Discuss

bdcolen · June 1, 2012

Read. Think. Discuss.http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith/2012/05/31/gJQA3fRP5U_story.html

michswiss · June 1, 2012

I have a friend who is terminal. She's been surviving for several years, but it's matter of time. I take shots of her on occasion. I'm very close to her kids and husband. I shot her 50th b'day. Her husband is my closest long term friend. We talk about and share everything. They know I'll take pictures all the time. But I'm uncertain about how to deal with her death. It hurts to even type this. She's still vibrant, over involved and caring. Someone worth a chance to have an afternoon coffee with. It's too much to describe and it will get much worse for her at some soon stage.

So, to the point. I read the article and am angered and conflicted. Documenting is important. Personal faith has value, religion sucks. I feel driven to present as much a normal life as I can. They know I have a camera at hand most of the time. I also know I must have a chat with her about the value of documenting aspects of her end. I think of her boys, I sob with her husband's pain, my friend's pain. Nothing is immediate. It evolves. To take pictures of this or not.

lensmole · June 1, 2012

People have the legal right to refuse medical aid . The photographer did his his job.

jhefti · June 1, 2012

I think the story is more compelling that the shots, but perhaps that's because I am in the medical profession and none of this is new or unusual visually.

Once again, my personal history in this part of the world forces a context to the story that is not apparent to most. West Virginia is a very culturally isolated place. Sparsely populated, there are pockets of people who have adopted some strange (by my metrics) ideas. Part of this isolation is the sheer ruggedness of the topography, but there is quite a bit more that isolates the populace than anticlines.

For some reason, religion is a centerpiece of life to many there; and for many, religion has become a deep personal issue that morphs over time. Although I don't pretend to understand why some of these beliefs are held, I do know that they are held absolutely. And anyone who even attempts to question them--particularly outsiders--is held with deep suspicion and sometimes treated with outright contempt.

So within this personal context, I find this story to be shallow and sensationalist. In this sense, there are many similar stories I've read over the years that portray the oddities of the Mountain State and its inhabitants, all shallow and many pejorative.

Regarding the religious component, I don't attach any more strangeness to this than I do to any other religious beliefs, recent or ancient, that cause people to injure themselves or others in the practice of faith. For some reason, many of us need to believe in certain fantasies--or at a minimum, highly implausible beliefs that find no evidentiary support--to make sense of our lives and the world around us. If this person needed to believe in the power of venomous creatures to make life worthwhile, that's his business. I doubt I would have much to offer him by way other beliefs that might work and be less detrimental to his physical well-being.

RyanS · June 1, 2012

I probably would have done what Ms. Pond did. She knew the subjects well, and I think made a brave call. In my opinion: #1 - Keep yourself safe. #2 - Help if you are able, and permitted. #3 - Tell the story.

In my camera bag I have a small trauma kit, a small first aid kit, a bunch of medical gloves, a CPR mouth barrier, extra tape, and some written instructions. The most important medical device I carry is my cell phone. I've received some basic first responder medical training (think EMT-light). The written instructions are to remind me of my training in case I get scared out of my wits, and forget. The gloves get used frequently for all kinds of things. I dip in to the first aid kit often for simple OTC drugs, band-aids, etc. I've only used the EMT-light training twice. Once when I was the first on-scene at a motorcycle accident. The other, when I was a witness (first on scene) to a boy who lit himself on fire 200 miles from the nearest hospital. In both of those cases I didn't get to a point where I felt I could take pictures.

If you walk the streets, consider building out a medical kit and getting some training. You might go your entire life without using it. You might save a life tomorrow.

seastack · June 1, 2012

jhefti wrote: »

So within this personal context, I find this story to be shallow and sensationalist.

While I do understand where you're coming from on this, and in other instances might agree, in this case I do not. I do appreciate your thoughtful replies here.

