the reunion, I was sure that I wouldn’t be able to sum up the situation in a single frame because the lighting at the airport would be poor and there would be too many friends and family members crowded around the two men to get a clear and clean composition. Terrible quotes and awful photographs – a challenge for both of us. Jack and I couldn’t wait to get what we needed and get out so we could go to our favorite restaurant for dinner.
Sure enough, the reunion ended up just as we had imagined. But the unexpected occurrence at the airport haunts me to this day. Consequently, I always start a mass media ethics class I teach with the story and what I consider to be one of the most unethical actions I ever took.
At the airport, I stood in front of a roped area next to the local brother and his family. I wore my usual array of cameras for this situation – one around my neck with a 35mm lens and an electronic flash attached and another with an 85mm lens hanging off my right shoulder. My left shoulder carried my camera bag. I looked like a badass photojournalist ready for anything. But I wasn’t ready for what happened next.
After about 30 minutes, the plane taxied to the gate. Well-dressed first class passengers walked past my vantage point. I knew it would be several minutes before the brother would wobble out of the gangway so I was relaxed. But then I caught sight of someone famous.
Inexplicitly walking toward me was the actress Faye Dunaway (“Faye Dunaway,” 2017).
Before her airplane trip, she was in three critically acclaimed and internationally influential motion pictures. She starred in Bonnie and Clyde and Chinatown and was honored with Academy Award Best Actress nominations for both roles. For Network she won an Oscar for her performance. She was a big, worldwide star (let’s not think about her colossal gaffe during the 2017 Academy Award ceremony).
She was about 20 feet from me when our eyes briefly met and I could tell she noticed my cameras. I was a bit stunned at seeing such a famous person unexpectedly but I was snapped out of my awe by an agonizing scream she directed at me. She turned toward a wall, hid her face, and sobbed uncontrollably. It was awful. I wanted to go to her and let her know I wasn’t there to photograph her, but I froze. Incredibly, the departing passengers didn’t seem to notice this distraught woman on the side as they moved quickly past her. Several moments passed. Most of the passengers were off the plane. Dunaway remained against the wall with her hands on her cheeks. No one went to her to ask if she needed help including myself. She then suddenly became erect, wiped her face, and started to walk toward me. Without thinking I picked up the camera with the flash around my neck. As she walked past she covered her face with a hand.
I took a picture (Lester, 2017).
This book details historic and current ethical dilemmas in various media and for numerous purposes and includes as its base a ten-point systematic ethical analysis (SEA) that should help guide whether actions should be considered ethical. The SEA is largely a product of what has been called the “ethics mantra” which states: Do your job and don’t cause unjustified harm. The mantra should then be combined with an understanding of six moral philosophies – the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, the golden mean, the golden rule, the veil of ignorance, and hedonism. With both the mantra and the philosophies, I failed.
It wasn’t my job to document Faye Dunaway’s visit. In fact, it should have been no concern to anyone. Plus, by taking a harshly intrusive flash picture I caused emotional harm to the actress. Furthermore, the use of the six philosophies substantiates the conclusion that my behavior was reprehensible.
The categorical imperative stresses a rule that should not be violated. Professionally, anything newsworthy is part of my role-related responsibility as a photojournalist. A categorical imperative demands that it should be photographed. However, there was nothing newsworthy about Dunaway’s arrival at the airport.
Utilitarianism emphasizes an educational reason for performing some task that may help others. Perhaps there is a slight justification when utilizing this philosophy because although Dunaway’s privacy was violated and she was harmed, the fact that the picture and its story exists acts as an aid for an ethical discussion. Such a rationalization might be acceptable if I were thinking that way at the time. I wasn’t.
The philosophy of compromise, one that is often a solution for many ethical dilemmas, is the golden mean. Instead of impulsively pressing the shutter button, I might have first explained to her the situation and asked her if I could take a photograph. She would have said no, of course, but I would feel better about myself.
The next two philosophies of the six used in this book encourage you to consider those in the picture and those who view the image.
The golden rule, the oldest of any of the philosophies mentioned and the veil of ignorance, the most recent one, both encourage you to put yourself in someone else’s position or situation. Ask: Would you want to be photographed in such a manner given a similar situation and do you think someone needs to see it? No and no.
Finally, and saving the worst for last, is hedonism. Perhaps not surprisingly, this philosophy is another ancient way of describing a common human behavior. Anytime you perform an action based on purely personal motivations – to win favor from another, to win a contest, to earn some monetary advantage, and so on – you invoke a hedonistic attitude. I took Faye Dunaway’s picture simply because I could. I misused my power as a journalist and a casual observer in order to satisfy my own momentary and fleeting desire for attention. My ego got in the way of my better judgment.
My excuses? I was inexperienced, egotistical, and untrained. Although my major in college was photojournalism, I had been a newspaper photographer for less than two years. Although I had photographed indicted persons paraded in handcuffs known as “perp walks” for the benefit of the media by police personnel, I never encountered a famous person so distressed about me performing my professional duty. I was even a bit offended that she became so upset over me while I was doing my job. Because I was 20-something with a good paying job and a privileged position I thought I could do no wrong. My attitude at the time was that anyone on the other side of my lens was fair game for my photographic prowess. I was the hunter and everyone else the prey. Besides, there were awards to win and raises to be earned. I couldn’t stop to think about the repercussions of my actions.
