High impact images.

Hey, bubbabrain, certainly your blank cannot be filled with anything, sort of a black hole.

Yes, what gets reported is an important question. But to suggest that murders should not be reported ... if you lived in a neighborhood where there was a spate of murders, might you not want to know? I'm not suggesting that the kind of garbage that is typically reported on TV news is important, but on the other hand news is what the community cares about.

 

Good news, generally, is not news. Unless it is unusually good. Why? Because, generally, things are good -- we take that for granted. News is by definition unusual. If we lived in a world where everything was routinely bad, then we could report good news: "Children not murdered by gunmen while walking to school," for example.

>The importance of a news item depends not on how many people die, but how relevant it is to the audience. Thus the Iranian earthquake disappeared from the news in the US fairly quickly.<

 

Sure, 30 000 dead peope are relativly relevant for US citizens. But let any goof-reporter find in the Iran desert a house with some homebrew chemicals and I assure you THAT will be story not to forget.

News are made. It is our choice. Thats basically all.

Yes, stories that make Iran look bad will play big in the US. I agree that news are made -- but the audience plays a big role in shaping news. News that panders to its audience is more likely to show the really stupid bad stuff -- the most dramatic murders, the most sensational cases, etc. This stuff gets ratings and sells papers.

 

What's ironic is that the photos that are hard to look at -- a man being beaten to death in some little war somewhere, for example -- usually run not because readers demand the bad stuff, but because editors think the pictures matter. Readers show a consistent preference for feature pics of happy kids and fluffy bunnies to accompany their news stories of murders, car accidents and local politicians on the take.

 

The stories and pictures that generate the most complaints are those aimed at giving the audience what they "should" read. That's really a flaw in the original question -- "bang bang" matters most to photojournalists and photo editors. The audience, generally, doesn't want it.

>Good news, generally, is not news. Unless it is unusually good. Why? Because, generally, things are good -- we take that for granted<

 

Sigh..., that is the problem. Make good things look better by discovering the generous, pure, goodness attitude of those who were doing great things. Instead of killing dignity give dignity.

"Of all the horrors I had witnessed that day, this dead baby really

summed it all up. But the lighting sucked."--paraphrasing David

Guttenfelder in his and Joao Silva's book, "The Bang-Bang Club"

Sorry if the name's spelled wrong...I don't have the book right here. I'm

just recalling from memory. It's a great book on the subject though, read

it if you have a chance. It's disturbing as hell though. Lots of accounts of

the author chasing mobs of men bent on chopping people to bits with

machetes and burining them alive. Kevin Carter's story is also in the

book.

 

"Yes, stories that make Iran look bad will play big in the US. I agree that

news are made -- but the audience plays a big role in shaping news."

The first "audience" here is always the photographer. They are the one's

who choose what and what not to shoot. In many cases, they have come

to look for something. And that something is usually what they, the

editors and the audience WANT to see. This is not to say that horrors

don't exist or that we should ignore them. But the stereotypes placed on

many countries, esp those in Africa, South-East Asia and Middle East,

which play a major part of the feedback loop (a chicken and egg thing)

between, perception and reality are only reinforced by bang-bang of this

nature, thus disolving public perception of hope for the subjects of the

image. The more barriers between a decent "standard of living" and the

components of an image, the more, I think, people are to inclined to

believe that a situation is hopeless and therefor not worth our time. If,

time and time again, we are shown the same type of images from a

certain "place" (in many ways, Africa is one "place" in our minds...see my

and G.W. Bush's flubs above) then does the place itself not suffer?

 

When US soldiers were dragged naked through Mogadishu, the Senator

from Texas (sorry I'm Canadian and don't really know the actual titles

for U.S. government representatives, we have a fairly different political

system) said something to the effect that ....The good people of Texas

do not believe that these people (Somalis) are very hungry...(you can

correct the quote if you'd like, but that's the best I can do). The thing

was though, that Somalis were hungry, there was a famine. Thousands

died. The U.S. left it high and dry, never completing the mission. Read

"Photojournalism and Foreign Policy" before you disagree, or don't, and

bring some other information on the facts to the table. I'm interested.

 

It is noteworthy that Carter's photo, of the collapsed little girl in the

barren field with the vulture behind her appeared about the same time.

As well, the Rwandan genocide of 800,000 people happened at the same

time, with about, well, no attention at all untill it was far too late. I'm

sure many images pop into your mind when I say "Africa", but do these

types of images not drive you aswell to think, "Afrcia=totaly F%ed" ?

And therefor, not worth the time and tax money to rectify the situation?

 

Best,

bernd blauel , feb 12, 2004; 01:26 p.m.

>Human nature has not changed and never will.<

 

"Oh,.... yes of course how was that? hmmm... i remember: we were born in sin, we live in sin, we will die in sin. or something the like. Certainly people with this mindset will only see the dark, everywhere. Go on and dig your own grave."

 

Who said that? Human nature is what it is. That is all I mean. I am not Christian, so keep that in mind.

