To think that pic of the bare-tummied lady should not have been used?

[Chestnut99]

I am appalled at how many newspapers and websites have used the pic of the poor lady in an open yellow jacket/blouse who is sitting on a bench, dazed and in shock with her buttons blown off and her bra and tummy showing (Evening Standard yesterday, front page of today's Times etc etc). The least we can do for a victim of hideous terrorist attacks is respect her dignity, not plaster her over the media.

The Daily Mail has gone one further by finding a reason to repeat the pic today in a special "human interest" article naming her and telling us what her job is.

I would be utterly appalled if my own state of traumatised shock was taken advantage of in the same way, before I had come round and realised I was half dressed and showing my underwear. Shame on them all.

I'm not going to link to the pic because that will just make it worse. I am not usually particularly outspoken but I have complained to IPSO - //www.ipso.co.uk - about this because it intrudes on her privacy and her shock.

Poor woman - and poor Belgium

[holdonfor1moreday]

Yanbu I've complained.

I felt the same about the dust lady, the poor woman died from the dust.

[wiltingfast]

A photo journalist takes photos first and editorialises later. They don't stand around in a news worthy situation wondering about the ethics. They just start taking photos.

The work is important. What would you know of the world without it? Would you really have connected with the reality of the refugee crises without it? What would we know of ww2 concentration camps and the horrors there?

My objection here is the publication of a very specific photo of a woman, clearly identifiable and in huge shock and in a state of undress. It just seems like a completely unnecessary humiliation of an innocent victim for the sake of, I think a PP called it clickbait?

Perhaps the journalist here should not have put it forward. But ultimately the real fault lies with the editors of each publication. They made the decision to publish. All the scapegoating of the person who happened to take the photo is a distraction from the real decision makers who published it .

No doubt they view all this debate as a vindication of their decision to publish. It was clearly newsworthy and has focused public attention or some such

[RedToothBrush]

I'm guessing you've never been through a similar incident then if you defend these people so strongly. I come from a country originally where bombs and stonings and all sorts of atrocities happen regularly. I can tell you, when you're in shock and covered in blood, rubble all around, or something else vile like a woman being burned alive is happening in front of you, those people are not welcome or useful. People reading papers and looking at pictures are not more important than the victims, ever.

I have actually.

I also know that you act with instinct rather than thinking about the right thing to do at the time as a result. If your instinct is to tell the world and to take photos then that's what you would do. And you may well feel guilt for it after the fact.

Call me a scumbag then. But my personal experience and opinion is STILL that these photos are important. Otherwise people do not know or believe that these awful things have happened.

As I say, the lens in a witness to history. The ethics of publishing is a different matter.

[Helmetbymidnight]

I'm still curious why one poster has decided to use this as an explanation for why (we in the West) they keep getting bombed.
Charming defence of terrorism there, funny person.

Now that everyone has camera phones, everyone can take photos of people in distress and put them on social media. We heard from those young people trapped in a ride at Alton Towers who said that people just stood around filming them. We know that the police have to move people on from accidents because they get their cameras out.

The choice to put photos on the front page really panders to that mentality.

For those of us who value our privacy, the idea of our images being out there is really unsettling.

[Lighteningirll]

I am sorry but there is middle ground here for me, to chose to take a photograph before rendering aid shocks me to my core. Take a photograph if there are other people rushing to help but to do anything other that help that poor woman is shameful. Ditto for all 'iconic' war photos. If I ever have the terrible misfortune to be in this situation having a semi nude photo of my injured terrified self would add to my horror and distress. Shame on that 'photo journalist' shame on her.

[IdealWeather]

Red the photos ARE important but human dignity is also important. And that photo didn't protect the dignity of that woman.

I do think that photos are important but we have become so used to 'sensational' news/photos/films that we have become disentized (sp??) and seem to have forgotten RESPECT we should show to other people.

The fact she took the photo is understandable. As a journalist, that's her job. However, she CHOSE to sell the photo afterwards, at a time when things had settled down and she certainly wasn't in a high pressure environment. That wasn't intinct but the clear wish to make money out of a very powerful image wo any thought for respect and compassion.

And YY with phones nowdays, people are quick to take them out and take any photos of an accident/bombs attacks etc... Ever wondered why? Maybe it's just because we are surrounded by these images on the news, images that have become so normal that it's now normal to stop for a bit of 'voyeurism' at the site of an accident.
First step would be to stop treating all the images that really should be part of a horror film rather than your 6.00pm news as something really great that shows 'how things really are' as a way to tug at the emotions of people wo any regards for the victims.

I would also note that there is a lot of outrage on that photo but very few on the films etc... release by IS and so on that are just as attrocious. Again we are seeing that what happens in Europe is horrible, we talk about it, get anxious, say how xx isn't acceptable. Same events in the Middle East etc... don't seem to atract the same attention (eg bombs attacks etc...)

Maybe the issue is that actually we just haven't moved from the middle ages when people were coming in mass to see an execution.

[holdonfor1moreday]

Off topic but if these photos are from a professional photographer why are they such bad quality out of focus etc and look like a toddler on a camera phone years old took them?

