As life passes by
A journalist's role: watch and wait
Sometimes journalists need to give up their positions on the sidelines and intervene in events they’re covering. The difficulty is knowing when.
By Deni Elliott
Given the choice of shooting a picture or saving a life, what do you do? Photojournalist Ross Baughman says that if you’re on the job, there’s no quandary. You shoot the picture, of course.
Although I’m queasy about how the theory plays out in extreme circumstances, I think Baughman is right. Society needs one profession charged with documenting reality. If we’re going to do a good job of governing ourselves, we need representations that are neither hidden in shadows nor painted by hype. Journalists can’t provide that without the special privilege of watching life’s drama from the sidelines. They can’t provide that without the special obligation to stay out of life’s way.
Sometimes journalists should come to the aid of an individual, but in general, they should put their duty to document first, even if someone is hurt or killed. And, not only should journalists be free from prosecution when they witness crimes, they should be praised for their willingness to put their own physical and psychic safety aside to provide a look at the underbelly of life.
More than a decade ago, Baughman, then a photographer for AP, persuaded a Rhodesian cavalry unit to let him accompany them on a mission into the interior. It was rumored that the white army was torturing and killing black civilians. The army denied the charges and the civilians weren’t talking.
Dressed like the soldiers so that he could be inconspicuous, Baughman photographed the 25-man unit while they burned down homes and tortured men, women and children. His photos won a Pulitzer Prize. His choice not to intervene won him international disfavor.
Baughman says that he could have stopped some of the atrocities, if he had been so inclined. "I would have been able to make the soldiers feel inhibited. I could have said, ‘Gee, fellows, do you think this is necessary?’"
Or he could have protected the victims. "It would have been possible for me to poke my head into the next hut and shoo the people out the back, giving them a few extra seconds," Baughman said.
But he knew that style of reporting would have offered no more than what people already knew. It’s no surprise that military units use threats to achieve their ends. "If you’re going to find out if they’re really going to pull the trigger, you have to wait," Baughman said.
With photos and stories, voters need to be brought face-to-face with parts of reality that they would like to deny. The disenfranchised, those living outside of the law, need their stories presented and their faces shown.
What entices people to attend dog fights? What’s going on in the minds of young gang members who make city streets unsafe? We won’t get answers waiting for these people to come forward and explain themselves. The explanations provided by arresting officers are obviously suspect. Yet we don’t fully understand our society unless we get these stories from the perpetrators’ point of view.
Journalists should watch and wait when the reality they are collecting is information that citizens need and when they alone can be trusted to get that information out.
No one questioned the judgment of the photojournalists who, in 1963, shot pictures of Buddhist monks who self-immolated in protest of the Vietnam War. The world needed that statement.
However, 20 years later, when two Jacksonville, Alabama videographers shot tape while a man attempted suicide by dousing himself with lighter fluid and lighting a match, the community was appalled that no one interceded.
In the second instance, the journalists should have put the man’s life first. The drunken, out-of-work roofer’s story of individual despair did not carry the same weight — the same need to be told at all costs — as the story of a religious group giving lives in protest of war.
But the line that separates one from the other is not that distinct. How about if six people had attempted suicide in the park? What if the roofer said that he was protesting some social ill? What if photojournalists happened upon the monk alone in a field rather than before a crowd of hundreds on a street in Saigon?
When journalists stumble upon life-threatening scenes with no context within which to judge what’s going on, they should help if they’re needed. But when they set out to do a story that they think may involve crime or pain, they should be prepared to watch rather than to react.
Society needs journalists who put professional duty before their desire to help. It’s the same kind of need that society has for attorneys who are willing to defend those guilty of heinous crimes, despite their own horror at the crimes committed.
At times, playing the role of observer and documenter of events can be a dirty job, but it’s the journalist’s job to do it.
For another view, see "Letter to the editor."
John Long is chief photographer at The Hartford Courant. He is past president of the National Press Photographers Association.
Source: FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 2, no. 8 (November/December 1990), p. 6.
