Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Photojournalism during a disaster

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Strykstar View Post

    A very sad story indeed, I had no idea he had killed himself.
    It's a shame that people forced to it by constantly asking about it, if he had helped the girl that day, the same thing would have happened the next day, and he also knew that there were hundreds/thousands of children just like her that he couldn't help, they need to be able to just watch and not intervene.
    Speaking of all the other children living in those same conditions, his photo contributed to bring awareness to the issue and get more help for those kids, so even tough it was too late for this girl I'm sure this photo has saved lives.

    I can understand why he took the photo. It would have been better if he and the team he was with had moved the girl to a safer place after taking the photo, but without being in the situation I don't think I can judge. I can't know what was really happening or what was going through his mind at the moment.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by ic3squid View Post

      I agree with your comment, this is why there is hardly any photojournalism done in wars and serious disasters. It would be real nice if the government would help to raise the funding on photojournalism, it is extremely important for the general public to know about the disasters and things going on in other countries.
      Unfortunately the funding on photojournalism full stop is disappearing in a large part due to technology and mobile phone cameras. Newspapers that used to pay someone to take pictures now don't bother because they get tons of stuff sent in for free. The drawback of this is the quality of images goes down hill - not just the technical quality because some phone shots are just as good, but the artistic quality as well. A good photo journalist does not just know how to work the camera they know how to frame shots, how to change angles, how to use light all of which increase the impact of their shots.
      What with the number of images appearing on social media from people with phone cameras as well there is a real danger of readers and viewers becoming disaster saturated and loosing feeling. A good image can cut to the emotional bone - but with floods of ordinary snapshots those good ones get smothered and that is a bad thing

      Comment


      • #33
        Photojournalists play a great role in these situations. In fact they record history through their lenses. Some of the documentations have survived even if the photographer did not. Someone has to do the job so that we can just wait and watch on the broadcast news the events that occured. Their primary responsibility is to observe and capture the scenes. Interference is not part of it, unless in grave situations when life is at stake. Like in rescue operations, sometimes even photojournalists help out when the team is in dire need of a helping hand. I

        Comment


        • #34
          I think if there is no immediate life saving to do, the destruction should be photographed. It is with these photos that the message is conveyed to those not directly affected. Pictures do much more than an article about the devastation by itself. A much stronger message is conveyed with both working in unison.

          Comment


          • #35
            Photojournalism, whilst it may seem odd as a concept to begin with in a disaster, helps bring awareness and lets people understand the situation better. This helps out in both the short-term and long-term, because it allows for the people of the disaster to be acknowledged and cope, and in the long term it allows for people who weren't affected to see that there is a disaster, and thus cause them to volunteer to help or donate.

            SO I support it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by kayrockwell91 View Post
              The concerns about the photojournalists sitting and just watching while people suffer is valid, but we should not forget that a good photograph can cause a lot of people to send help to the affected area.

              That being said, photojournalists shouldn't be this guy http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/20...lking-a-child/
              It's quite sad that the photojournalist committed suicide, he must be deeply affected by the criticism because he did nothing. But I think he is also risking himself of contracting any disease and spreading it to the people he may come in contact with, so I think he did the right thing, although it may seem callous to some people. I also wonder if that girl survived. I have a feeling she might not have lived long after the photo was taken.

              Comment


              • #37
                People need to know and be educated on how the world looks after a disaster, how our lives could look if catastrophe happens. Pictures from destroyed areas, while sad to look at, open the eyes of many and that results in better preparedness or more donation for the relief efforts. Photojournalism also shows the bad in people, the bad that comes out in stressful situations, like looters stealing stuff. So yes, journalists need to keep on documenting and showing how a disaster truly looks like, it helps us all.

                Comment


                • #38
                  It takes courage to be a photojournalist in the middle of a disaster, I don't know if I could do it. On the other help, if I saw someone in danger I am pretty sure my instincts would push me to help, after all what is more important, to document the situation or to help someone?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    That is true, I would not take life threatening risks just to make more money, but on the other hand some shots do make the difference for many people, not in terms of money, but in terms of exposure, meaning that some subjects don't "exist" for the authorities until the media pictures them.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I agree, in most cases photo documentation does a lot to help share the situations going on around the world. People connect more strongly to photo and video images and are more willing to read news stories that include them. I feel bad for this journalist. It is quite a famous case. I don't think he did anything wrong but it is up to the individual to decide that.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think that the case is not if they have done something wrong, the main issue is that they are in disaster areas and when that happens their lives are immediately at risk. Journalists and volunteers go to the places from which other people want to leave.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I think by taking a picture in a disaster situation, photographers are being a part of it. They are being the eyes for the rest of the world, who may come to their aid. Every time I see the news paper I may glance at the head lines, but when I see a photograph of a disaster my eyes are glued. It demands my attention, and I picture myself in that situation, if it ever happened. Photojournalists put their lives at risk some times, especially in a disaster situation, and I can only respect them for that.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by dillinger10 View Post
                            So long as photojournalists are not impeding search and rescue or putting others in harms way I am okay with it. By photographing and filming these terrible events it helps to tell the story of the disaster and the lives that are impacted. Their photos humanize the events. By doing so, this helps to educate others. Seeing is believing.

                            With all that being said, I think you have to be extremely dedicated to your work to put yourself in harms way to capture these events on camera. I don't think I could ever do this myself. You have to have some serious dedication to continue doing your job while chaos and destruction is going on around you.
                            This is true. By showing the impact of the disaster, photojournalists bring it to life and make an impact on people, and move them to donate or volunteer. There's a difference between reading about a tsunami and seeing homes destroyed and crops ruined. A disaster doesn't seem real unless you see the impact of the disaster on people and their environment.
                            I don't think that photojournalists are hurting anyone as long as they don't get in the way of the ambulances and rescue workers.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Gelsemium View Post
                              It takes courage to be a photojournalist in the middle of a disaster, I don't know if I could do it. On the other help, if I saw someone in danger I am pretty sure my instincts would push me to help, after all what is more important, to document the situation or to help someone?
                              I respect your opinion completely,but then who would do the journalism part.Each one is destined and allotted to do a certain job and if everyone feels helping them is the order of this moment,then how would the other guys know what this is and what they should so when they are in it.
                              In fact,by being a photo journalist,you are keeping your life at stake too.:P

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X