Ethics Analysis | HUN 191
 This image by Julia Le Duc was taken at the southern border of the US.Â
Although this is a very graphic image I believe that not only is it appropriate for a publication to publish this image but it is ultimately necessary. Upon first glance, this is not an image you want to look at but after reading about what happened in this image and learning that it’s a result of Trump’s administration, you will definitely want to take a second look. This photo is representative of the current political climate as well as an eye-opener for readers around the world. We may think that we are unable to do anything but spreading awareness about what is going on during the current president’s administration through powerful, striking, gut-wrenching imagery is better than nothing.
What kind of an effect will this image potentially have on the public viewing audience?
The audience will be shocked, of course, any sane person viewing this image should be— but hopefully, they’ll be able to think past their feelings towards the photo and look at “the big picture”, which is there are people seeking refuge from Trump’s migrant camps and while doing so their lives are at risk. They are experiencing inhumane living conditions in the camps which is what forces them to escape and seek refuge and while doing so, their lives.
How do you determine if the image was manipulated?
I believe that is irrelevant for a couple of reasons, one being that unless the image is drastically artistically modified then there isn’t much of a way to determine if it was manipulated. But also, if the image is being taken to tell a story and the contents of the photo are manipulated in an impartial way that supports the story then there should be no issue, unless the image is staged.
“The Dark Heart of Europe,” a 10-photo series by Giovanni Troilo about gritty Charleroi, Belgium. Was disqualified by World Press Photo due to Questions about staging the image. Would you have disqualified the series based on the fact that Mr. Troilo had photographed his cousin having sex with a woman in the back of a car, using a remote-control flash to illuminate the steamy back seat? By putting a flash in the car, critics had said, Mr. Troilo effectively staged the photo, violating the rules of the contest. The photographer disagreed.
A staged photograph is set up. This “set” may or may not include models, posed with artificial and purposeful lighting. This set may or may not include props and the set is either designed by the photographer or a set designer. Photos were taken candidly of people without them knowing do not count. Although Mr. Trolio included artificial light in his photo and did so intentionally, that makes the photo valid for disqualification but the subjects of the photo had no idea the photo would be taken, the outcome of the photo was completely out of the photographer’s control and that is usually the point of a set. This was not a set, without the artificial light there would be no photo due to the time that the photo was taken. The only thing that should warrant this photo for disqualification anywhere is if the subjects of the photo did not give consent for it to be published.
A firing squad executes 11 men after Islamic radicals overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979
I think it was very careful and considerate of the publication to not reveal the author’s identity at the time of the first publication. The topic of the imagery seems very sensitive and as if what’s being done in the photos should be done discretely, so the safety of whoever is documenting the image may be at risk.
I believe the photographer could’ve captured this photo and saved the child’s life afterwards but that all depends on the kind of person the photographer is. The fact that food isn’t easily accessible to everyone worldwide should definitely be documented, spread, and fixed but there is no rule that the subject of the photo and the photographer should engage or that it becomes the responsibility of the photographer to solve what is being documented.
I believe it would be ethical to accept the digitally altered photograph. The subject and what is happening in the photo wasn’t altered or manipulated if anything the image just seems enhanced and enhanced photographs that still tell the same story are published every day. I don’t believe the author should be banished for enhancing the image if anything I believe it was best for the image.
I don’t believe it was ethical to take this photo, to begin with, so publishing it is a definite miss-step, in my opinion. This image honestly reminds me of trauma porn.  We photograph and document life to remember it and to tell important stories when it comes to a bombing or destruction of any kind I believe there are more tasteful ways of documenting it. I personally, wouldn’t look at a slain child with their brains exploded and want to document, remember, capture, or be a witness to that. There was a bombing, I think we know what happens when bombs explode.
If this photo was taken by a photographer that was supposed to be at the funeral and the family wasn’t deliberately secluded having a private moment then I do not believe capturing this moment constitutes an invasion of their privacy. Â
I don’t believe it’s necessary to show their tragedy— I think we’d be treading into trauma porn again with that imagery. This image itself already clearly tells us that the family is going through grief and the image is of a great moment whether it be sad or happy. I think this image tells us more than we need to know, well that and the brief description underneath.
Firstly, I’d like to state that these are two great images. The composition of the first image causes you to look at everything happening in the image but almost in a sequential fashion. You’re able to see and feel the grief of the subjects first and then there’s a diseased child hanging out of a body bag. The image almost feels theatrical to me because of how expressive and loud the family’s grief is. In the second image, all that is shown is a child’s trapped hand- indicating that the child could be diseased. As I mentioned previously I believe it’s important to share people’s grief, it helps to inspire compassion in others, but viewing a family's grief coupled with the reason for their grief, in the same image is not ethical to me. This is probably one of the worst days of that family’s life, I wouldn’t publish it unless they wanted to tell a message with the image of their grief being publicly displayed.
Professional cyclist Fabio Casartelli of Italy lies mortally hurt after he fell during a race.
•Which image is appropriate to publish?
The black and white image is appropriate to publish
•Does lack of color makes the image more or less graphic?
 The lack of color makes the image much less graphic, I can comfortably look at the black and white image.
•Is the same message conveyed in both images? Explain why or why not.
Blood is a very graphic, symbolic, and recognizable fluid, especially in photography/visual art. The most distinct visual trait about blood is the color, removing the color completely removes the feelings that come with the color red and its association with blood. The same message is being conveyed, but one photo makes the message a little easier to digest.
I do believe it was ethical for some members of the press to publish these images the day after Dwyer publicly committed suicide. Dwyer knew exactly what he was doing and he did it with cameras on, present, and pointed in his direction. I believe whatever they captured they are at liberty to publish.
•Is this an appropriate image to place on a sports page?
Yes
•In what capacity do you feel it is valid to use this image if anywhere?
I believe the only appropriate outlet for this image is a sports page.
