Try and stay with me here, cause it could get weird.
Are all journalists/photographers/videographers neutral? Should they be?
I say this because I have seen a few articles suggesting that if you don't have an opinion during a conflict you therefore side with the oppressor in the situation.
Now, most photographers/videographers and the like, remain neutral in conflict zones. The silent (yet sometimes influential) third party. Recording and archiving the events that take place during.
This doesn't mean they don't care. It also doesn't mean they won't help.
Take Haiti for example; after the earthquake hit the small developing country, and the riots for food, water and shelter that followed many media companies and freelancers entered the scene to report the events.
During this, many journalists were criticized for taking advantage of the plight of Haitian people. This is a pretty common scenario for a journalist, but what is uncommon, is when a journalists is given hell for becoming part of the story.
One such situation, was when a British reporter rescued a young boy after he had been struck in the head with a rock during one of the many confrontations that followed the earthquake. He pulled him from the middle of a crowd of angry and desperate people, something few people would ever do for a total stranger.
But afterward he received flak for intervening in the situation. People claimed he shouldn't have stayed out of it, and ignored this boys plight. That journalists as a whole should never intervene, no matter the circumstance.
Now speaking as a photographer, i resent this. I will take the shots I need to take, but I will also step into the fray when needed. If an injured man lies before me I will help him no matter his background. If an injustice is committed, I will voice my opposition.
I may work with a silent medium, but I myself am far from silent.
Right, that is my rant over with and I feel better! Feel free to leave your comments on the subject below.