We all have seen pictures taken by photojournalists on the front lines during war…at the scene of riots, gunfire and and whatnot…pictures of the wounded, the dying and the like.
If he/she sees someone wounded or injured nearby, does he/she continue to take pictures and duck for cover? or is he/she obligated ethically to put down their cameras and try to help the wounded if no aid is readily available or is it strictly up to the individual journalist to do what he desires without any univerally accepted ethical behaviour?
Neil Davis award winning Australian Combat Cameraman, who became famous during the Viet Nam war, talks about this in his bioraphy One Crowded Hour. Remember that he also filmed combat situations.
I found the direct quote, the following are Neil’s own words:
There’s almost no situation in which I’d stop filming to do something, because I think a film record of a given situation is ultimately more effective, and has greater impact. In the end it helps more people than if I put down my camera to lend a hand.
Speaking as a photojournalist, although never one to be in such a situation, I would generally say the rule is to stay out of the situation. Your job is to report the news, not to make the news. HOWEVER, I would hesitate to say that this is how all or necessarily even most photojournalists would respond. One compromise solution, which is one which I would follow given those circumstances, is to first take the pictures that need to be taken and go help if I am the only person capable of doing so. But ethically, you are supposed to be the observer.
I’d say there’s quite a difference between being the only observer and filming and having lots of folks around helping the injured and filming in that situation.
Sometimes, you just can’t help someone. Nothing could be done for the people falling/jumping from the upper floors of the WTC - so film people making the horrible choice between death by fire and death by impact so later on no one can say it didn’t happen.