Photographs: The Building Blocks Toward a "Moral Position"

 "Photographs cannot create a moral position, but they can reinforce one-and can help build a nascent one." -Susan Sontag, On Photography (pg. 17)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?scp=8&sq=loughner&st=cse

 Without a context to place this photo, the boy depicted seems like a regular high school kid. There is no evidence to suggest that he is out of the ordinary, let alone capable of unloading a .9mm Glock pistol on an innocent congresswoman and then the surrounding crowd of supporters and fellow members of Arizona's 8th District.

That is where photographs fall short: without a story or place with which to pair a photo, much of its meaning is lost to the uninformed viewer. But when a photo of a seemingly normal kid is said to depict a mentally ill terrorist by the name of Jared Loughner, it takes on a whole new meaning and significance to the story behind it.

The countless articles reporting that Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 14 others, including
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, give readers feelings of sympathy and catharsis for the victims and their families. At the same time, the image of a ruthless killer is forced into their minds. For a few days the only face that newspapers, news networks and other publications could give the suspect Jared Loughner was that of a happy and superficially normal guy. The "moral position" that reporters were leading their readers to was one of sensitivity toward the victims and hate and disgust toward the one who caused it all: unfortunately for these reporters, the only available photographs of Loughner did not fit the articles' and stories' intended effects on readers and viewers. A plain head shot that one could imagine in his/her own yearbook does not make readers feel any more disgusted or angry. The first photo I saw of Loughner was the one below, and to be honest I thought it was supposed to be a picture of one of the victims. It was not until I had finished reading the article and saw the caption under it that I realized that that happy, nice looking gentleman is the murderer I had just read about. So while Sontag's statement above is correct, it really depends on the caliber and tone of a photo to reinforce people's positions on a story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?scp=8&sq=loughner&st=cse

And then to the delight of countless journalists, publications and news networks (just in time for the Sunday papers), this photo of Jared Loughner was released.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12legal.html?scp=13&sq=jared%20loughner&st=cse

Crazy, mentally ill, killer: just a few words one would use to describe the man in this photo, most likely even without knowing who it is. It is no wonder why this photo could be found on myriad front pages of newspapers and on TV, because this is the face of a man who murders innocent men, women and children. This is the photo journalists want to back up their stories about a man showing signs of mental illness and a progressive retreat from the world. The feelings of anger writers want readers to feel are certainly intensified by this photograph. And, like Sontag says, the photo reinforces ones moral position on the situation.

Obviously there is only one basic "moral position" for someone to take in a situation like this. But reporters and writers influence readers to have a heightened sensitivity to their moral positions, so that they feel more for the story and its characters (and want to read more from that source in the future). Everyone wanted the photo of the shaved, crazed Loughner because they knew that photo would truly show Loughner not as a normal guy, but a cold murderer.

In the end I think Sontag would agree that the now infamous photograph of Jared Loughner epitomizes an image capable of reinforcing one's moral position on the Arizona shooting, and could quite easily "help build a nascent one."