This case was produced for FineLine, a publication of Billy Goat Strut Publishing, 600 East Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Reprinted with the permission of Billy Goat Strut Publishing. This case may be reproduced for classroom and research purposes. Publication of this case in electronic or printed form requires written permission from the publisher and Indiana University. An exception is granted for use in readers designed for specific academic courses.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I think it depends on the situation. If a journalist plans to take pictures and report on something like a war or something along those lines than it is their duty to report on it. The journalist really doesn’t have the power to intervene and the world deserves and needs to know what really happened.
However, if a journalist just happens upon a person who needs help and they are able to prevent something horrible from happening he or she should help. For example, if a journalist was photographing at a fancy restaurant and someone chokes he or she isn’t going to just stand around and watch them choke to death.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I believe that the man is right about the pictures being taken as showing reality because in the world we live in nothing is ever completely shown things are always being covered up and given different viewpoints. From these controversial pictures people are able to see the truth and take it for what its worth. Some people may disagree with the pictures being taken and published which can be understandable if someone knows the person in the picture, but i think it should be the reporters duty to ask the family if it is ok to show a picture of a loved one due to heir integrity.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
It is a hard decision whether to make history with an intriguing photograph or too stand by and click a few photos while another human being is undergoing torture. it is hard to say what I would do, but by having to choose now I would have to say, take the photograph. Without that photograph no one else would know what occured, and possibly those pictures helped save another. It is hard to think about though without knowing how the situation feels.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
If it was up to me, i would save a life. To sit there, and watch somebody die, and do nothing but take a photo of it, is horrible. Like those reporters who watched a man commit suicide. I think they should have put down there camera’s, and helped the man out. And with the man taking photo’s
of the people getting killed. He could have done something. He should have told the people doing all the killing to stop, of at least report the people for commiting a crime. A lot of things could be done. You always see photo’s of people dying, or anything bad. They should put the camera down, and do something help full.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I think that in most situations, specially ones concerning death, the reporter should put the life of someone else before their job. Of course there are exceptions like if they don’t have the power or if they most likely will get killed themselves. otherwise, if you have a chance to save a life or save someone from danger then go for it, that would make a better story anyways.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I think if a journalist is there to take pictures, than that is what the journalist should focus on. However, if there is unethical activities going on, i think the journalist should intervene and take charge and set an example for everyone that is not saying anything. I also believe that the journalist or photographer should also just focus on the pictures or the work they are doing because the public has a right to know what is going on in their society.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I think that the situation provided above was a bad example to use as an argument. The fact that it was a war changes everything. Also, it was in his human nature to protect himself. If he would have revealed himself in order to save a couple strangers lives he would have been killed AND the story wouldn’t have gotten out. If a reporter is in a situation where they can prevent harm or danger from a person without putting harm upon themselves or other people NOT INCLUDING WAR, they should definitely save a life, not a get a picture that may win them an award.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I believe that the decision is up to the photographer or journalist, they can make the decision for themself, but i also agree that if someone were to die they would help before they would take pictures and report on it. If people are already helping then i think it is acceptable for them to take pictures so people know what actually happened and they dont hear from fake sources.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Baughman is wrong in his assumption that a job comes before your duty to another person. A person’s responsibility to be human comes before any responsibility. If he could have saved some people by “shooing people out the back”, Baughman should have. After all, a few moments taken to save precious lives would not have affected his photographs. If he was part of the Rhodesian cavalry on a mission to the interior, he would have had plenty of opportunities to take photographs that would have had the exact same effect; without the price of a human life. But, on the other hand, the case of the Buddhist monk was different. It was the choice of the monk to make his statement, and the journalists could not have prevented him from carrying out his actions, and yes, the world did need that statement. I don’t know why Baughman did not lend a helping hand to the victims of the attack, after all, it was not their choice to die. The responsibility to be human comes before any professional responsibility.