I think photographers among very few who get to witness the very best and worst of human kind and all kinds of human emotions in ''realtime''
And it is in these very worst moments that the photographer plays a very hard role in choosing his ethics, should he capture it, or not? I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but for arguments sake, I will. A few years ago, I attended the Australian Press Awards and the main gallery which took my interest at the time was the Arts, in particular, world known photographs by Australian photo journalists who had made the mark. There were many from places we call home, from the Muslim heartlands, from impoverished areas around the globe, and in particular, I will never forget one photo and the photographers role in it. It captured a little girl, who was neck down in rubble from an earthquake, her face, once fair, now black from the lack of blood flow and her hand in a puddle of water under her chin. And then there was her smile, that was something on its own ...
But I guess the point I'm making is that the photographer had to make a decision whether to take the photo, or help the girl and her family. He says pulling her out would have resulted in the amputation of her entire body due to the strength of what she was buried in, and taking the photograph was the hardest thing, and for a moment, he decided not to. He then asked her permission which was to the effect of you're dying and I'm here to capture it, and so, may I? After allowing him to so do, he says he sat with her for the next forty five minutes until she breathed her last. And upon returning home, took a break from it, about six months.
So I'm not saying wear your emotions on your sleeve, neither am I saying disconnect from them entirely, rather I'm acknowledging the difficulty photo journalists face. But they bring it back, and we appreciate it, or we don't, only to realise upon closer inspection, how truly difficult a practice it is.