Cotty, that is a most excellent reply.
Here's another consideration. Suppose each of the following: 1. your friend asks you what the corpse was like, and you describe it to them in spoken words 2. a local journalist asks what the corpse was like, and you describe it 3. you write to a friend and describe the corpse 4. you write a description of the corpse in your private diary, which is not intended for other people's eyes 5. you send the description to your local paper 6. you photograph the corpse but don't show anyone the picture 7. you send a print to your friend who has asked about it 8. you send the photo to your local paper Are the spoken and written descriptions morally or ethically different from the photographs? Are there any moral or ethical differences between telling/showing other people, and keeping it to yourself? If so, why? -- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Cotty > Sent: 23 January 2007 09:26 > To: pentax list > Subject: Re: Moral dilemma > > On 23/1/07, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where > I live. The > >street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 > hours all told. > >Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from > our roof could > >see the body and the various examinations taking place, I > did not shoot a > >single photograph. > > >What would you have done? > > Personally I don't think morality is an issue. I think it's about > personal comfort and the law. > > On a daily basis I film ongoing 'news' scenes such as this > and one gets > used to it. Knowing what is within the law in terms of not > disturbing a > crime scene etc is useful, but to be honest there is little > to upset by > shooting. It's the publishing that needs careful consideration, and > editors decide accordingly. I regularly film people going into court > buildings, many of whom are jurors - I don't know that of course - and > am sometimes only given the skimpiest of descriptions (white > male about > 30!) but the point is that shots of jurors can never be broadcast. So > just because an image is acquired does not mean it will be published. > > If shooting (stills or video) in circumstances such as these is > uncomfortable then the outcome is obvious - one will not do it, and > probably think very little of those that would. That's okay > by me, as I > have a mortgage to pay and a place in hell guaranteed :-) > > The point about shooting a scene like that isn't necessarily > immediately > obvious. The young man in the park is likely a druggie or a victim of > gang action or an innocent bystander or whatever. But if later it > transpires that he is the son of a Osama Bin Bombadier then the nature > of the scene takes on a new importance, and to have no historical > account (as newspaper and television news images do become a > part) would > be a loss. The point of recording a scene like this - whether it be by > image, voice, or even crayon - is that it fulfils a very small part of > history and gives others access to information that a free > press commands. > > Now I'll read the other replies and assume my position at the > bottom of > the food chain ;-) > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
