Photojournalism ethics - having own staff in picture?

So I ran into this ethical issue which I wasn't really aware of the other day. It wasn't my photo, but another photog on our staff had taken a picture which we were about to run, but then at the last minute pulled it back and used another picture. The reason? The reporter from our staff who was covering the event was in the picture.

According to my editor, having a member of your own news staff in one a photo is a grave journalism sin. But I'm a bit baffled as to why is that? In the photo in question, the reporter was not even really interacting with the subject, more of just observing and taking notes, but even if that were the case, why would this be an issue? Obviously, if a whole article was written, a reporter must have actually been there to cover it, so I don't think it would be out of the ordinary to be able to see the reporter in the photo.

So, what's the big ethical issue here? Or is this just a case of my editor being misinformed? While we're on the subject, what other cardinal ethics of photojournalism don't I know about?

I've used modells when shooting "at the doctors" stuff, frinds have been used to illutrate other aspects. When the image is used to illustrate something most things are ok. If the image is the news item, than it obviously can't be "fake"

And than there are editors that don't understand what will be used to miscredit a paper, and what's not
--
Anders

Some of my pictures can be seen at;
http://teamexcalibur.se/US/usindex.html

event photography and photo journalism

Maybe it's a "paper" based sin? News and sports, etc, TV broadcasts have journalists and staffers on the air all the time. How often is the "reporter" placed prominantly in the scene to talk with everything going on in the background? or a "news conference?" tons of people, cameras, logos, jostling, shoving, shouting, etc. Or the van is swept by the coverage? Can't answer that one for you.

couldn't it just as likely be a sin equal to letting a boom mike drop into view during a TV interview?

it just isn't a clean, professional thing to be spreading out there to the viewers.

YOur editor was NOT misinformed. He was just weird.

Hoevr, being weird is a requirement for most editor's jobs.

Different papers have different policies. You can also see how many stories in the paper inclue "I" in them.

Lots of papers want the reporter in some pictures. Some -- yours -- want them out.

BAK

I'm not sure it's a "sin" like photoshoping somebody out of the frame, but it's kind of tacky to have the reporter in it, like capturing your own reflection.

If it was spot news, I would think you would have more leeway...but it's something you should avoid because you and your reporter are there to merely observe, not add or subtract something to the environment. You're not there to become part of the story.

--
All you need in life is photoshop and photo mechanic.

(N/T) means no text.

muxis said:

I'm not sure it's a "sin" like photoshoping somebody out of the
frame, but it's kind of tacky to have the reporter in it, like
capturing your own reflection.

If it was spot news, I would think you would have more leeway...but
it's something you should avoid because you and your reporter are
there to merely observe, not add or subtract something to the
environment. You're not there to become part of the story.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking that any concerns might be related with that old "don't become part of the story adage", but as long as reporters are merely observing, taking notes, or even conversing with the subjects and asking them questions, that's being as far removed away from "becoming the story" as is possible to do an adequate job of covering it. I think you may be right, and possibly this all started as a 'tacky' style issue which somehow got interpreted as an ethical issue as the rule got passed along from editor to editor over the years.

Thanks for the help.

you should ask your editor. gc

Your reporter was there. Therefore, he/she was part of the scene.
It's not like the reporter was staging anything.

From the NPPA Code of Ethics:

Photojournalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.

3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.

4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.

5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.

6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.

8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.

--
-Tom

-Check out http://www.b-roll.net

This is an interesting subject.

As a smalltown newspaper reporter/photographer for over 20 years, I've never worked at a newspaper that hired a full-time photographer and a writer. I'm usually it.

But whether or not the reporter is in the picture and if it runs in a newspaper, depends on the picture itself.

Was the reporter, prominently featured — like he/she was interviewing a subject and they were the only people in the photo? If that is the case, your editor is probably on target. It looks rather self-promoting and fake. Plus the photo is incredibly cheesy and you open yourself to quite a bit of ridicule from the public at large.

However, if the reporter is in the background, and he/she is a small part of a larger scene (like a mass of people or reporters at a press conference) I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Most people, even in a small town, will probably not know what your reporter looks like

I guess I'd like to see the photo in question.

Cue.

I think it depends on the situation. If it is a press conference or some other event put on for the benefit of the camera, I think it's okay. In fact, IMO, having reporters (whether your own or a competitor's) adds "truth" to the photo because it shows readers that this was an event staged for reporters and photographers.

If it is a portrait of a person or a "spot news" thing (fire, car wreck etc) having the reporter in the frame is bad. Again, IMO, not an ethical thing (since they really were on scene and you didn't add them to the photo or tell them to get into the photo), but it's am aesthetic thing. The reporter clutters up the image and generally gets in the way. Tell 'em to move.

jack
--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/iWeb/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177

CueballKS said:

This is an interesting subject.

As a smalltown newspaper reporter/photographer for over 20 years,
I've never worked at a newspaper that hired a full-time
photographer and a writer. I'm usually it.

But whether or not the reporter is in the picture and if it runs in
a newspaper, depends on the picture itself.
Was the reporter, prominently featured — like he/she was
interviewing a subject and they were the only people in the photo?
If that is the case, your editor is probably on target. It looks
rather self-promoting and fake. Plus the photo is incredibly cheesy
and you open yourself to quite a bit of ridicule from the public at
large.

However, if the reporter is in the background, and he/she is a
small part of a larger scene (like a mass of people or reporters at
a press conference) I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Most
people, even in a small town, will probably not know what your
reporter looks like

I guess I'd like to see the photo in question.

Cue.

Click to expand...

Me too. I try to keep the reporters out whenever possible. But we've got one new girl, straight out of college who doesn't "get it" yet. I'll run ahead, and turn back to get a shot of the folks doing the tour (or whatever) and there she is, right along with them. I don't sweat it if she's part of a fairly large group, but, like this poster,if the photo is almost as much "reporter" as it is "subject" it's not one I would use.