Cher Phillips

Views on online media and journalism

Photographer tackles suspect: what would you do?

October 9, 2007 at 9:45 am · Filed under ethics, Photo

I know this is revisiting the ethics issue, but I saw this video on CNN.com this morning about a Maine photojournalist Russ Dillingham, who jumped into an assignment and tackled a man running from the police.

John Roberts mentions a Maine state statute that says citizens are required to oblige if police order them to assist in catching or keeping a suspect from escaping. Interestingly enough, the photographer said he wasn’t aware of that law but was cognizant of his ethical responsibility to not become involved in something he’s reporting on.

I also thought it was interesting that the suspect later contacted the photographer wanting to know why Dillingham helped the police catch him. The suspect told the photographer he would have fought him off if he’d known he wasn’t a cop and wouldn’t have faced charges of assaulting an officer.

Check out the video. What would you do in his shoes?

13 Comments»

  jonolan wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 9:57 am

A Citizen is obliged to render aid as needed in such cases, so of course I would do so. Let the un-American cowards stand by and watch – hell half of them are cheering for the criminal these days – real Americans will still be there doing the right thing.

Reply
  philicher wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 10:44 am

The problem is that the photographer wasn’t just a citizen. His role as part of the press implied some impartiality, which even the bad guy picked up on.

I’m curious – I don’t think Jonolan is in our class. I wonder what his/her field of study or type of work is.

I’d add that I hardly think those in the press who might have stood by and watched would have been “un-American cowards,” as the poster suggests. We’ve talked about this impartiality in our class and how it transcends nationalities.

Reply
  jonolan wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 10:53 am

No, I’m not a student of journalism. Perhaps this blog should be set to only accept comment from subscribers; that would keep random viewers like myself from clouding your comments pool.

That being said, a journalist’s titular professional ethics in no way overshadow his or her responsibilities as a citizen of the nation. I’m not talking about what you may do in foreign countries as part of your employment. Stopping a criminal is a civic duty!

I’ll be leaving now so as not to pollute your viewpoints any further.

Reply
  philicher wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 11:07 am

I cleared your comment, didn’t I?

Your point of view actually makes this interesting. We’ve talked in another blog about the separation between readership and media understanding of issues.

This makes a point that the general public doesn’t understand why some journalists think there should be a separation.

This is kind of like an underlying reason for why shield laws are so important. Journalists don’t work for the government. If they can be forced to testify against — or to run down and tackle — the bad guys, then what’s to keep them from becoming basically state and national investigators? Why should anyone trust them, then? This is the whole idea behind the press serving as the Fourth Estate.

Reply
  jonolan wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 11:22 am

philicher,

My comment about setting the comment to subscriber only was meant with any rancor at all. It was merely a suggestion on how to easier control “random” commentary. Once you said “in our class” I was ready to bow out of the blog so as not to interfere with study.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on any point that involves a profession’s privileges overriding a person’s responsibility to his society.

Reply
  jonolan wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 11:25 am

Let’s try that again – in English:

philicher,

My comment about setting the comment to subscriber only was NOT meant with any rancor at all. It was merely a suggestion on how to easier control “random” commentary. Once you said “in our class” I was ready to bow out of the blog so as not to interfere with study.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on any point that involves a profession’s privileges overriding a person’s responsibility to his society.

Reply
  philicher wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 11:45 am

It’s all good. I figured you forgot the not. Though, it was funnier without it.

I know you’re not in our class — it’s a journalism online media graduate class at the University of Florida, by the way. So you can bow out if you want. But you don’t have to.

No one else is looking here at the moment. The last think you are doing is stopping me from thinking about this.

Again, your last comment about responsibility to society made me think about something we were talking about when we talked about the decision to run graphic content. Journalists are very connected to their society, if you ask me. Most the examples brought up in which something graphic was run, it seems to me that the justification for running that photograph was that it influenced societal change.

I guess I don’t see not acting as a privilege, because there is other action taking place that people depend on the journalist to be doing. Sometimes, the photojournalist stands to add more to society by capturing the moment than by tackling the suspect.

In this story, I found it curious that Dillingham praised a specific detective. Why was Dillingham there, I wonder. Did he pick up the story on the scanner? Or maybe the police tipped him off to be there? If the second is the case, is Dillingham covering the cops’ butts? Thinking critically, if Dillingham hadn’t jumped in, the story might have been about the one who got away.

Here’s another question: why did the cops let the suspect get the drop on them and have to rely on a newspaper photographer to apprehend a suspect?
Further, will this change the relationship between this photographer and the local police? Maybe give him an edge? Or worse, make the police think he’ll look the other way in the future?

