When to put down the camera

[Shawn7656]

I understand the want, need, or urge to capture certain events even if they're not something happy or beautiful. Some of the most moving pictures are of very dark moments. I was wondering, though, how do we know when to put down the camera and help?

(Warning, kinda graphic)
I just got done watching a video that was 8 minutes long (I skipped a lot of it because it was terrible) of a girl fighting another girl. However, one girl didn't ever hit back and there were 4-6 people in the room who were either laughing or joining in with it. I'm not too sure WHY this was happening as they weren't speaking English, but the girl who was hitting the other was clearly really angry. The cameraman (yes, "man") was laughing half of the time, even though the one girl was on the ground getting hit, face bloodied and dripping. At the end the camera pans over to another guy sitting on a chair, watching and smiling. He gets up and pushes over the girl who's now crying. The shot ends with the girl on the floor getting kicked from her knees to the ground again by the same girl from before...

Now obviously the camera "man" in this situation had no urge to help but it got me thinking; when do you go from documenting something to ignoring it? How do you know when it's time to help the people in the moment, instead of recording things for others to see? Maybe this is more of a moral thing, and maybe this isn't the exact place to ask such questions, but I'm really wondering.
I recently saw some amazing picture on Flickr of some protesting in Libya. The cops were beating people down with nightsticks and other weapons, it was pretty graphic. I wonder now, though, if the photographer should have just put down their camera to help the people...

If I'm breaking any forum rules by bringing this topic up, I'm sorry. I haven't posted more than once or twice on here and I don't know the community well.

[NgaiHill]

I guess that it depends a lot on the person behind the camera. For me perhaps the deciding factor might be how much of a difference I can make by putting my camera down, as opposed to holding onto it and documenting what is happening. I think your two examples are at both ends of the spectrum here, in the first the guy holding the camera, although disinclined to intervene, could possibly have made quite a difference to the situation if he had've put the camera down and tried to stop what was happening.
On the other hand a reporter in Libya (or whereever else) may have put his own life in danger by interferring and may actually serve a greater purpose by documenting what is happening in front of him. A foreign reporter may also feel that it is not his/her place to interfere in that situation, his.her only job is to document the event - much like a wildlife photographer watching a predator hunting and killing.
Depending on the country there may be a legal obligation to intervene in a given situation but no matter where you are there is always a moral obligation to act - it just depends on one's morals.

[Shawn7656]

You bring up a great point. I know my examples were totally opposite, but when I was typing this post out my mind was still reeling with thoughts of how humanity is failing (I know it was less than an hour ago, I've side-tracked myself with photography stuff though)

I'm glad I've never been in the situation to make the choice, but I hope that when I am I can make the right one, ya know? I'm a Buddhist so I am strictly against violence and all for peace and helping others. I wonder how hard it is to know if you're helping more by taking pictures or caring for the wounded..

I'm gonna stop typing now, I'm getting back into the philosophical/moralistic mood

PS - Sorry for bringing up my religion, which is probably also against forum rules haha

[NgaiHill]

Hey, no worries about bringing up your religion. I'm against it(religion) myself but you didn't try to convert me so we're all good
I'm in the Army and when we had all our briefings before deployment a couple of years ago we were given a talk on what to do in various situations blah blah blah. Ultimately it boiled down to asking yourself one question - "What would your Grandma say about your behaviour?" or even "How would that look on the front page of the local paper?" If the answer is "Not good" then don't do it - or do it as the case may be.

[SwissJon]

I think Lisa makes some good points.. I think there's definitely some grey areas between documenting an event and intervening. Personally, when it comes to people, I will intervene if I think I can put someone in a safer situation.

If it's a life threatening situation, I will take more risks to intervene, perhaps putting my own life at risk to do so, but will do so in a considered manner, too many people jump into a situation with the best of intentions and make things worse because they aren't properly equipped for the situation.. If you see someone being washed away in a fast moving river, do you dive in to save them or run down the bank to see if you can find something to assist you in your rescue effort? The first places you in the same precarious situation they're in, the second allows you time to think and formulate a plan that might allow you both to survive

As far as your two examples, in the first situation, watching someone being beaten to a pulp is not a laughing matter.. I would intervene rather than filming it. Clearly the person filming it was enjoying the "entertainment" rather than thinking about the moral issues. Perhaps they're not bothered, perhaps they have no morals.. Who knows..