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I think if I was reporting and saw someone in trouble, I would want to help them. As a person, I wouldn’t be able to just stand there and watch someone die. If I was witnessing something like that, I could not protect an article before someone else’s life. However, if the situation is really dangerous or involves a lot of people, there’s not a whole lot you can do to help. Also, if a journalist is reporting on a war, it’s their job to report on it, not fight in it.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I think the journalists should take action, if they can, to prevent the barbaric acts that occur. If you were in their shoes, would you rather look back on your life and say, “Well, I feel really bad that that happened…But at least I got that great shot/story.” OR would you rather look back and say, “I did something really good for that person–their life is more important than a story.” I do agree with journalists that stories and photographs can spark change, but I think the same degree of change could come about without someone’s life being sacrificed. Basically, if I were in the situation, I would try to save the other person’s life–I could report what was about to happen, and I think that would have the same degree of effect.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
My thoughts about this piece of writing are very jumbled because i see both sides of the story. But from my heart i would have to save a life rather then getting the perfect photograph. Because say if you somehow got into a situation where there was a man that was going to kill himself, and you that man is your father what do you do? Of course to me the answer is simple to me. I would save my father before getting the perfect shot. So why is another persons father or brother or sister or mother any different. Even if it wasn’t suicide but murder your telling me you are really going to stand to there and let someone die. I mean really what are you getting out of it a picture that may or may not win a award. And pretty much you just standing there makes you just as guilty as the person pulling the trigger, even though you don’t see it that way it really is. So think about the person who is getting wrong done to them and think of the people that will miss him before you stand by just to get a photograph. because in your heart i am sure you will feel the guilt of not stopping it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
i agree with Ann, it depends on the situation. If someone is hanging from a cliff after an accident or something and some reporter is taking pictures instead of helping him/her thats wrong in my book. On the other hand if theyre taking pictures or reporting on some civil unrest and things get ugly and theres nothing they can do, i guess they should just shoot pics and hopefully they can sleep at night.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
It depends on the context. If no one else is around to help then the journalist should intervene. In the case like the one in this article, I think it is up to the journalist. Taking the photos could potentially save more lives in the long run, but it comes at the cost of lives now. I could understand each side.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Capturing the truth is just as important as writing about the truth. How many times has a broadcast station watched as a person tried to jump off a bridge? They didn’t do anything to help, it is the same thing.
These people are doing their jobs. Sure it may be sad and it may not make us feel warm inside but it is reality. A stifled press is a useless one.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I agree there is a need to have stories told honestly. I could not be the one to stand and watch as someone commits a heinous crime, but it may be the only way to stop some of the people who commit these crimes. By putting there faces out there for the world to see, maybe more lives can be saved in the long run.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
This is a tough situation. On one hand, if he did intervene, maybe he would’ve saved some lives but put his own life at risk. I think when you, personally, are put in a dangerous situation, the smart thing is to remain an observer. It may be painful to let murder, torture, or suicide happen before your eyes, but you can’t risk you own life. The story you get from these things can be redeeming. Maybe they draw enough attention to stop the events, helping more people than a lone reporter could’ve at that moment. I’m not saying ignore basic human compassion. I believe if its reasonable and safe to help, it should be considered. Sometimes, though, the story itself is all the help you can give.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I feel that it is important for a journalist/photojournalist to do their job by recording the story or taking a picture of the scene, but I also feel that life is also very important. By documenting the action/scene the journalist is providing information that those that are not nearby can witness/read about later. However, if the journalist sees an opportunity to help save the life of another person, then he should at least try to help the person(s). I am sure that if a journalist/photojournalist does this, the person will have nothing to regret job wise and emotional wise later in life.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I feel that photographer should do his or her job. The photographer shouldn’t worry about ridicule or criticism. If the photographer wans to intervene, he or should be able to do as they please, it’s their judgment call.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I think it depends on the situation. The duty of photograher is to take the pictures and record the story. However, the purpose of what the photographer does is to show people the truth and let powerful people to prevent the ugly things happening. Sometimes, the situation is very dangerous and you can’t do anything to the victims, of course, we don’t thing you have any choice, just do your job, shoot the picture, let people know what happened there. But sometimes the situation is not so extreme, you can save the people immediately, why not?
