Is it a good thing that photojournalism traffics on the dark side?

Mindy McAdams viewed this fine tale of addict woe and wondered if it's a good thing that photojournalists prefer images of illness, death and depravity:

I fully acknowledge the value in taking us where we do not want to go. We need to see scenes of poverty, death on the battlefield, victims of natural disasters. This is the duty of journalism, to take us there.

But I’m having a problem with stories about sick people, people with cancer or leukemia, and addicted people (also a sickness) that just take us down a hole and leave us there. I also think that far too many stories by student photojournalists are focused on these subjects. I start to think, “Oh, no, not another sweet little child with cancer …” when the slideshow starts.

Shouldn’t we be looking for other stories? What does anyone in the audience learn from seeing yet another child with a disease, and the grieving parents, the valient fight? Effort be damned — what is the value to the public in these tragic tales? Is this what journalism is for?

Typically we don't learn anything. It's an exercise in cheap emotion and voyeurism. And yes, that's one of the things journalism is for.