Anctil 1

Professionalism or Compassion – Can Journalists Have Both?: An Ethical Study of the

Journalistic Actions in Tragic Situations
By: Ashlie Anctil

"We discovered one of the strongest links among us was questions about the morality of what we
do: when do you press the shutter release and when do you cease being a photographer?...We
discovered that the camera was never a filter through which we were protected from the worst of
what we witnessed and photographed. Quite the opposite: it seems the images have been burnt
on to our minds as well as our films. "
~New York Times Photographer Greg Marinovich

Introduction: Journalist vs. Citizen

As a broadcast journalism student with a strong sense of humanitarianism, a question has

always plagued me: where do journalists draw the line between reporter and compassionate

citizen? More specifically, if a journalist is reporting on a tragic situation and sees someone

suffering greatly, what should he or she do?

Hundreds of ethical questions branch from this simple trunk of a question. Should he

help? If so, at which point? How can he actually aid the situation? Will his faithful readers

shun him for not helping? Will he be admonished by his coworkers for stepping out of the

professional sphere and into the sphere of biased citizen? How can he effectively tell the story

and touch the lives of others and move them into action? Photojournalists Kevin Carter and Nick

Ut, and print journalist Nelly Bly acted on what they thought were the right things to do at the

moments of their moral decisions. Each decision yielded a different result; some were

inspirational, some tragic. The boundary between journalist and citizen is never a defined area,

but each journalist must make his or her own judgment into what is the most helpful or

successful way to balance the two.

The Guilt of Inaction: Kevin Carter and the Sudanese Child

At a first glance, the tiny figure in the foreground appears to be a deformed brown rock in

the scorching savannah sun. With a closer look, the little brown bundle becomes a mass of skin
 Anctil 2

and bones. In the background, a vulture carefully stalks the progress of the starving Sudanese

girl trying to crawl to a nearby aid clinic. New York Times photographer Kevin Carter caught it

all under the gaze of his camera lens. The photo appeared on the front page of the NYT a few

days later in March 1993 and won him a Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photograph in 1994. Two

months after he won the award, Carter committed suicide, saying in his note: “I am haunted by

the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain... of starving or wounded children,

of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners.”1

According to an article on Marie Claire online, one of his colleagues, Joao Silva, said,

“He was depressed afterwards…He kept saying he wanted to hug his daughter.”2 The guilt of

inaction led to a resurfacing of many of Kevin Carter’s precedent mental problems and his

ultimate suicide. He may have enjoyed the success and acclaim his photo brought, but he

immediately received just as much criticism and questioning into his personal ethics.

One of his co-journalists David Beresford said, "I asked [Carter] the obvious question of

the vulture photo: 'What did you do with the baby? '…He looked at me in bewilderment and said:

'Nothing, there were thousands of them.’”3 Hundreds of spectators wondered the same question:

what did Carter do? How did he help the child? He claims he chased the vulture away and then

sat under a tree in the shade and cried. He did not pick up the child; he did not carry it to the

shelter. He did not give the starving little girl food or water or even pass on the hug he wanted to

give his own daughter. However, many critics did not realize that he had just come from the aid

center himself, where he had seen hundreds of children, just like her, laying on the floor, crying

and dying of malnourishment. He felt helpless, inadequate, and completely shaken, as implied

from his response to Beresford.

1
“Kevin Carter – Troubled Genius.” Marie Claire Online. 23 Jan. 6 Nov. 2008.
<http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/marie-claire/294/kevin-carter---troubled-genius>.
2
Carter
3
Carter
 Anctil 3

Carter’s lack of intervention in the little girl’s fate bothered readers and editors alike.

Numerous concerned letters came in to the NYT about the crawling figure, while the NYT’s

foreign picture editor Nancy Lee said, "It bothered me, as a person [that he didn’t help the girl.]”4

Even Carter began to feel liable, as he began to change his story, insisting the little girl must have

made it to the aid center because he couldn’t hear her cries anymore. Or, perhaps, she had just

died then and there.

