My Take on Photojournalism: Chapter 7: The Ethics of Photojournalism

When a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made up of condoms was published by The New York Times, the basis of controversy was based on how they did not publish cartoons depicting Muhammad. Therefore possibly some people of the Catholic faith, were disgusted with this story and how the ”Eggs Benedict” portrait of the Pope was published. The Times editor Phil Corbett responded with, “the newspaper’s staff “really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs,” but admitted “it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone” and that anyone could “disagree” with the Times‘ decisions.” I agree that it’s possible to offend someone usually with any coverage of any story because we as humans are very diverse and unique, but outside of my religion I believe the coverage of this story was somewhat unethical. Corbett did not see the comparison of the two, “I don’t think these situations — the Milwaukee artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures — are really equivalent.” Basically the artwork of the Pope was created based on his statement, “that condoms could sometimes be used for disease prevention, saying that the pope in no way justified their use to prevent pregnancy.” So the artwork was based off his statement, which was of course also taken offensively to some. Religion is always very controversial so coverage on these topics has to be difficult.

From the Artist’s point of view, the work was created mostly for awareness. Before The Pope had stated that condoms can be used for disease prevention Tom Kington stated, “ The pope's comments follow his controversial assertion in 2009 that the rising tide of HIV in Africa could be made worse, not better, by the distribution of condoms. He was speaking to journalists as he visited Africa, where the majority of HIV fatalities occur.” So Niki Johnson the creator of the artwork was not on the Pope’s side of this ethical debate, that does mean her art was meant to be cruel but is easily conveyed to certain people that way. Niki Johnson stated, “The portrait… is not hate-based, but rather a way to critique Benedict’s views while raising awareness about public health.” I get both sides of this ethical argument to the creation of this artwork. But what I do not agree with is the times publishing a controversial image that could offend the Catholic religion but not exposing the cartoons of Muhammad.

Not only did the Times not cover this story, but all the other top papers did, according to Michael Calderone, “Butnearly all top U.S. newspaper editors reached a different decision onthe matter of publishing the latest cover. The Washington Post, Wall StreetJournal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, and the NewYork Post all published it in recent days.” Thus that is why I disagree with Times and see the ethical dilemma as picking and choosing what controversial stories is fair, I can understand how differing religions would be upset with this choice. If publishing the article of the condom artwork was known to be controversial but it was deemed as okay, “The Times argued it wasn’t right to publish the Muhammad images after the attack at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo because it was offensive.” It doesn’t make sense to defend the Pope article yet not publish another controversial religious based form of artwork. Both of this items were artwork, and art usually values the freedom of expression.

My Ethics map focused on commitment, honesty, strength, proud, responsible, focused, and empathy. If I was involved in this situation, I would commit myself to either covering both the Pope focused and Mohammed focused stories or neither of them. Yes they are controversial but that doesn’t mean they should not be published. If I was part of the Times, I would be honest on why I didn’t cover the Mohammed story; I would not try to make up reasoning for why one was published. Strength and pride are already conveyed in this comparison just not guided in the write direction, the beliefs covered are strong and conveyed decently. Responsibility was not taken from the Times magazine when they covered one risky religious based topic, and then didn’t cover another that a lot of other papers did. The stories published were focused, but the controversy took over the materials. The times could have been more empathetic with both religions and publishing both stories for what they are explaining that these are not there beliefs but what the artists were trying to portray.