Should the Press Be Human？
If you were asked who shot Lee Harvey Oswald you would probably say Jack
Ruby, But there's another possible answer to the question：the photographer who shot
those staggering pictures of Ruby gunning him down．And what has teased my mind ever
since is wondering whether, if he had dropped his camera and grabbed the gunman, we might，with
Oswald alive， know more than we will now ever be able to find out about Why Kennedy died．
Journalists and TV people，we know，are supposed to record what goes on；but in trying
to get the best record they can，they may sometimes seem amazingly cold－blooded．In
the massacre that followed the British quitting India，there was a photographer who made
a sorrowing Indian family bury and rebury its dead several times till he got a perfect
shot. A BBC sound man held up a Nigerian execution for half an hour while he adjusted his
sound equipment; you could say it didn't make any difference to the final outcome, but it
doesn't make you feel especially warm towards the man concerned.
Should these journalists and photographers join in, or just stand back and watch while people kill one another? It's a tricky ethical question, not just a matter of how brave anyone is feeling at the time; because without authentic pictures, how will the world know, how should the world believe what atrocities are committed? One dead photographer does not do much for the cause he cares about, even if he did feel compelled to weigh in and take sides.
Our professional ethic enjoins us to stay uncommitted and report the facts; and, if we have to have guidelines, that's probably as good a one as any. Certainly some of the seediest of journalists, whether we're talking about the Middle Easy or Northern Ireland, are those who pile on one set of adjectives-squalid, butchering, oppressive-for terrorism of whose aims they disapprove, and quite another set-committed, dedicated-for the same thing done by those they like.
But it leaves out a lot. " My complaint journalists, " a friend of mine once said, " is not that they behave badly in the course of duty, but their inability to recoil into a human being when it's over." I have not forgotten an occasion over 20 years ago, when a birdman was going to jump from a Press-filled Rapide. He got his equipment tangled with the aeroplane in some way, and plunged to his death. As most of them watched in shocked horror, one newsman ran down the plane with the words: "My God, what a story!"
To stay out of the fight, to write down what's going on, to treat equally with both sides, as a doctor will stitch up soldiers in either uniform or a lawyer argue for either side-that is supposed to be our code; and when it comes to the crunch, we probably do better trying to stick to that, than rushing off on individual impulse.
But is there not a point in any profession where you are forced back against the wall as a human being, where a doctor should hand Jack the Ripper over to the police and a lawyer refuse to suppress the bloodstained evidence that proves his client a torturer? I think there is, … During the Algerian confusion, some Tunisian soldiers were preparing to shoot their prisoners ("what a story"). One journalist, an Italian, walked over and just calmly stood in front of the wretched men, implying that if the soldiers shot them, they would have to shoot him too. Finally some officers arrived and defused the explosive situation, and just a handful of the lives that went up in that particular bonfire were saved.
A newshound may start out just to get a good story, but it is not impossible, all the same, for him to end as a man.
新闻记者应不应该有点人情味
如果有人问你是谁开枪打死了李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德（杀死肯尼迪的刺客），你多半会回答说是杰克·鲁比。但是这个问题也可以这样回答：是那位抢拍到鲁比那些令人震惊的举动的摄影师让奥斯瓦尔德中枪倒下的。从那时起我的思绪一直就被这样一个问题困扰着：倘若当时那位摄影师扔掉相机，抓住那个枪手，让奥斯瓦尔德活下来的话，我们对于肯尼迪死因的了解会不会比现在所知道的要多一些呢？
我们知道，新闻记者和电视工作者应该如实地记录所发生的情况；但是在尽力做好记录的过程中，他们有时也许显得过于冷酷无情了。在英国刚刚从印度殖民地撤走之后的大屠杀中，有个摄影记者竟让一位死者悲痛的家人们数度将埋葬好的亲人挖出来再埋下去，直到获得一张满意的照片为止。另一位英国广播公司的录音记者为了调试好他的录音设备，竟让尼日利亚的一场绞刑推迟了半个小时才进行。你也许会说这样做对最终的结果没有什么影响，但你总不会觉得他很有同情心吧。
当人们互相杀戮的时候，记者是应该上前制止，还是应该退到一旁，冷眼观看呢？这是一个微妙的道义问题，而不仅仅是要看在这个时候一个人有多大勇气的问题，因为没有了反映事实的照片，世界怎么能够知道，又怎么会相信有人犯下了暴行呢？一个摄影记者，即便他认为自己有必要选择立场而支持某一方，一旦他死了，则于他所关心的事业来说也是没有多大帮助的。
我们的职业道德要求我们要保持中立，报道事实真相。如果我们做事非得有原则的话，这大概就是我们最好的原则了。当然，有一些极不道德的记者，不管是说到中东地区还是北爱尔兰，在报道那里发生的恐怖活动时，如果他们不同意其目的，他们就会大量使用卑鄙、屠杀、残酷之类的形容词，而要是他们同意其目的，他们又会使用另一类诸如忠诚、献身、理想主义等全然不同的词来描述完全相同的行径。
但这远不是问题的全部。“我对记者不满意”，我的一位朋友说，“并非因为他们在完成任务的过程中表现得差劲，而是因为在事情都完结了以后他们仍然不能恢复其做为人的本性。”我至今没有忘记发生在20年前的那一幕，当时一位乘客准备从一架装满了新闻工作者的飞机上跳下来。他的器材因某种原因与飞机绞在一块，他因此被困死在那里。绝大多数人都惊恐地目睹着这一幕，而有位记者却跑下了飞机，嘴里说道：“乖乖，多好的一条新闻啊！”
置身争斗之外，写下真实情况，平等地对待争斗的双方，正如一个医生可以为交战双方的士兵包扎伤口，一个律师可以替诉讼的任何一方辩护——这应该是我们的行为准则；到了关键时刻，我们也应该尽量坚持这一准则，而不要凭个人一时的冲动行事。
但是作为一个人，难道你在履行任何职业道德的过程中，就没有一道你所不能逾越的界线吗？难道医生就不应该将杀人者杰克（残害妇女的凶犯）送交警察，律师就不应该拒绝掩盖血迹斑斑的罪证，出来指证他的当事人是残害他人的凶手吗？我认为存在着这样的界线，……在阿尔及利亚争端中，一些土耳其士兵准备要枪杀他们手中的犯人（“多好的一条新闻哪”）。一位意大利记者，走过去镇定地挡在了那群可怜无助的人身前，意思是说，士兵们要杀他们的话，得先把他杀了。最后，来了几个军官，才解决这场一触即发的险情，使一大群处在生死线上的人得救了。
一个新闻记者在动身的时候也许只是为了要得到一条好新闻，但同时，他也并非没有可能以一个普通人的身份完成他的使命。