Podcast Summary: The Ethics of Photojournalism

Podcast: LSE: Public Lectures and Events
Host: LSE Film and Audio Team
Episode: The Ethics of Photojournalism
Date: May 13, 2011
Key Participants:

• Chair: Christina Mooserd (Philosophy Fellow, LSE)
• Speaker 1: Simon Norfolk (Photographer with a background in philosophy and sociology)
• Speaker 2: Dr. Luke (Head of Philosophy, LSE)

Overview

This episode examines the ethics of photojournalism, focusing on the interplay between historical context, representation, manipulation, and the responsibilities of the photojournalist. The dialogue is anchored by Simon Norfolk—a photographer known for his reflective war photography, particularly in Afghanistan—and Dr. Luke, a philosopher with research interests in ethics and public policy.

The discussion integrates personal anecdotes, photographic history, technical photojournalistic issues, and philosophical debates around manipulation, objectivity, exploitation, dignity, and the control of narratives in visual storytelling.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Introduction and Framing (00:00–03:48)

• Purpose & Structure: Christina Mooserd introduces the session as part of an ongoing effort to connect philosophy with the public, focusing on photography's ethical and philosophical complexities.
• Speakers Introduced: Simon Norfolk (noted for his Afghanistan work and interdisciplinary background) and Dr. Luke (philosopher specializing in the ethics of photojournalism).

2. Simon Norfolk: Deconstructing War Photography & Personal Evolution (03:48–37:37)

A. Breaking with Photojournalism’s Tradition

• Norfolk’s Shift: Explains his move from classic photojournalism—with its “reductionism” and limitations on meaning—to a more personal, historically informed photography practice.
• Quote: "In the last 10 or 12 years, [I've made] a very deliberate, determined attempt to get away from a lot of photojournalism's values... and my lack of control over that." (04:21)

B. Afghanistan as Subject and Symbol

• Norfolk revisited Afghanistan after initial work in 2001, aiming to avoid "dry" before/after images in favor of richer historical commentary.
• He weaves romantic philosophical allusions and painting traditions into compositions, seeking to evoke questions like: “Is this the twilight of the final years of an empire, or is this the dawn of a new beginning?” (15:11)
• Describes the country as a “graveyard of empires”, situating photography as “archaeological” or even forensic documentation.

C. Historical Lineage: John Burke’s Photos

• Norfolk draws inspiration from John Burke (19th-century photographer in Afghanistan) and discusses how Burke’s Irish and outsider status yielded an unusually respectful and comprehensive portrait of Afghans compared to his English contemporaries.
• Quote: "It's almost like he wasn't at school the day that they taught racial superiority to photographers." (26:48)

D. How Photography Shapes Perceptions of Race and Power

• Victorian/imperial photography codified hierarchical views. Norfolk laments its persistence: “Photography is actually a tool in the enforcement of that racial hierarchy.” (22:30)
• Contrasts Burke’s more collaborative, confident portrayals of Afghans with those by English photographers who enforced subjugation visually.

E. Technical Reproductions and Artistic Choices

• Norfolk mimics historical techniques (e.g., filtering color spectrums to replicate 19th-century emulsions) consciously to play with notions of truth and continuity in photographic representation.

3. Manipulation, Truth, and the Limits of Acceptable Alteration (37:37–47:00)

• Philosophical Questions: What photographic manipulations are acceptable? Is there a meaningful distinction between “in-camera” techniques (filters, time of day, composition) and later digital post-production?

• Dr. Luke: Challenges the arbitrary norm: digital manipulation is taboo; filmic or “analogue” manipulations are fine, though both shape the visual message.

  • "We can put on a filter... but if you were to do that in Photoshop, oh, hysteria!” (40:28)

• Norfolk’s Guideline: Adheres to the standard set by The New York Times Magazine—essentially, if an effect could have been achieved in the darkroom, it’s allowed; if not, it crosses a line.

  • "If it’s the kind of thing I could have done as a black and white printer in analogue, then it's acceptable for me as a photojournalist. If I couldn't have done it as analog, then I don’t do it." (44:53)

• Role of Expectation: Debate over audience trust and the implied 'truth-value' of news images versus openly creative or illustrative work.

4. Political Purpose versus Journalistic Objectivity (47:00–51:00)

• Norfolk is candid about being a “propagandist,” not a journalist in the traditional sense:

  • "I'm not particularly interested in recording the truth... I will use truthfulness in a photograph to talk [about] that situation, because I believe that you will interrogate my picture longer if you believe that it is true." (47:38)

• He sees “beauty” as a tool of engagement, in contrast to the instant legibility of most news photos:

  • "The best way to talk to you about politics is to make my pictures as beautiful as possible. And for me, beauty is a tool of drawing you into a kind of dialogue with him." (48:10)

• Critiques the “transparency” and formulaic style of news writing and photography for being unable to handle nuance and ambiguity in stories like genocide.

5. Ethics of Representation & Exploitation; Dignity and Responsibility (55:04–71:09)

A. Exploiting Suffering? The Photographer’s Burden

• The panel and audience discuss the moral cost of making a career from depicting war, suffering, and tragedy.