Obviously the photographer has spent years photographing these people and this community. They are friends. She did not run in, exploit, and run out as many others do. And, as the article shows, she did a lot of soul searching before deciding to let them be published, and then, only in the Washington Post. I suspect she asked the family first but I do not know that for sure. I thought the photos respectful, straight forward and quite good.

To many, they are likely a testament to stupidity, to the family, a testament of faith.

As for the making of the photos themselves, she bore witness while respecting the subjects and the situation and their beliefs. I'm not sure how she could have done this differently and in doing so, gave testament to their beliefs regardless of what others might think. Very tough situation.

I have somewhere in my archives photos that I did not publish after wrestling with such ethical dilemmas. They are, mostly, photos of the dead, some of them friends and were taken in the context of "breaking news" situations. A few would likely have been award winners, like the firefighter carrying the 8-year-old boy from the surf while giving him mouth to mouth. I did not know the child was dead, so I took the picture, and regardless I (almost) always took the picture deciding later whether to run it or not. This still bothers me. That one was pretty clear cut, it didn't run in the newspaper. Several years later, that same firefighter, a friend, drowned during a surf rescue. I didn't print that one either. I also have photos of the death of a police officer, another friend, in the line of duty. I didn't print those either. Sometimes, I think I should have printed some of those because they would have helped to educate the public on the danger of rip currents at this particular beach and may have prevented the death of others later to which I often bore witness.

I did print the photos of five girls rescued from the surf, and I participated in the rescue by spotting one of them and pointing her out to the rescue team, and by helping to launch the SeaDoos. I was castigated by some of my colleagues for participating in the news. I told them to go to hell. I lost friends over that, although I'm not sure they were truly my friends to begin with.

All of these things are tough calls for journalists and the good ones wrestle with these issues, and they often haunt them later. I cannot fault the photographer in this case because she truly cares and is a human being first and a photojournalist second.

To quote Nachtwey who has been discussed here recently:

"If there comes a time when I'm the only one who can make a difference, then I'll suspend being a journalist and help people. I have intervened in lynch mobs several times over the years and managed to save people. "

In this case, there was little she could do. And it happened.

Quincy T · June 1, 2012

ryans wrote: »

i probably would have done what ms. Pond did. She knew the subjects well, and i think made a brave call. In my opinion: #1 - keep yourself safe. #2 - help if you are able, and permitted. #3 - tell the story.

In my camera bag i have a small trauma kit, a small first aid kit, a bunch of medical gloves, a cpr mouth barrier, extra tape, and some written instructions. The most important medical device i carry is my cell phone. I've received some basic first responder medical training (think emt-light). The written instructions are to remind me of my training in case i get scared out of my wits, and forget. The gloves get used frequently for all kinds of things. I dip in to the first aid kit often for simple otc drugs, band-aids, etc. I've only used the emt-light training twice. Once when i was the first on-scene at a motorcycle accident. The other, when i was a witness (first on scene) to a boy who lit himself on fire 200 miles from the nearest hospital. In both of those cases i didn't get to a point where i felt i could take pictures.

If you walk the streets, consider building out a medical kit and getting some training. You might go your entire life without using it. You might save a life tomorrow.

+2

jhefti · June 1, 2012

seastack wrote: »

While I do understand where you're coming from on this, and in other instances might agree, in this case I do not. I do appreciate your thoughtful replies here.

Obviously the photographer has spent years photographing these people and this community. They are friends. She did not run in, exploit, and run out as many others do. And, as the article shows, she did a lot of soul searching before deciding to let them be published, and then, only in the Washington Post. I suspect she asked the family first but I do not know that for sure. I thought the photos respectful, straight forward and quite good.

Very good points, all. Her personal story of this event and her conflicts was quite sincere and hardly shallow. I think I was referring to the larger decision of the WP to publish a story on this event, but this is not central to the link BD posted here. I was too hasty in my response (I often am).

