
How Photojournalism Killed Kevin Carter (2015) - Tomte
http://all-that-is-interesting.com/kevin-carter
======
briandear
I used to do that job for Reuters, while I didn’t do Africa, I did cover a lot
of the Texas death penalty cases in the late 1990s as well as various natural
disasters. It’s a tough business. But you have to be detached enough or the
world never knows the truth. My good friend Adrees Latif (multiple Pulitzer
winner,) covered the violence in Myanmar, the migrant caravans and a bunch of
other tough stories and it can definitely take its toll, but it’s a vital
profession. One photo can change the world as Eddie Adams proved in Vietnam.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
That photo by Eddie Adams is not the best example of photojournalism being a
good thing. According to
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Nguyễn_Văn_Lém](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Nguyễn_Văn_Lém)

“Max Hastings, writing in 2018, noted that Lém was in civilian clothes and was
alleged to have just cut the throats of South Vietnamese Lt Col Nguyen Tuan,
his wife, their six children and the officer’s 80-year-old mother.[7]

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular
forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded
by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign
recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in
accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not meet all of these,
they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal
combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may
include summary execution”

So by the circumstances, the execution was likely completely justified and in
keeping with the Geneva Convention, but the photo did not present that
context. As such, it served as North Vietnamese propaganda and undermined the
entire US war effort.

~~~
tomcam
Since I am not the parent poster, I would like to understand why this
completely factual post was downvoted?

~~~
pjc50
It's a great example of how to be factually correct while completely missing
the point. Saying "well, his summary execution was completely legal" is a
bland form of words. The photo shows us what that _looks like_ , and how
intuitively horrifying it is. A million deaths is a statistic (or in the case
of Vietnam per wikipedia, 1,353,000). An individual death is a tragedy - and
here is a photo of that.

The casualness and lack of ceremony of the execution is a key part of the
impact of the photo. Was means the casual extinction of huge numbers of lives.
Modern war means this happens at a distance and is comprehended statistically.
"Another few hundred people were fed to the meat grinder today." Photographing
it reconnects people to the dead as humans.

As for "undermining the war", America's role in Vietnam was always on a really
shaky moral footing since it was essentially colonialist; it was always right
to question this and "undermine" it.

~~~
tomcam
Thanks for the answer. My question was sincere, and I appreciate your
thoroughness.

------
dhathorn
There is a really great documentary about Kevin Carter and the bang bang club
called "when under fire, shoot back" [0]

It's much better than the fictionalized version that TFA references. Although
it doesn't seem to be widely available so it might be a bit of a chore to hunt
down.

[0]
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3478564/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3478564/)

------
gcb0
most photos and films were too inhumane for mainstream media. A few
acquaintances sold most of their material, recorded on a trip paid by some
news agency or another to cover the war du jour, to exploitation gore
producers. like the "faces of death" series, who could buy the footage for
close to nothing after it was rejected by a single news outlet, and then sells
it as VHS compilation.

------
EB-Barrington
Photographs that are hard to view, but should be viewed.

------
CydeWeys
On a related note, one of the main characters in _House of Leaves_ by Mark Z.
Danielewski is based heavily on Kevin Carter, in case you wanted to read a
fictional, psychological-horror take on some of these issues.

------
GreeniFi
There is an inherent and inescapable ethical tension in photojournalism. On
the one hand, these images are part of a market- they are bought to sell
advertising, clicks, newspapers. That’s grubby, dark shit. On the other hand,
they’re vital to public understanding and action. That’s as noble as any
calling. But that tension attracts quite strange and often unbalanced people
to the role. I read the Bang Bang Club years ago (read the book, don’t watch
the film). And Carter did sound a bit unbalanced. And the job - and tension I
describe above - probably made it worse.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> The worst thing is to feel that as a photographer I am benefiting from
> someone else’s tragedy. This idea haunts me. It is something I have to
> reckon with every day because I know that if I ever allow genuine compassion
> to be overtaken by personal ambition I will have sold my soul. The stakes
> are simply too high for me to believe otherwise.

and

> The act of being an outsider aiming a camera can be a violation of humanity.
> The only way I can justify my role is to have respect for the other person’s
> predicament.

and

> I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I
> have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated.

and

> I used to call myself a war photographer. Now I consider myself as an
> antiwar photographer.

and

> But everyone cannot be there, and that is why photographers go there – to
> show them, to reach out and grab them and make them stop what they are doing
> and pay attention to what is going on – to create pictures powerful enough
> to overcome the diluting effects of the mass media and shake people out of
> their indifference – to protest and by the strength of that protest to make
> others protest.

and

> Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which has existed
> throughout history by means of photography? The proportions of that notion
> seem ridiculously out of balance. Yet, that very idea has motivated me.

– James Nachtwey

~~~
GreeniFi
I met Nachtwey once. In the early noughts. He struck me as a kind but broken
man.

------
zengid
Graphic photo warning.

------
intralizee
Is it possible to know if it’s morally right to take & share photos of a
person in such a state of starvation and without real permission from the
person. My perception thinks it’s cruel as if the existence of the person is
for the benefit of human existence to progress but this person was to suffer
so harsh for it if so and without any choice in the matter of wanting the
photo shared.. if there was any benefit in the end. Also if there is potential
positivity for humanity that overrides personal permission, maybe all human
dread should be forever documented by some type of medium forever. Seems
impossible to know and justify whatever side. Someone could have taken a photo
or video of the suicide of the photographer and shared it online. I can assume
that would be upsetting but maybe bring awareness more so than what did happen
or is writing equivalent?

~~~
village-idiot
The cruelty is in causing these scenarios, not documenting them. If anything,
sweeping them under the rug by not photographing them makes the situation so
much worse, as unseen horrors are much easier to ignore.

Most newspapers have strict rules around reporting suicide specifically to
reduce copycats, not out of respect for the dead.

~~~
incidentals
Which, of course, exposes a reality that most media outlets are inadquately
contrite about: Most active shooter incidents are indeed suicide attempts, and
indeed copycat crimes, which continue to perpetuate specifically due to the
attention they are permitted to seize.

Were it not for the horrendous coverage they get, we likely would not have
seen nearly as many. So what’s really going on?

This media industry absolutely knows the ramifications of such publicity, and
has known what it would feed into from the beginning. They can control
themselves. They do it every day. They reduce some catastrophes to a blip or
nothing, and amplify others.

Why are active shooter incidents granted such coverage, by a large, tightly
controlled apparatus?

~~~
village-idiot
I think you’ve hit on a failure point of the media: views more matter now than
serving the public.

