Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of democracy, and this is achieved, among other things, through journalism. Journalistic autonomy has been the subject of debate for many years, with some people believing that most media are corrupt and do not show reality, while others criticize the role and integrity of the journalist when he or she posts photos or information deemed too violent. We are then entitled to ask the question: what are the limits of journalism?

A reporter’s job is to report, to show what he or she has seen. His job is not to be a policeman, a vigilante or a doctor. Yet many war reporters, for example, are criticized for taking pictures of disastrous situations. They are judged « heartless » and accused by some of taking advantage of the situation. On the one hand, they are criticized for not showing reality enough, and when they do show it, perhaps it should have been avoided. In this case, what has the right to publish or not to publish and where does the role of the journalist end?

In March 1993, Kevin Carter, a reporter and photographer, took this picture of a young child in Sudan. The photo, entitled « Starving child and Vulture, » depicts a hungry Sudanese child who can no longer move around, watched by a vulture waiting to pounce on its prey. To capture the many cases of famine in Sudan, the photographer has immortalized this heavy moment.

In April 1994, Kevin Carter won the Pulitzer Prize for his photography. If one could think of congratulating him, that’s not really what happened. The photographer received thousands of critics, blaming him for a lack of ethics. According to the public, the reporter would be « heartless » to have taken such a photography and would be accused of scavenging like the vulture. While Kevin Carter admits that he did not help the child, this does not mean that this moment did not mark him. His colleague Joao Silva confides that « Kevin was, without a doubt, very affected by what he photographed, and that this moment would haunt him for the rest of his life ».

If we look a little further, we can learn that the child was only a few steps away from a supply center and that he was being cared for by a humanitarian organization. The photographer could not have done anything to help him. Moreover, a journalist who conducted his investigation found, a few years later, the father of the child – who was, by the way, a boy and not a girl -. He explained that the child had survived the famine and was in fact waiting for his aunt who was queuing for their food ration. So, the little boy did not die, abandoned by the photographer.

Moreover, we are entitled to wonder what this reporter, whose skills are photographic and not medical, could have done.

In July 1994, a few months after winning the Pulitzer Prize and being accused by many critics, Kevin Carter put an end to his life. In the farewell note he left, he says he is « haunted by vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain, of children starving or wounded or trigger-happy. The photo-reporter was suffering from severe depression and an addiction to a sedative. We will never know if the many criticisms he received were at the origin of his act, but we can surely assume that they influenced him.

Once again, his death has been criticized. Many wonders if the weight of guilt related to this photo might have pushed him to commit suicide. However, Kevin Carter should not feel guilty for having done his job, who, I remind you, is a photographer and not a social worker or a doctor. What is certain is that the limits of journalism are not the same for everyone and it will probably be impossible to define them.