But all this did make me think again about the attraction of photojournalists to threat, danger, and blood. And in particular I thought of the thrill sports do, why I and others do them, and the attraction of the audience--with and without cameras--that inevitably shows up. I'm sure I have risked my life doing these sports, but not for love of faith or anything so noble. I have lost friends to these activities, but seldom have I tried to stop someone from participating (unless I thought they really lacked the skills to reasonably expect to survive). Similarly, no one has ever tried to stop me, though I have the reputation of being a very thoughtful risk-taker.

So leaving aside the particular question of documenting vs. helping (on which I think we all agree), it is curious what kinds of risky activities we as a culture either condemn, allow, or even encourage.

jhefti · June 1, 2012

seastack wrote: »

I have somewhere in my archives photos that I did not publish after wrestling with such ethical dilemmas. They are, mostly, photos of the dead, some of them friends and were taken in the context of "breaking news" situations. A few would likely have been award winners, like the firefighter carrying the 8-year-old boy from the surf while giving him mouth to mouth. I did not know the child was dead, so I took the picture, and regardless I (almost) always took the picture deciding later whether to run it or not. This still bothers me. That one was pretty clear cut, it didn't run in the newspaper. Several years later, that same firefighter, a friend, drowned during a surf rescue. I didn't print that one either. I also have photos of the death of a police officer, another friend, in the line of duty. I didn't print those either. Sometimes, I think I should have printed some of those because they would have helped to educate the public on the danger of rip currents at this particular beach and may have prevented the death of others later to which I often bore witness.

This speaks very highly of you. I did manage to capture a shot of a teenager who had just jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge--not in free fall, but in the water--and survived without any serious injuries. Turns out he did it on a lark while on a class field trip to the bridge. And though I didn't know it at the time, his teacher was the brother of a close friend. Needless to say, that shot stayed very very private, for a multitude of reasons.

bdcolen · June 2, 2012

I'll way in later today, but meanwhile...

bdcolen wrote: »

Read. Think. Discuss.http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith/2012/05/31/gJQA3fRP5U_story.html

There is a fascinating new book out entitled "Photographs Not Taken," essays by numerous photographers, well known and not so well known, discussing photographs they did not take, and why they didn't take them.

lensmole · June 2, 2012

I think the values of the photographer would have a great deal to with what they photograph, how they photograph the subject and how to portray the subject. I think their values are reflected in their work to an extent.Walker Evans photographed subjects H C B would would not have.

bdcolen · June 2, 2012

lensmole wrote: »

I think the values of the photographer would have a great deal to with what they photograph, how they photograph the subject and how to portray the subject. I think their values are reflected in their work to an extent.Walker Evans photographed subjects H C B would would not have.

The values of the photographer affect every photograph the photographer takes, or doesn't take.

bdcolen · June 2, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

Read. Think. Discuss.http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith/2012/05/31/gJQA3fRP5U_story.html

First, I strongly disagree with jhefti's comments about the Post publishing this, or the photographer's shooting it. This is a valid story about a slice of life in a corner of the country. It's respectfully done; it doesn't make fun of the people. Some of those viewing the photos will undoubtedly make judgements about them, but the judgements are the viewers' not the photographers.

Should the photographer have called for help? No. Provided first aid? Yes, but only if asked. If one is attending an event as a photographer, one should photograph - particularly if one has been assigned by an employer/media outlet. The photographer, or reporter, is first of all an observer - someone who's role is to bring back the story. The story here was the snack handling, and its consequences. It was up to the pastor, his mother, and his friends to decide how this was going to play out. It was up to the photographer to document it - or leave.

richardman · June 2, 2012

For some reasons, Washington Post does not like my browsers or something so i still have not read the original story. However, I have read enough summary and discussions to opine. Clearly, he is an adult, with strong wishes. Unless you are a professional who has (for example) taken the Hippocratic Oath (which sadly, is no longer required) or other similar life calling, calling for medical help when it is strongly against his wish, is not the right thing to do. If the victim is a child or under delusion etc., then that's a different case.

Discuss

Comments