Many also came to Carter’s defense, especially his fellow crises photographers

nicknamed the "Bang Bang Club.” A South African journalist named this journalism crew for

their combination of believing their pictures could make change, and his perception of them as

“adrenaline junkies.”5 Greg Marinovich was one of these reporters who struggled with the same

daily moral decisions as Carter.6

Fellow photojournalist and Boston University professor Peter Southwick also came to his

defense, explaining the logistics of the situation. First, in taking the picture, the child was not in

immediate danger from the vulture, as vultures are scavengers of dead things, not living

gatherers. Second, he agreed with Carter’s bewildered statement, saying that there were

thousands there. Why would he help this one particular child? Southwick also asked, what

could one person do? This journalist was in “the middle of nowhere,” with no major supplies on

him.7 It is uncertain whether he had food or water with him. Southwick said Carter was neither

“trained nor capable” to help the child.8 He was not a doctor or a social worker, he said.9

However, he also mentioned a standard by which many journalists measure their actions; that is,

4
Carter
5
Carter.
6
See opening quote
7
Southwick, Peter. Associate Professor at Boston University’s COM Department of Journalism.
Email: pasouth@bu.edu. Phone: 617-353-3463.
8
Southwick.
9
Southwick
 Anctil 4

whether or not a person is in a life or death situation. If the journalist’s action is going to save a

life, according to Southwick, he should follow his gut instinct and do something.

In regards to the vulture, in my personal estimation, the child was so close to death that

the vulture may have split the difference, but luckily, no one will ever know. Second, the

question why help this child could be responded with two other questions. Why not help this

little suffering girl? Isn’t doing something for one child better than doing nothing for no one?

Carter could have made a difference in this girl’s life. She may be alive now thanks to him.

Instead, her fate will forever remain uncertain. What could he have done? He could have taken

her to that nearby aid center, her obvious attempted destination. He could have carried her in his

arms and shown her the compassion and anguish he felt for her and the entire plight of all the

children he photographed. If only he had given her the hug that he longed to give his own

daughter who was around the little girl’s age at the time. Perhaps she may have lived; perhaps

she may have died. But at least she would have died knowing someone cared. Regarding the

life or death situation, clearly, the child was so near death that Carter should have acted. Though

he may have been traumatized, he may have saved the little girl and ultimately, himself. His

actions would have mitigated the guilt and perhaps his mental breakdown would not have

occurred if he had helped her. He would still be around today to take care of his own daughter,

who has said that when she sees the photograph, she sees her father as the victim child and the

rest of the world as the vulture, ready to prey on him when the opportune moment arose.10 Carter

may not have been officially trained but he was certainly capable of helping the little girl with

the aid center a short healthy-person’s walk away. Helping one child will absolutely make a

difference, even if it is a difference in just that child’s life. It is my ethical and moral judgment

that the journalist can always do something, even if it is only minutely medicinal or simply
10
Carter
 Anctil 5

compassionate. Nick Ut, reporter during the catastrophic Saigon bombing, did just that; he made

a difference in one person’s life through his actions as a human being after fulfilling his duties as

a journalist.

Action After Reporting: Nick Ut and Phan Thi Kim Phuc

Two men pour canteens of water on a screaming little girl, naked, with skin peeling all

off her body. One of them frantically signals a car, runs back to where the little girl is crying “I

think I am going to die,” picks her up, and carries her to the vehicle.11 The 1972 background

shows billows of smoke pouring from a building, the result of explosive bombs and incendiary

bombs (which included napalm) dropped from two VNAF Skyraider aircrafts.12 Villagers run

down Route 1, away from the heavy machine gun fire that had occurred moments before near the

village of Trang Bang, Vietnam. Soldiers and reporters stood all over the road to witness the

throngs of humans with charred flesh, more casualties of the Vietnam War.

The man carrying the young girl was Nick Ut, an Associated Press journalist who caught

all the action on two cameras13 In a 1999 interview, he describes what he saw and thought:

When we (the reporters) moved closer to the village we saw the first people running. I thought

“Oh my God” when I suddenly saw a woman with her left leg badly burned by napalm. Then

came a woman carrying a baby, who died, then another woman carrying a small child with its

skin coming off. When I took a picture of them I heard a child screaming and saw that young girl

who had pulled off all her burning clothes. She yelled to her brother on her left. Just before the

napalm was dropped soldiers (of the South Vietnamese Army) had yelled to the children to run

but there wasn't enough time.14

11
Fass, Horst and Fulton, Marianne. “THE BIGGER PICTURE: Nick Ut recalls the Events of
June 8, 1972.” Digitaljourlist.org. 6 Nov. 2008. <http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0008/ng2.htm>.
12
Fass
13
Fass
14
Fass
 Anctil 6