Reply
  jonolan wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Oh boy, this opens up a whole can of worms for me. I’d better add a little background:

I’m ex US military and used to help train the hillsborough county SWAT team and the Pinellas County Correctional Officers in various techniques. I currently work as the Information Security Officer for a subsidiary of a LARGE global media conglomerate.

Opinions:
“Sometimes, the photojournalist stands to add more to society by capturing the moment than by tackling the suspect.”

To my way of thinking the ethics of involvement must be absolute. Situations in which a person should intervene must be strictly codified if one is going to say that there is ever a time not to do so.

“it seems to me that the justification for running that photograph was that it influenced societal change.”

I do not believe that is journalism place to enact societal change. I believe that any journalist who attempts to do so has already biased his “story” and rendered his work untrustworthy. I believe that a journalist’s job is to report facts and provide data so that society has the information needed for change, not to influence that change.

As to the questions about the specifics of how this came about, I have no idea. Those a disturbing questions though since they point to possible professional discrepancies in all parties involved.

Reply
  philicher wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

I get what you’re saying about situations being strictly codified if someone can be excused from not acting. Given your background, that makes a lot of sense. I imagine a huge part of law enforcement includes enforcing ordinances, statutes, etc.

The problem with media ethics, or any ethic, is that it deals in the gray area. Media ethical codes are particularly sticky because they NEED to be voluntary to preserve a free press. You see newspapers jump to fire journalists who break these codes in ways that seem extreme to an outsider. I think the voluntary factor plays into this. Journalism wants to police itself.

There are a ton of codes out there. In this case, the photographer said he knew up front that his action was contrary to a national ethical code. Yet, he did it anyway. The national press picked it up. Almost immediately, you – a reader – agreed with the photographer’s actions.

It makes me wonder if we aren’t moving into a different period of ethical values. We talked about this in class, based on something we read in a photojournalism book by Kenneth Kobre. Journalism ethical standard shift with time. The example in the book had been that in the 1960s, it was commonplace and acceptable to stage and set up a photograph. Now, that’s a fireable offense.

On the societal impact issue … I agree and disagree with you that journalists shouldn’t attempt to influence societal change.

I’ll clarify.

Ideally, a reporter should be collecting the facts. But reporters are human and everyone has filters, whether they know it or not, whether they mean to use them or not.

The decision to run a photo or story is at a different level, editorial. Editors are deeply connected to society. In the newsroom, they shape what the reader eventually see’s. On the editorial page, they try to influence directly. If you are going to risk pissing off your readership by running a disturbing image on page one, above the fold, the thought is that it had better be newsworthy, or there better be a real good reason for it. Otherwise, wouldn’t it just be gratuitous graphic content?

Question for you: As someone with background connected to law enforcement, would you want journalists and photojournalists mucking around in your security issues, tackling suspects, etc.?

Reply
  jonolan wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Direct physical “civilian” involvement in a pursuit is scary for either military or police personnel. At one level we’re there to protect them, not have them involved in a dangerous situation. On another level there’s a huge risk for litigation and “bad press” whenever they get directly involved and potentially injured or killed.

Personally – despite those fears – if I couldn’t catch or otherwise “neutralize” the suspect, I’d welcome the involvement. As to the “mucking about”, journalists are going to do that anyway – or write very disparaging articles when they’re prevented from doing so; I’m used to that idea and while it has done harm it has also done good.

Reply
  philicher wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I Google-newsed Dillingham, and he’s getting really good press on this. Poynter (ethical industry standard) has been quiet on it, too. Curious.

I wondered about the litigation factor, myself. In this case, what if Dillingham had been hurt? Also, what if the suspect sues him or the paper? Stranger things have happened and made it to courtrooms.

Journalism has experienced civilian-line-crossing involvement through bloggers, not unlike this photographer jumping into the scene and taking on a law enforcement role. I have to say the media industry was not initially as accepting of citizen reporters than you seem to be. They’re getting better, though.

Personally, I don’t know if I could jump a suspect or not. I don’t even eat the food when I’m reporting on an event, and they offer me something.

Answer me this. You work for a media outlet. Let’s say you had a security issue. Since your employer’s prominence makes any security issue newsworthy, would you be willing to take images or video at the ground-level with your cell phone and e-mail them to the news folks in your company?

Reply
  jonolan wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 2:00 pm

No – anything of that nature would have to be cleared by my boss – the CIO – and our Legal Dept. before being disseminated to a reporters.

Reply
  philicher wrote @ October 9, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Ah, well. I’m thinking that’s how it should work. You protect people. The journalists record you doing it (or in the Maine case, not doing it.) And never the twain shall do each others’ jobs.

Reply

Leave a comment