*The rest of you will hate me but I'm sure PaulD won't mind the scripture. Feel free to skip as per but the comment did have me thinking (dangerous, I know)
Fair point, but I doubt the BBC crew knew or cared. As horlock says, it's pretty much misery porn, watching desperate people struggling to save their lives.
From Chapter 1 of 1984, an extract from Winston's Diary
I always have quick look to 1984 and find there is yet another glaringly obvious extract within, so I shall pinch this (technically).
RE: comment in bold. Although yes the press do seem to be very much modern day sadists and I'm sure media worldwide can't wait for 1m Covid deaths globally, so they can do an extra special feature, likely not in so much an informative way but just the glorification of a benchmark. No doubt some news channels already have their "approach to one million" ticker in running 24/7. As if it were the excitement of the countdown to the transfer deadline day (which we all know is bollocks anyway). If they haven't, from about 900k onwards most will. Pretty sad.
But, the "don't care" comment did make me suddenly think of acclaimed photographer Kevin Carter. Carter, if you didn't know took the world famous image during a famine of a child crawling along a track, with a vulture following behind. Of course this image captured the essence and realness of death and famine, all in one shot. Carter as well as getting acclaim for the image, also came under constant harassment and criticism. Saying why did he not pick up the child or save him etc. It brings into an important question regarding journalism/photojournalism; do you interfere with the scenario or do you purely just document it in its most true sense?
Referring Carter and your point, he was purely documenting a real moment but does this mean he didn't care? Reportedly, despite Pulitzer Prize acclaim (I'm sure he didn't want it for such an image), the image did haunt Carter for the rest of his life. However he did take action that we do not see in the image. Not direct, he didn't pick up the child (later revealed that they had been informed not to touch anyone, living or dead) but he chased the Vulture away and then made sure the girl made it to the UN center (which was behind him in the shot). We can't always know the true extended fate of the child but was it his place to interfere to a degree beyond the situation he was witnessing; an ethical dilemma between professional and the reading/viewing public?
I'm sure many of us would instantly say "yes of course I would do more" but in a situation we often behave differently to how we think we would. This isn't to defend the BBC Journos on the boat but maybe as Batch said, possibly assistance was already on the way. A media corps are hardly going to report that though (maybe later when initial effect has worn off) because that isn't as impactful. Sometimes, the perspective of what we see, isn't always all of what we are shown.
Consequently, Carter committed suicide around a year later. Whether this was due to guilt relating to the image (even though he did "help") or more likely he had his own struggles that went deeper but he must've cared. Maybe seeing the famine scenario first hand, to then come home and see people living a wasteful life (food etc) was too much. Perhaps it wasn't the image that haunted him but how so many humans would see the image then turn the page, close the browser and carry on a consumer heavy life.
My own personal favourite photographer is Cartier-Bresson and this relates to the ethical part. Cartier-Bresson was all about finding images that defined a particular moment. That chance of being there and the power it encompasses. So much more than an image which is staged or set up. It could be the moment someone tucks into their favourite food, a response to a joke (not mine), as a tear falls at a funeral. A lot of the time we capture so much but it isn't "real". Other than being in the moment and ingrained in the memory, these defining moments aren't always captured. Which is probably why they surprise or shock us more when we do get to see them. The point is, you can have a photographer take images of your family and I promise that the more candid shots will be hands down better received or talked about than those that have been purposely staged/posed for. Not interfering with the course of the moment and allowing it to flow; which then relates back to earlier comment.
For us to throwaway that a journo doesn't care or isn't bothered, is a lot easier to state when viewed through print or device from our kitchen tables but it doesn't mean it accurately represents them.
*As a side note, Paparazzi are a different kettle of fish. There is capturing a moment but if you are purposely hunting down, harassing and hounding an individual then the ethical element changes somewhat. They aren't necessarily trying to define a moment or inform us about something important, they are purely (and in most cases) trying to get a sought after image (often a celeb or their child) first, to be able to sell for as much as possible. Some will say that it is all relative but I would say many of those don't care about the individuals in that scenario. That is though, another story that I will gladly relieve you of
