To Help Or Not,
Another Dilemma
A controversial photo that caused another ethical dilemma in the
world of photojournalism. The starving Sudanese baby girl, stalked by a vulture, taken
by "Kevin Carter" March 1993.
This photographer won the most prestigious "Pulitzer Prize" a year later for
this photo.
You need to know that the photo was taken only less than 1 kilometer away from a
"UN" feeding center where Carter (the photographer) was taking snap shots for
the famine in southern Sudan.
When the photo was first published in The New York Times, the readers kept calling
to ask one question: "What happened to the baby girl?"
Since there was a photo for her, that means there was once a photographer there,
a human being after all that can give hand and help, specially where the feeding
center is so nearby.
The truth in my opinion was more shocking than the photo itself. He did nothing. He
totally did nothing. Later he told an interviewer himself that he sat under a tree for a
long time, "smoking cigarettes and crying!!". Then he walked away!!
He even said that he waited about 20 minutes, hoping the vulture would spread its
wings to take more dramatic shot, yet the vulture failed him!!
He spent in Sudan only 2 days and went back to Johannesburg, South Africa, his home
land. In April 12, 1994, the New York Times phoned to tell him he had won the
Pulitzer.
In New York while receiving his Pulitzer-one of the most important and prestigious
prizes- any journalist or photographer would dream to win, he had heavy criticism for
just photographing —and not helping— the girl.
"The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of a child suffering
might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene."
However, others argued that Journalists at the time were warned never to touch famine
victims for fear of disease.
And others argued:
"What are the odds the little girl is alive today? Not very high, I'd say.
If she is alive, what quality of life is she likely to have? She almost certainly
had permanent damage from her period of starvation during crucial development, both
before and after birth. It is easy to criticize Kevin Carter. Why?
Because he took a photo of one starving child among thousands?
Generally speaking, and as a rule of thumb, the main role of any who works in
media field, is to record honestly what they see and witness without interfering.
What do you think yourself?
Yet on the contrary,
The photo of Kim Phuc Phan Thi, as a burned child escaping from her Vietnamese village
which has been bombed with napalm (8 June 1972) has traveled across the world and has
earned the photographer, Nick Ut of the Associated Press a Pulitzer Prize as well. The
photograph showed Kim - "the girl in the picture" - a nine year old running
down the road in the village of Trang Bang.
This photo has been widely boosted as an icon and symbol for the
American war in Vietnam and raised anti war demonstrations.
It was the photographer who helped and took her himself to hospital.
Kim's skin was so badly burned by napalm that she was not expected to survive, but
after 14 month in a Saigon hospital, she returned to her village to begin rebuilding her
life
After numerous operations, she continued her studies in Cuba and there she met fellow
student Bui Huy Toan. They married in 1992. She demanded political asylum for herself
and her Vietnamese husband in Canada and had the Canadian citizenship 1997. When the
Canadian found out that the little girl from the 1972 photo was now a Canadian
citizen, they raised $30,000 to help her settle in Canada.
Kim after years of the war.
She has dedicated her life to promoting peace, and to this end she founded the "Kim
Phuc Phan Thi Foundation". This foundation helps children who are victims of war
everywhere by providing medical and psychological help to surmount their traumatic
experiences.
Ever since, special bond has been established between
"Nick", the photographer and "Kim"
Have you reached a verdict yet?
<Previous 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 Next>
