This is a picture that has haunted me for a decade. It was taken by a South African photographer called Keith Carter during a famine, in a sudanese refugee camp in 1993.The story is told that as he watched this child crawl towards the feeding centre a vulture landed and showed great interest in the dying child. The photographer watched the unfolding scene for twenty minutes, having positioned himself in a way that would not disturb the bird, hoping it would spread its wings!
He later claimed that he chased the bird away.
Are we so wretched that a dying african child is not worth protecting. Any one with an ounce of humanity would not sit and watch a vulture liking its lips (or beak). even for a great photo opportunity. Hence the ethical question comes up: should journalists rescue the subjects they are covering or let 'nature' take its course? I doubt journalistic standards are the same when covering Africa.
The incidences that bring this question back all the time include the post election violence in kenya at the beginning of the year and the xenophobic attacks in South Africa ( where 6 photographers gathered around a man who just had been hacked by a mob and lay bleeding to death on the ground).
Here's another angle: if the child in the photo had been white would the picture have ever been published?
Keith Carter recieved the 1994 Pulitzer prize for the photo. However, he was not able to collect it because he committed suicide 3 months after he took the picture.