But perhaps the most telling excuse was that during my time as a student, I never took an ethics course. I only had classes that taught me how to use the equipment and techniques necessary to become a professional photographer. As I recall, ethical considerations were never emphasized in any of the instruction. I also completed liberal studies classes necessary to graduate, but I didn’t take a single course on philosophy or ethics. In addition, after being hired, there were no opportunities for learning about ethics. The one exception were annual “Short Courses” sponsored by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) that in one day presented visual reporters and their work in a format that inspired storytelling techniques and respect for those within the frames, but without any organized presentation or discussion on ethical issues and analysis (NPPA, 2017).
The good news – this memory of the brothers’ reunion and Ms. Dunaway’s surprising reaction started me on a path of learning and writing about ethical behavior with this textbook being the latest installment of my journey – an after-the-fact utilitarian justification. By the way, if you know Faye Dunaway or how to contact her, let me know. I would love to apologize.
Visual Ethics is Your Personal Journey
Ethics has personal and professional components. Visual communicators must juggle positive personal values with unique role-related responsibilities. As a journalist or documentary image-maker, you are a surrogate for the public. You are often the only witness to an event, the only recorder for history, the calm and cool explainer to others, as well as the educator and explainer. As a designer, editor, filmmaker, or advertising and public relations professional, you are also a persuader, a propagandist, and an entertainer. How can you possibly be expected to be objective and subjective, impassive and emotional, uninvolved and engaged given the physical constraints, technological changes, and sociological pressures the mass communications profession offers?
Ethics.
The key to produce work that aids the common good and satisfies your need for storytelling is a continual, inquisitive, and consistent path toward ethical behavior. Consequently, an exploration of ethical behavior is a personal, emotional, and intellectual journey. It is the outcome of an open, questioning mind that desires progressive development. The quest toward ethical behavior also requires an understanding of your own values and loyalties that can cause conflicts between how you actually behave and how you should behave. And when you make an error in judgment, it takes a humble heart to learn from the experience and do better.
This book is dedicated to the notion that being an ethical visual communicator not only makes you a better person but also creates opportunities and storylines that you might have overlooked in the past. As such, your personal growth, your career, and your profession can only be enhanced by focusing inward and outward.
Visual Ethics is inspired by an important work, Photojournalism: An Ethical Approach (Lester, 1991) that was published more than 25 years ago. In that work, philosophies, techniques, and issues important to the photojournalism profession were featured in chapters that emphasized three major concerns: Victims of violence, rights to privacy, and subject and image manipulations. Needless to mention, much has changed in the field of visual communication since An Ethical Approach. Hence, the main motivation for this book. Visual Ethics acknowledges a need for critical thinking and ethical behavior among those responsible for visual messages in all areas of mass communications while acknowledging the personal decisions and experiences that make us empathetic personas and dedicated professionals.
The main difference between An Ethical Approach and this book is that it goes beyond photojournalism ethics to include the professions and techniques of documentary and advocacy reportage, citizen journalism and activism, advertising and public relations, typography, graphic design, informational graphics, cartoons, motion pictures, television, computers, the web, augmented reality, games, immersive storytelling, social media, story selection, and editing. It should be obvious that in today’s complex media environment propelled by technological advances made possible by the web and the development of apps, visual communication is a field that requires serious contemplation and a guide that showcases the best practices possible.
This book offers many examples produced by working professionals that may or may not be directly related to your present interests. No matter. You will learn from all of the varied perspectives. This work also includes intellectual discussions that illuminate technical considerations and philosophical justifications, opportunities to discover your own values and conflicts, and perhaps even a few inconsistent and confusing viewpoints. The goal of Visual Ethics is to challenge your own opinions about what is and is not ethical behavior within a wide variety of visual communication presentations. Consequently, the journey you’ve started by reading this preface may be a tough slog. It is never easy to look deeply into yourself and bring to light the motivations for your actions. In addition to that daunting task there is another idea you must accept – your ethical exploration should never end. Being ethical in your personal and professional lives means constantly evaluating yourself for as long as you live. Luckily, it’s not as difficult as you might think. That’s because the most important trait that you should already possess is having a concept of empathy. As you continue with your life and career and all the decisions and actions yet to come, if you simply and honestly consider what someone else thinks and feels as a result of your actions, in other words, if you are an empathetic person, you will more likely be an ethical visual communicator.
References
“Bonnie and Clyde, (1967), We Rob Banks Scene.” (2015). YouTube. Accessed June 28, 2017.
“Faye Dunaway.” (2017). Internet Movie Database. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GM0LKQ-ml0 and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001159/?ref_=nv_sr_1.
Lester, P. (1991). Photojournalism: An ethical approach. Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://paulmartinlester.info/writings/pjethics.html.
Lester, P. (2017). Accessed June 28, 2017 from http://paulmartinlester.info/dunaway.jpg.
NPPA. (2017). Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://nppa.org/.