Ethics: What I Would Have Done

Many ethical decisions in journalism are best guesses; rarely is there an obvious "right" answer. We look at the circumstances, apply our values and aim to do the most good and the least harm. In the messy real world, never is that ratio 100 percent good/zero percent harm. It's subjective as hell, but that's the way the world is.

But here's what I would have done, and why:

On Sept. 11, 2001, I would have shot and decided to run the Falling Man pic. To me, it is the most powerful symbol of the day. 9/11 wasn't about airplanes hitting buildings; it was about 3,000 individual people, with lives just like you and me, who had to make horrible death-or-death decisions like, "Do I fall 102 stories or do I burn to death?" That picture brings home that this was humanity at its worst in an incredibly powerful way.

But it may have been too powerful for that day.I think on Sept. 12, 2001, I would have regretted that choice. That's because in reality, there was a ton of public fury over the publication and airing of jumper pics, like the Falling Man one. The public was spending far more time considering editorial judgment (arguing if it was death porn) rather than editorial content (the humanity behind 9/11).

The point of how we write a story or what photo we use is to highlight the facts, meaning and content of the subject we're focusing on, and not distract from it. On 9/11, at least, the pic was a distraction. With the next-day perspective maybe I would have run it Web-only with a disclaimer, or run it well after 9/11, when the wound wasn't as raw. 

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't have run pics showing humanity, or even the brutal side of 9/11. It's just I think I would have edited more carefully to show pics that make the point of human tragedy without alienating my audience. Journalism without an audience simply isn't journalism. There's no perfect way to measure that; I would have to consider the facts, then the audience and where it draws the line, and make an educated guess.

You need to share what you see. That doesn't necessarily mean every literal thing you see -- like the Falling Man -- but it does have to be something that is representative of all the things you saw and heard. Maybe another image would have done that, while being more receptive to the audience. Maybe Falling Man would have been better considered by the audience well after that day, after wounds have been allowed to heal somewhat.

Then again, the root of the word news is new. That's no accident; it's news only if it's new, or recent, or revelatory. Is it news if I hide it when it matters most: right when something is happening? Maybe not.

Yes, you want to tell stories truthfully, even if the truth is brutal. But you don't want to distract from the story's underlying point, either. And we have to serve the audience when they want or need news. Our challenge is to reconcile those three factors, even when it's hard. Like it was on 9/11.

I would have taken the starving girl/vulture pic, and I would have run it. But I would have done something else in-between those actions. I would have taken the girl to a first aid station after getting the pic.

Just taking the pic and doing nothing else is not a good choice, in my view. This wasn't an instance where there were hundreds of people waiting to die, all of whom one journalist couldn't help. This was one child; one child is doable.

But helping the girl without taking the pic I find to be a bad choice. First, the way journalists help the most people while hurting the fewest is by sharing horrible things happening beyond the horizon of our audience. How can they possibly decide this is  tragedy and want to make a priority of helping if they don't see how bad it really is there?

Second, we are not there to be aid workers; we are there to be journalists. That's the reason we're there. That's why our news organizations paid for us to go. We can't forget what our job is. It's just that we don't forget we're human, either. We can be both simultaneously. What's more, we need to be both at the same time, never forgetting one or the other.

Given that explanation, I would have done exactly what was done regarding the Vietnam War burned girl pic. I would have taken the pic, illustrating what war really is: not just tanks and explosions, but the very real human carnage of an innocent and terrified girl having her clothes burned off. I would then have done whatever I could to help, like the journalists did in this case by securing medical treatment for the girl.

And then I would have run the pic; again, a story (or pic) without an audience isn't journalism. You need to share what you see.  That's why we were there in the first place. And we do no good to the masses if we don't share what we discovered.

What do you guys think on my points? Give it some thought. Quite often, there is no "right" answer in journalism; rather, there's a bunch of good answers. What we look for is the best solution, even if it's imperfect (and it usually is).