In the second example, I would take the photos and document the situation.. Clearly intervening would put my life in jeopardy, and is very unlikely to have changed the outcome for the poor victim. Documenting it means that perhaps justice can be done in a later date.. For example when people ask why the armed forces are intervening there, you can point to atrocities that are documented and say "To stop things like this".. You are one person among 7 billion.. You cannot change the world with your fists, but perhaps you can change peoples hearts with your photos, but clearly, when you have your camera out documenting pain and suffering, you should always ask "Is it time to stop and help?"

Unfortunately not many people DO stop and help.. As an example of this, I fell from some stairs at a train station late one night, breaking my wrist, two front teeth and my nose. In tears of pain and covered in blood, I made my way to the top of the stars again to try to find help, and nobody would stop their cars to help. I found a bus and the bus driver wouldn't call an ambulance and wouldn't let me on the bus and drove off leaving me there. Eventually I found a phone box and dialled an ambulance, but there must have been 20 people that I encountered in the meanwhile, all of whom refused to help, fearing I'd been mugged or something, they turned and walked the other way... Sometimes you should step in, even if you don't know why.. I will, even if I know the person I was helping wouldn't do the same in return.

I'm not religious, but I do have two Buddah's sitting on my desk.. I always believe that ALL of the main religions teach the same thing.. Help your brothers and sisters, don't kill them.

[BigFuzzy]

I think the two examples you note are wildly different to the point that they can't really be used to illustrate the point.

There's a trend of kids filming fights, as evidenced by many clips on youtube. This is not a situation of someone stumbling on a fight and having to decide whether to film or intervene. I'd argue that the man filiming the fight began with the intent of filming a fight, so why would he stop?

The libya issue is more legitimate as it's likely a journalist documenting the vents on hand so then it all comes down to the issue of what the role of the journalist is.. and that's and age old debate though I think most would say it's still only their job to document and not intervene.

[Blitzkrieg]

I d say "F*ck this" every time and try to be a human first.
About the Libya reference,I m not sure.
I probably would not interfere.Not my war anyway...
I would be there to document,not judge or participate.
N.

[Jim Bryant]

As a journalist/photographer covering an event, my main goal is report what is happening actually as possible.

[andyw]

The example you gave is not a good one.
The person filming that fight was obviously a part of the gang of people and whatever the reasons for the girl getting a beating he was involved in it.

As a photo journalist then the job is to record and not intervene.

If you have enough shots to tell the story then intervene if you want although often that is not going to be a wise or recommended thing to do for various reasons.

If you are just Fred Bloggs walking down the street with your camera and you come across someone drowning or the like and you are the only one around then yes, I would try and save the life first and worry about images after (if at all).

If you are a photographer/cameraman on a job then whether you are a war or wildlife photographer it is NOT your job to intervene and there are (normally) others there more capable and able to do so if necessary.

[Izzy]

The situation you described was appalling however it is not a good example. It sounds like a gang initiation. I dabble in journalism for a quick buck sometimes so I am nowhere near as hard core as some of the other members here. Because of this I have to intervene when the time is right.

This brings to mind a photographer who seemed to be plagued by his work. I think it had to do with the work he was doing and the very little he could do about this all. This photographer is Kevin Carter.

Wanting a Meal

Do a google search and you will find an afternoons worth of good educational reading. I do not fault Kevin in his work. I know I would shoot the same given the situation. I can only think to how that work would have eaten me alive.

Your question of ethics cuts to the core of what and who a person is. It is personally subjective and ever changing.

I intervene when it is obvious there will be no help coming. Like in the case of Carters vulture shot I would have done the same. Take the picture and then chase the vulture away and make sure he/she got to the feeding center.

If help is right there I keep shooting. If I am able to invoke a change that will stop something fatal from happening to say a child in front of a fast moving car, I will do my best to intervene.

Like a doc I think of do no harm. I will not have my inaction (reasonable) be something that plagues me for the rest of my life.

I picture the creepy feeling of a blue eyes disheveled boy staring at you from his dirty face and then promptly running out into traffic to be killed by a passing car. This is not something I would want playing in my head while I sleep.