  • "Was I simply capitalizing on other men’s grief? ... I concluded that what I was doing would penetrate the hearts of those at home who were simply too indifferent."—quoting photographer Larry Burrows (56:28)

• Norfolk relates personal stories of photographing displaced groups in Congo, and how seeing subjects as individuals with full lives, not just as archetypes, undermined the “power” of his photojournalism.

  • "Suddenly all of that great photography dissolved when Richard stepped out of the crowd ... and I found it a very, very disturbing moment." (61:18)

B. Encountering Real People

• Anecdote from Rwanda: Norfolk’s lack of linguistic/cultural knowledge nearly resulted in deeply insensitive (even violent) misunderstanding—emphasizing the unbridgeable gaps and dangers of photojournalistic distance.
• This recognition steered his practice away from “taking” photos to “making” them—a two-way ethical obligation.
  • "I never use the phrase take, take a photograph. I make a photograph because to me it feels like when you take a picture of somebody, it's a two way obligation to yourself." (68:01)

C. Art, Activism, and Practical Impact

• Ongoing tension: do “gritty” photos of suffering drive more action (donations, political movement) than Norfolk’s “subtle” images?
• Norfolk responds with skepticism, suggesting the principal violation is by larger economic and political structures, not by the photographer; and that he aims for layered access—his work is distributed via galleries, books, magazines, and free online platforms.
  • "I work on what I think is like a democratic model of layers... for me, that idea that there are many access points into what I do is very important." (72:43)

6. Narrative Control, Legacy, and Authorship (81:12–87:14)

• Debate over posthumous interpretation of artists' and photographers' work.
• Norfolk: Once art is made public, it becomes open to reinterpretation. Ethical lines around use are important, highlighting the increasing drive to control how work is presented (e.g., why he prefers books or curated exhibitions to journalism or stock images).
  • "The entire function of work of art is that as soon as you make it a work of art, which is therefore a public object, it is open to be reinterpreted by someone else in a different way. If you don't want it, don't stick it on the wall." (83:09)
• Worry about the draining of political context from artists’ work, as exemplified by the depoliticization of Paul Strand in art history.

7. Concluding Reflections (87:14–end)

• The core ethical challenge lies less in formulating rigid rules and more with the depth, authenticity, and good faith of photographic practice. Ambiguity and complexity are necessary and perhaps unavoidable.
  • "What’s coming out of this ... is actually it’s very hard to draw up rules. It's more the quality and authenticity and good faithfulness of what you do, rather than should you do it or not." (87:14)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments with Timestamps

• Simon Norfolk on shifting away from traditional photojournalism (04:21):
  "In the last 10 or 12 years, [I've made] a very deliberate, determined attempt to get away from a lot of photojournalism's values..."

• On photographing Afghanistan (15:11):
  "Is this the twilight of the final years of an empire, or is this the dawn of a new beginning?"

• On Burke’s unusual respect for his subjects (26:48):
  "It's almost like he wasn't at school the day that they taught racial superiority to photographers."

• On manipulation vs. honesty (44:53):
  "If it's the kind of thing I could have done as a black and white printer in analogue, then it's acceptable... If I couldn't have done it as analog, then I don't do it."

• Self-definition as not a journalist, but propagandist (47:38):
  "I'm not particularly interested in recording the truth or whatever of the situation. I will use truthfulness in a photograph... but that's where it ends. The things that I choose to photograph... are exceedingly partial and political."

• Norfolk’s critique of the limits of photojournalism (48:10):
  "The best way to talk to you about politics is to make my pictures as beautiful as possible. And for me, beauty is a tool of drawing you into a kind of dialogue."

• A turning point in Congo (61:18):
  "Suddenly all of that great photography dissolved when Richard stepped out of the crowd... and I found it a very, very disturbing moment."

• Obligation in photography (68:01):
  "I never use the phrase take, take a photograph. I make a photograph because... it's a two way obligation."

• On public art and reinterpretation (83:09):
  "As soon as you make it a work of art... it is open to be reinterpreted by someone else in a different way. If you don't want it, don't stick it on the wall."

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–03:48: Introduction and speaker framing by Christina Mooserd
• 03:48–37:37: Simon Norfolk’s presentation on his work, philosophy, and Burke
• 37:37–47:00: Debate on manipulation and photographic “truth”
• 47:00–51:00: Norfolk and Dr. Luke on political purpose vs. journalistic objectivity
• 55:04–71:09: Defining ethical obligations, dignity, exploitation, and agency in photojournalism
• 81:12–87:14: Authorship, legacy, and control of meaning in art
• 87:14–end: Closing reflections on ambiguity, authenticity, and the impossibility of rigid ethical codification

Conclusion

This episode’s rich dialogue dissects the many-layered ethics of photojournalism—historical context, technical intentionality, manipulativeness, responsibility to subjects, and afterlife of images. It advocates for introspective, accountable, and politically conscious photography over the quest for objectivity or adherence to outdated journalistic codes, while openly acknowledging the unresolved ambiguities and lived realities of those behind (and in front of) the lens.