Situation Definition:
Kevin Carter was an iconic South African photojournalist who was known for documenting conflicts around Africa during his career. Most notably, Carter’s photograph of a starving Sudan child being stalked by a vulture on her way to a United Nations feeding center, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize, made headlines in 1993. Although the images are hard to look at, Carter only had good intentions while capturing his subjects. His work spread awareness of the chaos and unrest in Africa to the western world. Carter’s photograph of the young girl and other vulnerable subjects were consistently under criticism for being unethical and inhumane. The ethical issues at hand in this case were Carter’s reluctance to helping his subjects and photographing graphic situations and sharing them with the public.
Analysis:
Carter was born and raised in Johannesburg, South Africa. Living so close to the horrendous violence occurring in other countries in Africa, Carter felt it was his duty to expose it to the world. In his biography on African Success’s website, it states that, “born and brought in the middle of Apartheid, Kevin Carter, a middle class white, he despised the lack of resistance to the oppressive regime, he did not accept the way blacks were treated. During his military service, he tried to defend a black waiter in his mess hall, who was being insulted and, as a result was beaten up by his fellow soldiers,” (1). It is clear that Carter was opposed to the Apartheid movement. As a photojournalist, Carter still shared the same values and did not take photographs with bad intentions. He simply felt it was necessary to share with the world. In a New York Times article about Carter’s death, his intentions were exposed: “Last year, saying he needed a break from South Africa’s turmoil, he paid his own way to the southern Sudan to photograph a civil war and famine he felt the world was overlooking,” (2). Carter seemed to want the world to be aware of the violence going on so close to his own home. Publishing these photographs was his way of calling out for help and not to scare the public with graphic images.
Although he was criticized for not helping the vulnerable humans in front of him, it was often not Carter’s fault that he could not interfere (4). In an article about the photo of the starving child and the vulture on Rare Historical Photos, it states that, “Carter was working in a time when photojournalists were told not to touch famine victims for fear of spreading disease. Carter estimated that there were twenty people per hour dying at the food center. The child was not unique,” (4). Because of the risk of spreading disease to the photojournalists and then to other countries in Africa, Carter was not allowed to touch the subjects of his photographs, which was not an easy task for him. In an article titled “How Photojournalism Killed Kevin Carter” by Leslie Maryann Neal, she states that Carter, “often confided in his friend Judith Matloff, a war correspondent. She said he would ‘talk about the guilt of the people he couldn’t save because he photographed them as they were being killed.’ It was beginning to trigger a spiral into depression. Another friend, Reedwaan Vally, says, ‘You could see it happening. You could see Kevin sink into a dark fugue,’” (3). The guilt ate Carter alive and then ultimately caused him to take his own life in 1994, only a little over a year after the photograph of the starving child. The incidents he witnessed in Africa are unlike anything most people will ever see. Carter was only trying to help the vulnerable humans he photographed by sharing them with the public.
Conclusion:
Even though many people described Carter’s photographs as inhumane, the story behind them was what he wanted to show to the rest of the world. His intentions were only to spread awareness about the violence and starvation occurring in Africa. A sufficient solution to this conflict would have been Carter releasing a statement describing the background and conditions behind each “graphic” photograph. He clearly cared about the victims he came across as his experiences drove him into a deep depression eventually leading to his suicide. Because of his determination to raise awareness, Carter’s photographs were neither inhumane nor unethical.
From this case study, I have learned to write/photograph with a purpose and to understand what I am capturing. I hope to always be passionate about my work and to be able to share it with the world.
Learning about these ethical issues is very important, especially for future journalists. Studying these case studies will teach students what mistakes have been made in the past and the consequences of them. Students will be less likely to repeat the poor decision-making and be able to succeed in their field.
References:
- Biography of Kevin Carter. (2011, October 9). Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.africansuccess.org/visuFiche.php?lang=en&id=1029
- Keller, B. (1994, July 28). Kevin Carter, a Pulitzer Winner For Sudan Photo, Is Dead at 33. Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/29/world/kevin-carter-a-pulitzer-winner-for-sudan-photo-is-dead-at-33.html
- Maryann Neal, L. (2017, March 12). How Photojournalism Killed Kevin Carter. Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://all-that-is-interesting.com/kevin-carter
- The Vulture and the Little Girl. (2013, December 24). Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/vulture-little-girl/