The young girl with no clothing was Phan Thi Kim Phuc, one of the many of her family

members suffering from searing skin. Not all survived. What makes Ut’s story so unique and

powerful is that he was able to balance his journalistic duties and his desire to aid the victims in

any way possible. Ut captured photos that would be iconic of the Vietnam War. They

encouraged the growing feeling of skepticism of the war. Writer Tom Buerkle of the

International Herald Tribune wrote in 2000: “Her image [of Phan Thi Kim Phuc] has become a

symbol of war that transcends debate about the rights or wrongs of U.S. intervention in

Vietnam."15 Not only did he influence the world so greatly, but he also influenced the life of Kim

Phuc. After putting her in his own vehicle - used to transport him to and from his reporting sites

- he also loads her brothers, uncle, and aunt. Ut asks his driver to hurry to a local Vietnamese

hospital. Ut even shows his compassion as he consoles the crying Kim Phuc as she cries for

water. He says, “don’t worry, we will reach [the] hospital very soon.”16

What happens next is perhaps the most remarkable. Ut went into the hospital and got

immediate treatment for Kim Phuc, something that would have never happened in the crowded

emergency ward. If he had not encouraged the doctors to take care of her at the hospital, they

would have grouped her with the other hopeless victims who were expected to die; meanwhile he

doctors would attend to other people they thought were more likely to live. Kim Phuc would

have been left to die of her burns and Ut’s efforts would have been in vain. His pictures would

have told another tragic story of an innocent war victim. While they do portray this element,

such as the baby who died, they also give a sense of hope for the victims of war. There is the

sense that compassionate humanitarian efforts are possible. In a final act of kindness, Ut did not

leave the hospital until Kim Phuc was on the operating table. He then traveled to Saigon to bring

his film to the AP. Humbly, during his debriefing, he did not even say that he had helped Kim
15
Fass
16
Fass
 Anctil 7

Phuc. He continued to visit her at her home until the United States withdrew him from Vietnam.

The two did not reunite until 14 years later – 17 years after the incident. She introduced “Uncle

Ut” to her boyfriend, who later became her husband and father of their two children. She also

met with Queen Elizabeth II when she visited London Science Museum before she officially

opened the Welcome Wing and the exhibit "Making the Modern World,” featuring the photo of

Kim Phuc.

Ut wasn’t looking for praise as he originally didn’t even mention to the AP that he helped

Kim Phuc, yet many have recognized his heroism. London correspondent of Sueddeutsche

Zeitung, Stefan Klein, wrote “The photographer was also a human being: It was he who poured

water over the wounds of the burned girl and he drove her to a hospital where her life was

saved."17 Ut was just doing what he thought was right. He succeeded in telling Kim Phuc’s story

as he photographed the immediate aftermath, but still rushed into action. In London, Kim Phuc

praised Ut, saying “He saved my life. He's wonderful, isn't he? I am so grateful that he didn't

only do his job, but he's a human being helping another."18 His example shows that journalists

can reconcile their personal morals with excellent, influential reporting.

Muckraking and Change: Nelly Bly and Tillie Maynard

While these past two examples of the moral battle for journalists are fairly modern, an

example goes back to the days of early muckraking journalism. A mysterious new inmate of an

insane asylum becomes known as the “hopeless case” who wails sadly “I can’t remember.”19

Reporters want to find out the story of the “pretty crazy girl” but something is not all right about

this story.20 Nellie Brown is in fact Nelly Bly, the pen name of Elizabeth Jane Cochrane Seaman.

She is, in fact, a journalist herself, for the New York World. She passes a series of doctors’
17
Fass
18
Fass
19
Bly
20
Bly
 Anctil 8

examinations in order to convince them that she is insane.21 Her mission is to penetrate the

Woman’s Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell’s Island near New York City to expose the cruelties

inflicted upon the inmates. She succeeds. While there, she meets poor Tillie Maynard, who

thinks her friends have sent her to a “convalescent ward to be treated for nervous debility, from

which I am suffering since my illness,” she says.22 She watches as the doctors neglect her claims

of sanity and requests to leave, and sees her indeed go a little mad as she is locked away on

Blackwell’s Island with Bly.