April 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am
I think that while it’s the duty of the photographer to take the shot, it’s also his responsibility as a human being to help another person. I think it is wrong to just sit aside and let someone die, no matter the circumstances. Another human being’s life should not just be viewed as “the perfect shot”. There is a time to put all of these things aside and realize that you would probably feel a whole lot better about yourself because you saved someone’s life, not because you got a good picture of them dying.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am
I think thats absolutely ridiculous. If you know what is about to happen, and there is something you can do to prevent it, and save people’s lives i think you should. That would have made a good story also. Its just as bad as if someone told you that they were going to kill someone, and you didnt do anything about it, and just watched it happen. But its worse, because you dont care, youre just there to take pictures after the victims are already dead.
If there is absolutely nothing you can do, then i do agree that you should do your job, get the pictures, but tasteful pictures, that just let people know whats going on. I dont think its right to publish pictures of victims showing their faces and every detail about their corpse.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am
I agree the journalist has some responsibility in showing the public whats happening but there should be lines. When getting the best shot intervenes with peoples safety that isn’t good…but then agian shocking people into reality is also important. So many people (as said in the controvesial musical RENT) pretend lifes all hunky dorey while watching Thats a wonderful life on Tv while outside there could be a car jacking, or mugging going on. People need to be more aware and posting/ publishing shocking photrographs is what we need to do, then we need to. Because if we didn’t who’s to say we wouldn’t just sit in our houses ignorant of whats going on in the world. I would rather be enraged over a photo of a raped and murdered war victim than not know it ever happened.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am
that is absolutely ridiculous. i would never just sit there and watch someone die. saving a life is way more important than publicity, or money. i also believe that the photographers/videographers could get sued by family memebers for letting these tragic situations happen. i understand that the photographers need to do their job, but when it comes to other people’s lives, they should forget about them.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:27 am
I believe that if it is being witnessed that someone is being hurt or their life is in danger, it is the right thing to do and intervene. I think that if you sit back and watch something happen to a person and it results in injury or death, and it’s something you could have prevented just by putting down the camera and helping, you might as well have hurt the person yourself. It should be on your mind that it’s your fault that person was hurt or killed. That is not okay. However, if it’s not something you can help, or would hurt or kill you in the process then it becomes a different story. You need to protect yourself as well.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:28 am
if you are willing to shoot photos of people dying with out like helping them at all you have to be disturbed. to just watch someone die while you take pictures and get your money. i can see the point that these pictures may help to show what is really happening but there are other ways of doing that and to give someone an award for capturing pictures like these i dont even know what to say about that. yes as a photographer it is not your job to save lives but as a person wouldnt you feel horrible if you just let someone lay there and die? as a human wouldnt you have some heart. would you want someone who could possibly save one of your family members’ lives to just stand around and shoot pictures??
April 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am
i think that there are some situations when journalists have the power to act and affect(prevent) things in way that that could stop bad things from happening. when things are beyond the control of the journalist then there is nothing for them to do but document what is happening and show others. so there are situations in which both intervening and documenting have their uses.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am
For someone to put their job infront of saving someone elses life is just inhumane. No matter who the person is, you should feel compassion to saving their life instead of doing your job. If it were you who needed saving, you would want to be saved first instead of being ignored and left to die. I know that you have a job to do or the situation may be dangerous, or your life might be endangered, but you can still try and save the person.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:30 am
Although a photojournalist needs to follow the duties that are given to them by their job, they also need to follow their duties as a citizen. If they are walking down the street snapping pictures of a celebrity and see a child getting ready to run into the road right in front of a car, their duty as a citizen is to attempt to save the child. A journalist needs to have good ethical standards in order to fulfill his/her duties as a journalist and as a citizen. It is those types of qualities that really gain respect and trust from the people.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:31 am
I would save the person’s life, whenever possible. To stand up and watch someone die while i know that i can do something about it, would kill me. I’d rather do what i can to save someone than just get a picture of them being killed. There are other ways to get pictures. You can get a picture of the group, you can get a picture of the town, you can get a picture of almost anything. Choosing to get a picture of someone dying isn’t right when you can do something about it.