[RedToothBrush]

People are more shocked by images in Western Europe, because they are unused to seeing them and it invades their sanitised and safe view of the world.

Images of violence elsewhere are something they can detach from and say they are something that happens to those people not to people like me.

I notice how many posts in the thread use the word 'I'. Its telling about how people the world and their notions of humanity.

[slicedfinger]

Shocked and disappointed today to see the Guardian reprint the photograph, and run a whole piece on how it is an iconic image.

[TinySombrero]

Speak for yourself RedToothBrush.

Re the use of I : maybe because it is a chat forum with a personal feel rather than say a political forum.

[LittleBlackTrilby]

I just went on the Daily Mail website to see if I could see the picture you mean, and instead they're leading with an image of a baby bleeding, crying, sitting on it's mother's body.

I just. What the fuck. Am really genuinely shocked.

[TinySombrero]

It is iconic I expect..

[IceBeing]

I agree these photos should not be used without consent of those photographed - in the case of those that have died, the consent of their families.

I do not see that there is any lack of dignity or that anyone is humiliated by them though.

[PortobelloRoad]

If your instinct is to tell the world and to take photos then that's what you would do. And you may well feel guilt for it after the fact.

As they bloody well should. You are categorically a bad person if you would take a picture over helping a person in distress, your "instinct" is sociopathic if you would get your camera out in that situation.

You didn't answer my question re the little boy in the picture I linked to. Do you really think nothing more could have been done? Would you be happy if that was your child?

Why did my post get deleted? Because I called someone who defends people taking pictures of people in extreme distress, quite justifiably, a scumbag? Ok

[PortobelloRoad]

I do not see that there is any lack of dignity or that anyone is humiliated by them though.

Then you are severely lacking in empathy.

[PresidentCJCregg]

I think this is a fascinating discussion. Theoretically I think a photographer's job is to act like a megaphone, shouting out into the world about what war, conflict, etc, really are, and to bring attention to small corners of the world which endure decades long war that aren't generally deemed sexy enough to be newsworthy.

I have no problem with Kevin Carter's decision to take the picture. I don't really have a problem with a picture of a woman in shock.

I do have a huge problem of a video showing a screaming, traumatised baby lying on it's mother's corpse being publicised globally. Consent clearly not an option. And the Daily Mail are using that baby as clickbait and acting as fucking recruiting sergeants for Daesh.

[Comiconce]

I saw the photo and felt very very uneasy. Then I heard the journalist's explanation and thought wtf. In a similar situation I know there it is 100% unlikely that I would reach for my phone and take pictures or start filming. I would instead look for help and be very concerned for the injured woman in question. She had her clothes blown off her, goodness knows the state of her airway! Just hoping she got the treatment she needed and is recovering.
As for the journalist . I hope she has the decency to donate the money she's made with this photo to charity.

[IceBeing]

portabello maybe you could explain why you are finding the picture humiliating then? and of whom maybe? I mean if the woman pictured has said she feels humiliated by it then, yes of course. But why assume she does?

[MsMims]

Dawn it isn't about hiding from the truth. It's about basic human compassion and consideration. Would I want a photo of myself injured, in a state of shock and in my underwear to be used as a photo opportunity? Absolutely not and I would rather the same courtesy was extended to this woman.

The most important 'truth' in that moment was that woman and her wellbeing, shame the photographer didn't consider offering comfort to her instead of taking advantage of her at such a vulnerable time.

[Helmetbymidnight]

I don't know what I think, really.

These people have been attacked, treated as objects, a means to someone else's awful ends. The murderer is saying: You, humans, are not important.

So on one hand, it's important to document how awful that is. To never forget. To show reality etc.

But at the same time, it's important to protect those people who have suddenly been forced to become victims and to let them be people in their own right again and give them some control.

If it were me, publishing a photo of my face so that I lose anonymity, might feel like something had been taken from me. Again.

[May09Bump]

I can't understand the first instinct being to take your camera out, rather than to render aid - even if its giving these injured your coat or holding their hand until help arrived. I understand the instinct to run and get yourself out, sometimes it takes over, but it's a lack of humanity to take photos in these circumstances.

Don't even get me started with the picture of the baby with his / her poor mother.

I think you can get a sense of the devastation from other less intrusive photos. The other photos are just feeding the sick animals behind these attacks.

[oliviaclottedcream]

Imagine the photographer stumbling around the debris and carnage, crouching down in front of this poor traumatised woman -- snapping away? What an insensitive, thoughless c**t!

[landrover]

It is possible that the lady has given her permission, folks!

[IceBeing]

All the people saying that the woman's dignity has been violated - are you sure you aren't just projecting your own assumptions about how you would feel if it were you?

I don't know how I would feel if I was ever in that position. I think I wouldn't give a shit either way if people saw my bra or tummy...but I can't know because I haven't been there.

The woman might be proud that her photo has made people think.

I also think it is a little bit body shaming to assume anyone photographed with their tummy/bra on show must be feeling humiliated about it.

Why should a woman be assumed to feel humiliated by her bra being seen? I don't think bras are shameful!