Many times Bly wants to reveal herself to Maynard or other inmates who seem perfectly

sane. At any point she could have her editors pull herself out, and perhaps help Tillie or other

individuals immediately. But Bly puts off the revelation for ten days, suffering freezing

conditions, doctor and nurse verbal abuse, and inedible food.23 Bly submerges herself in the

world of the insane asylum in order to tell the most accurate and detailed story. By doing so, she

is able to get the full story for the better of all the inmates of the asylum. She is able to describe

the process, the conditions, and the inmates to the rest of the world, bringing a voice to the

hopeless women. In addition, her efforts brought about an awareness of the plight of mental

health patients. The introduction of her article-turned-book says, ““I am happy to be able to state

as a result of my visit to the asylum and the exposures consequent thereon, that the City of New

York has appropriated $1,000,000 more per annum than ever before for the care of the insane. So

I have at least the satisfaction of knowing that the poor unfortunates will be the better cared for

because of my work.”24

21
There are certainly other moral questions that arise, such as: when is it ok to go undercover?
What are the moral implications of pretending to be insane? But these and other questions regarding the
route Bly took are another matter for another paper.
22
Bly, Nellie. Ten Days in a Mad-House (Online Version). NEW YORK: IAN L. MUNRO.
UPenn Digital Library Online. 1887. 6 Nov. 2008.
<http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/bly/madhouse/madhouse.html>.
23
Bly
24
Bly
 Anctil 9

This is exactly the type of result for which the “watchdog” reporters hope. To bring

about a change for the greater good, without putting anyone in too much harm’s way, is one of

the only instances I think that a journalist may hold off on his or her own moral obligation to

help someone in need. However, if it is possible to both tell the story and save the person, the

journalist should do so without hesitation.

It is worthwhile to mention that the previously mentioned other two cases also brought

about significant change by telling the people’s stories. While Carter originally went to Sudan to

find out about the local rebel movement, he learned about the serious famine that affected so

many people. His picture caused a significant increase in donations to African aid charities from

around the world.25

A former Vietnam correspondent, Martin Woolacott, analyzed Ut’s photograph at the

London exhibit. He said, "Nick Ut's photograph had an extraordinary impact around the world.

The psychological history of the war seems inconceivable without this image.”26 The picture of

Kim Phuc was influential in making the world aware of the atrocities in Vietnam.

Conclusion: Do the Very Best You Can

When reporting on a crisis, a tragedy, or any other form of misfortune, there is always

going to be that moral dilemma: where is the line between journalist and citizen? Many

journalists are afraid to cross the line and lose their credibility or professionalism. However,

sometimes by not breaking the rules, they lose a bit of the compassion that makes them human.

Writing objectively does not mean seeing, thinking, or acting apathetic. Objectivity is about

fairness, giving both sides a chance to talk. There is no objectivity in reporting on starving

children in Sudan. The vulture that benefits from rotting corpses is certainly not a side. The

25
Carter
26
Fass
 Anctil 10

journalist is free to act to save anyone he or she can. There is no objectivity in a merciless attack

on citizens in Vietnam – although other journalists did investigate the motives of the attacks.

The attacking planes don’t need help, the babies, women, and children need immediate medical

care and hospitalization. That is exactly what Ut made sure happened. There is no objectivity in

cruel treatment of people who deserve extra careful care, instead of maltreatment – Bly was

careful to distinguish the “good” doctors from the “bad” ones though. She took time to

understand the mentality of many of the individual patients, sympathizing with them and helping

them through telling her story.

Two of these three instances and countless others show journalists in their finest hours.

They are selfless heroes who go even further than their normal risk while reporting. They show

their humanitarian sides and make a difference in the world by telling the stories of those in

need, both through pictures and words. The remaining instance shows how the lack of action can

cause the downfall of public opinion, of peer opinion, and self-opinion; it could even lead to self-

destruction.

“Help whenever and however you can after or while getting the story,” should be the

motto of journalists. If the job of a journalist is to be the “watchdog” for the public good, then he

or she should really have the good of humanity as a priority in mind and heart.