Introduction
The observance of ethical principles is vital in the practice of photojournalism. The image of Edward Romero is perhaps one of the industry’s most controversial photographs. It depicts grieving individuals after a tragic accident in a lake. Images of the Romero family’s grief should never have been published because they violated Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance, Mill’s perspectives on utilitarian morality, and Aristotle’s Mean regarding virtue.
Situation Definition
There are specific facts, principles and issues that underlie this case. The July 28th 1985 incident attracted the attention of John Harte, who drove 25 miles to capture the incident (Nipp, 2015). The image depicts a five-year-old boy’s body in a black vinyl bag, a weeping father kneeling by his side, a mother overwhelmed by grief, and a brother sobbing uncontrollably. The young boy’s body had just been retrieved from the Hart Park Lake in Bakersfield, California, where he had lost his life while swimming (Greene, 1985). According to John Harte who was 27 years old at the time, the event changed his career (Harte, 2014). The family’s agony was published in the Californian, which despite having a policy against the publication of dead bodies, decided to expose the tragedy to the public to encourage caution around lakes.
It is evident that Harte placed immense value on opportunities to capture remarkable photographs. He valued his career, as evidenced by his decision to forward the images for publication. The aforementioned factors notwithstanding, Harte ignored the grieving family’s need for privacy considering the severity of their situation. In addition, the photographer blatantly ignored California’s policy which abolished the publication of images of dead bodies. It is also worth noting that Harte completely disregarded the audience’s sensibilities as demonstrated by the harshness with which the publication was judged. The principles that must be evaluated in this case are Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance, Mill’s perspectives on utilitarian morality, and Aristotle’s Mean regarding virtue.
Analysis of the Situation
There are key principles that must be considered in the analysis of the context in which Harte’s photograph was taken. The first is virtue, which with the aid of Aristotle’s Mean, requires the identification of a middle ground between both extremes of the moral context in which the image was captured (Samuel & Tay, 2019). On the one hand, Harte participated in the publication of a picture that overtly invaded a grieving family’s privacy. On the other hand, one must consider the ramifications of not publishing the image. Questions regarding whether or not the omission would result in more deaths are a matter of intense debate. Perhaps, publishing the story without the image would have addressed ethical concerns that arose after the drowning incident. However, the journalists ignored the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) Code of Ethics which stipulates that professionals must strive to be humble and unobtrusive when dealing with subjects. Humility is best demonstrated by giving individuals stricken by grief the chance to mourn their loss in private. Harte subverted the edict of Aristotle’s Mean by failing to balance the family’s needs against the publication’s expectations.
The NPPA further stipulates that journalists must seek clarification in instances where there is confusion from individuals who portray the highest ethical standards in the profession (National Press Photographers Association, 2019). If proper consultations had been conducted, Harte would have identified numerous other devices capable of achieving the desired objective while adhering to ethical principles and preserving the family’s right to privacy.
The concept of utility plays a critical role in defining the moral landscape of Harte’s photograph. Mill proposed two forms of utilitarian morality, the first of which posits that an act is justifiable if its overall effect produces a degree of happiness that surpasses alternative measures (Arli, 2021). The second form surmises that an action is justified provided it adheres to a rule designed to maximize good (Arli, 2021). The photograph in question served to intensify the anguish felt by the family as well as the community. The NPPA’s code of ethics urges journalists to respect the photographic moment’s integrity (National Press Photographers Association, 2019). Harte had the opportunity to see the depravity of exposing a family’s pain to the public but chose to ignore it. The journalists failed to apply Mill’s utilitarian perspectives, resulting in outrage rather than the desired effect of warning the public against the hazardous nature of water bodies.
The observance of inalienable rights is a fundamental requirement in the practice of photojournalism. Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance addressed the mechanics through which the disenfranchised are empowered regardless of their social standing (Mccain, 2018). The objective is to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society have access to justice. The NPPA’s code of ethics stipulates that professionals must offer special attention to vulnerable individuals or victims of tragedy and intrusion of privacy must be justified (National Press Photographers Association, 2019). There was no justification for interfering with the family’s private moment. Harte’s photograph exposes a disempowered and vulnerable family to a society pressed to judge the victims of grief. The image’s publication reinforced the aforementioned inequity and exposed the journalist’s selfish desire to gain recognition for other people’s suffering.
The Decision
The desire to create compelling images is often at odds with an individual’s expression of empathy. While the tragedy that the Romero family had to endure was indeed an opportunity to capture moving images, exposing them to the public was immoral. The quest to achieve an emotional effect must be tempered by a close examination of the victims’ inalienable rights. It is not right to violate a family’s right to privacy in pursuit of a riveting story. In Harte’s photograph, the older brother’s hysteria for failing to watch his brother is exposed without compassion to an audience that had no right to participate in a deeply traumatizing event. The family is haunted by the images that serve to amplify their grief. I would not publish Harte’s picture or substitute it with any of the others because they violate Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance, Mill’s perspectives on utilitarian morality, and Aristotle’s Mean regarding virtue. Instead, I would detail the events in a story that emphasizes the need to be cautious in and around bodies of water.
Conclusion
The defense of photographs that depict grief after a traumatic event is often based on newsworthiness. Harte fulfilled his role as professional dealing with the vicissitudes of daily life. Photojournalists must always be conscious of the moral principle that accords suffering individuals respect and dignity, even when their circumstances make the situation newsworthy. The Romeros were exposed to the entire nation at, perhaps, the most terrible moment of their lives. Harte violated the ethical principles that guide practitioners in the photojournalist industry.
References
Arli. Ç. D. (2021). The critique of Mill’s utilitarianism concerning virtue. Humanitas, 9(17), 45–58.
Greene, B. (1985). Photo of tragedy is a prize mistake. Chicago Tribune.
Harte, J. (2014,). The Hart Park drowning photo. JohnHarte. Web.
Mccain, R. A. (2018). The “Veil of Ignorance” and behavioral welfare economics.World Congress of Social Economics, 1–32.
National Press Photographers Association. (2019). Code of ethics.
Nipp, K. (2015). Ethical principles in “dead body photo.” Kristi Nipp.
Samuel, D. B., & Tay, L. (2019). Aristotle’s golden mean and the importance of bipolarity for personality models: A commentary on “Personality traits and maladaptivity: Unipolarity versus bipolarity.”Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1097–1102.