 

For every Albert Schweitzer you have a Hitler. For every Florence Nightengale you have a Pol Pot. For every Ghandi you have a David Byrne.

Brendan, now I think you're making yourself clear.

 

The number one issue is of course what makes news. To me, it seems that the problem isn't the "bang-bang" but the particular bang-bang that is selected. It's the decision to cover this story vs. that.

 

Rwanda makes a good example -- have you read Dallaire's book? Not only did the heavy media attention arrive late, but much of it was focussed on refugee camps outside Rwanda. As a result these camps received more aid than they could handle, while a humanitarian disaster continued inside Rwanda.

 

While we're on the topic of Dallaire, we can ask, "what do peacekeeping, observer and election monitoring missions really prove?" It's a similar exercise in futility.

 

But for all the disasters, there are success stories.

 

Does the news system skew our perceptions of foreign countries? Sure it does. The Arab world is full of terrorists, Africans are always starving or killing each other, etc. And Hollywood helps out here, too. I haven't read the book you cite, but I'd be suspicious of anyone claiming that photojournalism has any real, independent effect on foreign policy or public perception. It's a component of a huge media system.

 

So is the problem the bang-bang, or that the whole news system (generally) fails to recognize stories that don't fit into the existing frame of reference?

Andrew,

Eddie Adams' photo of the street execution following the Tet

offensive, Nick Ut's shot of Kim Phuc running naked, screaming and

burned down the road after her village was firebombed in Vietnam, Paul

Watson's dead soldier, the numbered photographers who shot the man

in front of the row of tanks in Tienamen square----all of the people created

images that shaped public perception. If they didn't, why would the US

government be so controlling of the "inbeds" during the last Gulf

invasion? Isn't that a policy? We have to remeber that the images

comming out of Somalia before Holywood's inspiration for the most

arguably racist movie ever occured and Watson snapped the pic, were of

intense suffering. After the Black Hawk fell, there weren't any at all.

Except of little brown kids crawling all over the wreckage of the valiant

whirly-bird.

 

I had the amazing opportunity to meet Lt. Gen. Dallaire for an interview

and 2 minute photo-shoot to promote his boook. He remarked, as he

does in his book, that when he asked a nearby USAF radio-jamming

plane if it could fly a mission over Rwanda, to jam the radio station that

was broadcasting a list of the names of those who should be killed, the

commander in charge of the plane said that flying it wouldn't change

anything...that it wasn't worth the cost of fuel. The names went on being

broadcast and later the owner of the station was charged with playing a

key role in the genocide.

 

Now, would the cameras, if they were there, have sparked public

outrage? Or in light of all that people "know" about Africa (as a single,

mentaly constructed "place") would people just say, "Oh well, the

Africans are at it again!" ? Does this sort of opinion have anything to do

with the refusal by the Air Force commander, when Dallaire asked for

the plane?

 

I"m not talking about dependent and independent variables, my

eductaion in the social sciences has led me to see social causality not as,

A+B=C, but in terms of A+B=A, with a bit of C and D randomly

thrown in now and then when people see fit to do so. The camera snaps

the shot, the people see it, the intelligensia scream about the injustice, the

advisors agree, the president speaks, the army acts, the camera snaps.

With some generals, elections, terrorist attacks, and CEO's, etc, etc...

thrown in for good measure.

 

<<<So is the problem the bang-bang, or that the whole news system

(generally) fails to recognize stories that don't fit into the existing frame

of reference?>>>

 

Please clarify, It sounds like a good point, but I don't get the part about

frame of reference, isn't the news media the frame of reference?

As well, apart from the National Geographic photo of the little shepperd

crying after his sheep were hit by a truck--prompting readers to send

enough cash to buy the little boy all new sheep, what success stories have

YOU heard on an international level?<div></div>

it's been an interesting thread i must say though i no longer

know what we are arguing anymore? BUT andrew and

brendan, there is a very interesting book called *touched by fire*

by elliott leyton photographed by greg locke. it's a document

about docters without borders' work (somewhat like the show on

the national geographic channel but more indepth). the best

part of the book is the last three chapters which goes into the

the moral enigma and effects of mass media, photography,

international aids, humanitarian efforts and what is all means

from different points of view especially from the actual aid

workers and the different fractions within the msf itself and their

critics. also, philip gourevitch's book

* We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With

Our Families: Stories from Rwanda* is the best rwanda

genocide book i read imo.

We seem to have gone off at a tangent. Let me, please, suggest that there are some unscrupulous individuals in every field we look into, be it medicine, law enforcement, healthcare and, yes, photography. I am offended appalled by those I consider true vultures that hunt and hound after celebreties (let us not forget the tragic end of Princess Diane). Those are the ones making mega-bucks while giving photography a bad name. Surely, we've felt the cold stares and the glaring eyes at one time or another.

