Just the facts?
February 20, 2003
One of the greatest fallacies in journalism has to do with bias, or more accurately, lack of bias. "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Sometimes it's impossible not to show bias or editorialize in a story. Even if every news story read like a police report, what information gets included? Someone still has to separate the important facts from the irrelevant.
With photographs, those decisions about content are even more crucial. For most stories, only one photo is run. You only get one chance to let people "see" the story. What if you have two pictures that accurately describe a moment or a feeling but yet communicate distinctly different emotions?
This is the dilemma I had last night.
After photographing a local man diagnosed with a rather nasty form of Leukemia, I sat in my chair looking at two pictures that, if viewed separately, told different stories. I had to decide which story would be told through my photograph.
Please, take a look and tell me what you would have done (and why?)
Photo by DANIEL MILLER
Castalia resident Bruce Artrip was diagnosed with accute Myelogenous Leukemia in October of last year and is scheduled to undergo a bone marrow transplant in March. The Xi Iota Eta sorority is sponsoring a spaghetti dinner to help alleviate some of the medical and living expenses.
great question, Dan: since i've had to pick from your fotos before, it's something i'm familiar with. First instinct is sad face, because it "makes sense" -- he has leukemia. I'd want to know more about happy face though: why is he happy? Does that, or would that combined with cutline, better give us an impression with him?
Posted by: Mary B on February 20, 2003 06:49 PMp.s. i think our duty as people who "make sense of the news" for laypeople is as important as being objective. someone's got to let the people know what's more important: a Watergate hearing or a pumpkin festival. It's our responsibility to decide, and that's a big responsibility.
Posted by: Mary B on February 20, 2003 06:51 PMI think I would use the first one because it is obvious that no matter how bad the circumstances are he can still smile. And since he can still smile that is the way I portray him to the world. Some how that kind of sadness should be more private.And I think he probably prefers the image of himself in the first one.
Posted by: marymiller on February 20, 2003 07:57 PMI'd be inclined to pick the 'happy' one, too. It makes sense in the (cutline) context of him being at a fundraiser.
I think a lot of people expect to see 'tragic' photos when they read about terminal illness, you know... it's almost like they feel they're entitled to see some of the hurt (look at the bags under his eyes, oh my God! That poor man!!). Something in that smacks of slowing down at an accident scene to gawk.
Speaking of leukaemia, I'm dyeing my hair (not shaving) for the Leukaemia Foundation's World's Greatest Shave fundraiser in mid-March. It'll be on a sliding scale: $0 means no dye, $100 means cherry red.
Posted by: Raena on February 21, 2003 07:34 AMGood question and good photos.
I feel that we are not only responsible for accurate portrayal of our subjects, but bringing attention to an event, person or struggle.
The second photo is the one that I would go with and the reason is that it is a very serious illness that this man is dealing with.
And this may be taken the wrong way, but the public will be more drawn to help the man in the second photo than the first. It may mean 15-20 extra people attending the spaghetti dinner in his support. That can't be the sole basis for publication, but it might be taken into consideration.
We, as photojournalists, are to be objective when doing our jobs, but still must be human when living our lives.
This is the part where we go to the editor and stress the need for the second photo with the story, whether it be on the jump page or wherever. The serious photo draws you into the story, the happy photo tells you more about the man.
Good work Dan, (I'll shut up now) :)
Posted by: Jason on March 2, 2003 03:32 PMI want to thank everyone for their input on this.
To let you know, despite my lobbying for both, only one photo was run with the story and it went front page. The editor chose the bottom, serious picture.
I also spoke to a member of the family the next week. She said they thought the photo was wonderful. (which was a relief...)
-Dan
Posted by: Daniel (US) on March 2, 2003 03:46 PMHi Dan,
I think the whole point of view is how you interpret his personality. If you get the feeling that he is happy-go-lucky in spite of the disease, use the smiling one, then explain that in the caption. If he is concerned that he may die soon, the smile is way out of line.
Tim Fleck..you remember me don't you?
Posted by: Tim Fleck on March 8, 2003 08:03 PMWhere can I follow up for more information
Posted by: Jenny on November 9, 2004 07:02 AM