On the other hand, if someone else is intervening or helping then i can see why the journalist would quickly snap a picture.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am
While the job of the journalist is to get the picture, if it is possible to save a life, then the photo should hold less importance. If he or she is in any way able, the journalist should help a person in a dangerous situation rather than take the picture. It’s true that reality should be shown, but photographing images of less than ideal situations should not come before helping someone in need. Everyone knows that such things happen, so why worry more about showing these predicaments than possibly saving a life?
April 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am
When a photo is taken for the soul purpose of being a “reality check” people must be aware to draw the line. If you are writing a story about suicide don’t go find someone who is going to kill themselves to let you take a picture and I also believe that if a life or death situation comes up, even if it’s not your own, you should choose life over pictures.
Preserving life is the most important reason for writing these types of stories but you can’t let another life be destroyed for your article’s sake. Pictures that could be traumatizing to the viewer or disturbing should be left as an option but they should be hidden to where, if the reader wants to see it, they can find it but otherwise couldn’t. Pictures add to a story but there is such a thing as adding too much.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
I can understand that it is the journalists job to report the news, but I do not understand how a human being, regardless if they are a journalist or not, could stand by and watch another human being harm themselves or another just for the sake of capturing the best picture.
Is it right to put your job before being a decent human being? No it is not.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am
I believe it all depends on the situation. If you can help i believe you should. It is their job to take photos of the things happening around them but if a life is at risk and your assistance is needed then i do believe you should help. In a severe case, for instance if someone is stuck in a car that is in flames and the car is about to blow up then it’s your choice. If you want to risk your life to save that person then it would probably give you a better feeling than if you just stood there watching them die, snapping pictures so you can be rich. If it is something beyond your control and you know you can not help then that is understandable. Journalist’s do have a job to accomplish taking pictures but if you know you could help them safely, without getting yourself hurt then i do believe you should help.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am
A photojournalist job is to take pictures for storys.
But is he or she shes a event going to happen they should try to stop it as much as they can.
They probably want to know if something is going to happen to them
April 1st, 2009 at 9:36 am
Okay, yes. The photographer’s job is to be taking pictures, but, if someone is in way of danger, then they should try to help. If they want to live with the guilt of not helping that person, or people, then, let them live with the guilt. Its not your life, it’s theirs and they are risking others’ lives too, if they don’t act. Even in minor situations, they should still help. Don’t just have one person go and take the pictures; have two go just in case something serious does happen and someone really does need your help. Would you sit by, take the picture and walk away if someone was getting hurt? Would you be able to live with the guilt of not helping them?
