TATIANA FLOWERS
Firstly, I was greatly impacted by David Finkel’s speech today, because when I graduate, I’d like to be placed at a newspaper (preferably a small one that will give me lots of experience) where I can be a photojournalist. I would like to document things like war, poverty, famine, brutality, etc. in international places and sort of bring light to these situations. It was especially nice to hear how Finkel removed himself from his writing. As a person who has a lot of experience with writing, this can be one of the most challenging things, and I can only imagine it’s harder to remain objective when you’re in a situation like Finkel was.
Part 1: But enough of my rambling. I think the situation definition consists of 2 parts:
Issue 1- There were lots of dangerous factors explained during the speech. Soldiers would joke about their last words, they would drive at 10 miles per hour to avoid getting bombed, and even gas stations were blowing up soldiers with their own gasoline supply!
Issue 2- Finkel could have easily been unethical and made up the entire thing like Stephen Glass. He could have been scared or nervous because of how dangerous the situation was and avoided it at all costs. He did the ethical thing by actually going and spending time. I suppose it would have made it harder to write the book if he hadn’t actually done the shadowing of the soldiers.
Part 2: I really admire David Finkel because he’s in a position that lots of people couldn’t handle. There are plenty of people that are scared of this kind of action because yes, it is dangerous, and you could potentially lose your life. But the thing that caught me during his speech was that he looked at it from a unique perspective: We need people to do these kinds of jobs, and document what is happening around the world. During the speech, he said, “…The corner of the war that hadn’t been done yet,” so he went ahead and covered it. I think this kind of journalist is the best kind of journalist. He is sort of my inspiration because this is the kind of job that I would like to do eventually. David Finkel reminds me of my favorite photojournalist, James Nachtwey, because they do similar kinds of work. (http://jamesnachtwey.com)
In an article called “Of Phone Bugs and the Bebop Bar,” a journalist who is covering the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Russian troops is characterized as an unethical journalist. In the article, the journalist’s secrets are revealed. It was reported that he involved the installation of hidden bugs in telephones, hidden microphones behind couches, bribing (monetary), and even giving an alias name. (Shuster, 1998) This could have all been easily a part of Finkel’s agenda, as I could totally see lots of journalists doing this.
In another article called “Staged: Toppling Of Saddam Statue,” a situation comes up that I’ve never thought about. The article talks about a photojournalist participating in a set-up, with the set-up created by someone else. The article then asks its reader whether or not it’s okay to participate in a set up even if it was not our own. (2004) In my opinion, NO! That is even worse! I’d rather get in trouble for something that I fabricated, never mind someone else’s lie! But really, I’d rather not participate in either.
Part 3: I think it’s important to talk about these kinds of issues because they will arise indefinitely while we are in this kind of profession. I think when we analyze situations like these beforehand, we are better prepared to handle them.
Part 4: Photographer, News. (2004). Staged: Toppling of saddam statue. EBSCOhost, 9(59), doi: Communication & Mass Media Complete.
Shuster, A. (1998). Of phone bugs and the bebop bar. EBSCOhost, doi: Communication & Mass Media Complete