Shot on Feb 1, 1968, two days into the Tet offensive, Eddie Adams captured on film national police chief General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Vietcong prisoner in the streets of Saigon. The iconic image earned Adams the Pulitzer and earned Loan the enduring hatred of both the Vietnamese and the Americans. Adams was much more proud of other pictures he had shot.
Taking a step back, how ethical were Eddie Adams actions? Should Mr. Adams have try to intervene? Should Mr. Adams have destroyed the picture before it was published? Or do you think the picture served a purpose?
Try to find more information on the event, picture, situation, etc. and post what you think should have occurred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This frame captured how raw and serious the Tet Offensive in 1968 really was. I believe that ethically, humans should try and preserve life, however, I think Eddie Adams, while doing his job, stayed out of the conflict depicted for fear of his own life.
Also, I believe that his photography, especially this frame is a fantastic way to show western nations (United States) exactly how the situations overseas and in conflict areas without being watered-down and diluted by mass media and biased journalism.
As far as: Should this photograph been destroyed before it was published?
Well, that's a tough question to ask. I consider it more of a rhetorical question because by destroying it there would be consequences in the form of naivety on the part of nations as a whole for not truly being able to witness the gravity of the Conflict in Saigon. By choosing to not destroy the photograph, Eddie Adams not only sent a the harsh message of the cruelty of war, but also preserved the reputation and duty of photographers on a world-scale by having to shoot and print and publish photos that at are, at times, taboo, disturbing, frightening, peaceful, saddening, graceful, etc..., the list goes on.
As far as my opinion goes, I see Eddie Adams' course of actions as being the best-fit for the situation at hand. He did his job as well as he could and the backlash that came of it is a risk someone must take in this profession.
that is a morbid picture but i rather know what is true than secrets. i rather see people and their stories for how they were, not how others think we should see them. it is good that mr. adams did not destory the picture before it was published because it is part of history. we cannot ignore history or try to change it, it is what it is. i do believe that there are limitations and this picture should not have been forced upon people to see back then..if they want to view the picture then it is there for them to look at.
This photo was an influential piece for public opinion of Nguyen Ngoc Loan, but it was Adams' journalistic obligation to take the photo. Adams' assignment was to cover all aspects of the Vietnam War, and he did just that.
As far as intervening, Adams very well could have been killed had he tried to stop the execution.
Adams did later call General Nguyen a hero serving a just cause. He explained that the man Nguyen is executing in the photo had just shot and killed a few Vietnamese citizens. Adams also apologized to Nguyen and his family for the damage done to their honor.
So, the photo served a purpose in reenforcing how bad things were out in Vietnam, but it also told only a "half truth" about the situation, as Adams calls it. I believe Adams did his job, but perhaps the Associated Press should have had a caption or article with the picture that told the whole truth about it.
Although the picture Eddie Adams shot was very disturbing, I feel as if Mr. Adams made a right choice in publishing the picture. He could have destroyed it, but why hide the truth? As readers we have the right to hear the truth and nothing but the whole truth. It is with this picture that we are able to see a visual of what has happened. The picture might affect others, but we all have our rights. If we chose not to look, we don't have to.
Eddie Adams must have been a man of intelligence, because although the picture was very unethical, just like George Gerbner says Violence sells! It may be not be appropriate for children and the media, but i believe it is more appropriate to show the audience what is really going on in the world especially during times of crisis. Just like September 11th expressed alot of panic and morbid images, i believe that this picture expressed the cruelty and helped America in a way others couldnt. Although its a global audience and children may see, its better to know the truth rather than thinking things are better than they really are.
I think Eddis Adam was right for wanting the picture published. Although the picture was risky, he still wanted it published so people could see what was really going on. I would rather know the truth even if it hurts then for a lie to be given.
Post a Comment