April 1st, 2009 at 9:37 am
I think that if a journalist has any chance at all to save a life or help a person that the person should do so. Life is precious and I think it is wrong to just sit there and watch someone in pain or torture or possible death. I personally would do what I could to help out the situation. Even if that means people won’t get to SEE a picture of what happened. Helping pepole is more important especially in drastic situations. I think if there is any thing you could do to help, you should take that action even if it means you don’t get to take the picture, it just doesnt seem right. Think about it this way, what if you were about to be killed and some journalist decides he would much rather get the picture and let peolpe know this tragic event rather than saving your life!! It seems very wrong that anyone would do that.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am
I believe that society has the right to know what is going on in the world. Taking a photo of an actual happening is much more informational than a whole story of description. The photographers are risking a lot for what they believe is the correct way of doing their job.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
A journalist is someone who chooses to expose atrocities and good things alike to the public. If the journalists are too busy playing UN peacemakers then the public isn’t getting a story and proof to go with it. If a journalist sees a gang member torturing some man on the street, then yes it’s important to intervene, to call the cops or try to stop it. Their job isn’t to play hero, but their duty as a human being is to protect the injustices being done unto fellow people. There are some things you can’t control, such as an army in a foreign country torturing its citizens and burning down every house in the village. As journalists we have to know our boundaries before we go out onto the scene of the story and we have to know what our ethical boundaries are. Every situation is different, but if it’s possible to save someone and still expose the story then the journalist needs to do so.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
It is my belief that saving a life is one of the most important things in the world. If it were you, would you like being photographed while you were lying there dying without even an offer of help from the one person that could save you? I understand that there is a job that needs to be done and that the public needs to be informed of the worldly violences happening everyday. Journalists have a very important job, but when there is something they can do to save someone’s daughter, brother, spouse, etc. that is of more importance than a photograph. Although it does depend on the intensity of what is going on as well.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am
I think that a life is more important than a good journalism story. When it comes to war the journalist will not be able to help everyone because it’s so massive. However, if someone is being beaten and abused,murdered or they are about to commit suicide,they should try to stop it. We all know stuff like that goes on, so it would be more important to save that life than to report about it.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am
I think that if the photojournalist is going somewhere that is expected to have injuries or deaths, then they should do their job and not worry about trying to help. However, if they are somewhere and something unexpected happens where someone is in danger, they should forget about the photo and do what they can to help. A person’s life is a little more important than a picture for a magazine.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:41 am
I think it is very important for the photographer to save a life before capturing someone getting hurt, killed, or anything that will affect his well being. I think it is very selfish for the photographer to get his photo before thinking about helping someone out who is in danger. I dont see how they can just stand there and watch someone get hurt, if i was them i would have to help that person out or atleast try to help them no matter what the circumstances were.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:43 am
I think it is their job to get the nessecary photos to expose the truth. I however think if it is a picture of a dead body they should blur out the face as to not inflict more pain or allow the uncessary dishonor of a body. If a photographer can save more lives and let people know the cruel reality of whats going on it is very important the pictures are taken. If it is a situation where it’s one person who is in pain and you could save then snap a picture and then help or just help. sometimes if you can save a life immediately then save the person because sometimes life is a little more important than a job.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am
If someone is hurting themsevles, the photographer should help the person and get the pic later. That is ridiculous if someone photographs someone being stabbed to death and not do anything. Yeah its the photograher’s job but would that same photographer take pictures of his house burning down with his family inside and not do anything? Of course not. So why would they do tha to other people. If people are hurting themselves or others, even for religous reasons, the photographer should step in. The job and Pulitzer Prize can wait. Life is too valuable to waste.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
The purpose of a journalist is to report a story. If it requires you to risk your life, it’s crossing the line. Geting the story out there should be the first priority. It’s human to want to be informed, but we’re so used to seeing everything we want to see. We have to remember that our life comes before everything else.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think it depends on the situation the journalist is in. If there is really nothing he or she can do to help then they should just report on the story at hand. But if they just so happen to come across a bad situation then they should help that person, provided that it doesnt put the journalist in danger as well. It really just depends on the situation and extent of the danger and terms of the danger.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
This is absolutely extreme. There is no reason to put a photograph over the life of a person, that photo isn’t going to save any lives. Of course it is tough when you want to get that picture taken and get recognized, but no judgement should lead to watching people get hurt so you can gain publicity.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am
I think that a person’s life comes first when they are in danger. Depending on how life-threatening the circumstance is, is when you should act. If somebody is about to get shot, you don’t have to jump in front of the gun. But you can call the police or notify somebody of this happening. If it is the photo journalist’s job to capture what is happening then that is what they have to do.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am
I believe that it is crucial to a news story to make sure you get all the details and see things firsthand. Which may mean that you must go under disguise to see what is really going on and unfortunately that means you may have to stand and watch bad things happen, if you don’t you could blow your cover which could mean you could ruin not only the news story but could also endanger themselves.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:58 am
in my opinion i wouldn’t show my face in public if I was a photographer who sat back and watched as someone was in trouble just for a picture