 

But, let us go back in time to the slum dwellers in NYC. If not for a few brave newspapermen who ventured into the worst slums in NYC and brought photographers to record the deplorable conditions the poor were living in while within a stone's throw of excess affluence (of which some were landlords, or slumlords). Were it not for these few brave souls, we might not have had laws passed, charitable organizations formed to help the poor with education, healthcare and other social improvements.

 

I am not going to refer to history books and offer names, dates, etc. I think we're all familiar with the social improvements that took place in NYC and other slums across America during the earlier part of the last century.

 

Well, I believe that there are a few brave souls with good intentions; unfortunately, there are some that will find fault in whatever someone else does (oh, my, poor Mother Theresa...).

 

Some will actually draw upon the outrage of using the poor, the destiture and the downthrodden "to sell" news. But, wait a minute! These images are the same images that are helping to illustrate conditiosn that some (the echelon) would prefer not to be seen or heard! It seems that their "outrage" has a different rootcause. But still they voice their outrage.

 

There are some African countries where indeed some atrocities are being perpetrated upon the masses and if not for a few photojournalists, we'd never know about it while we dwell in our own comfort. Let me remind you of the Holocaust and the horrible images captured that document the atrociites that took place. If not for these images, who today would be inclined to believe the testimony of those who survived? Surely, there are some today that still cling to the notion that it did not exist, in spite of the imagess we've all seen.

 

I think that we owe our fellow human beings a better way of life. No child should go hungry, especially in view of the gross waste that goes on in this country, where a Martha Stewart can have a chicken coop with air conditioning during the summer months, and heating during the winter months. Where some celebrities feed their pet pooches top-choice meats and within a few miles of their domiciles there are people going to sleep hungry.

 

Yes, while some individuals are "cashing in" with their images, there is still the possibility of doing some good. What good? How about such organizations such as UNICEF, The Red Cross, etc.? How about the many mouths that have been fed as a result of the images portrayed in some of the "rags" that have used these images to sell (to make profit) but have also given rise to organizations and charities?

 

I've heard the word, "dignity" mentioned, but I ask, what is dignity to a starving child? What about the many atrocities (genocide) that have been thwarted as a result of images taken by some "vultures" and displayed on some money-hungry TV stations, newspapers, etc?

 

Politics is dirty. But some of the "fat cats" must sometimes be shamed into action; they're far too busy attending fancy balls, fancy dinners and displaying their wardrobes and fine jewelry while the masses are starving in their own backyards.

 

I guess we should think of priorities. What should take priority, a hungry child that will be fed while a newspaper/TV stations makes money from their advertisers and sales?

 

I am not a sociologist, and I cannot use the "in" terms that are really arcane to some while esoteric to most. What matters is that we shouldn't fall into a trap: those in power would like us not to get involved in exposing their dirty laundry. I think we should consider what the priorities are and what the intentions are for some who would photograph a dead child who died because of malnutrition and/or starvation, the genocides taking place within our times, and the abuses by those in power.

 

A photographer in Photo.net was denigrated and scorned because she took images to illustrate a condition taking place in certain countries in Africa because she did not take the time to explain what she was doing in those countries. Surely, I think we should all have been a bit more concerned over the quality of her images, since that is the purpose of photo.net, and not over her personal intentions. By the way, this photographer is also a medical doctor, and she uses her free time to take medicine and help in other ways, and she does indeed take photos of her trips. She takes spontaneous environmental images, like a photojournalist would do, but she takes them to get an unposed image; she takes the time to tell her subject that she has taken a photo and shows it to the subject. She does not "steal" images, which is something we've all done at some time or other, if we've ever taken a single candid image of someone.

 

My suggestion is quite simple, let's not jump the gun and accuse others of doing something "for the money" unless we personally know the person in question.

 

There is much said about the intentions of others and I find it very amusing since I am not aware that we have so many individuals that are clairevoyant.

 

By the way, I am not pointing fingers. To those reading my comments, please accept my most humble apologies if you've been offended in any way by my words.

I think that pictures have an impact, but that their impact is believed to be greater than it really is. Pictures simply make the news harder to ignore, rationalize, or write off.

 

The real reason for controlling access and trying to censor pictures is that pictures can't be spun after the fact. A news report can always be massaged, but all you can do with a picture is decide not to publish it.

 

(Nick Ut is a bad example, by the way. Popular perception has this photo changing public opinion, but it wasn't published until 1972, when the war was already deeply unpopular.)

 

Your point re Rwanda is well taken. In our (G7) responses to African crises, there is definitely an undercurrent of racism. When warring civil factions dunked Bosnia into a bloodbath, respecting sovereignty was offered as an excuse for non-intereference -- but in Somalia, we sanctioned an invasion. We responded to Bosnia by repurposing an existing UN mission at the last minute and moving in to open the Sarajevo airport -- but in Rwanda, nobody was interested in reinforcing the UN mission. Etc.

 

What I mean by the frame of reference are the political biases and ideological assumptions through which we view the outside world -- exactly what you mean, I think, when you talk about the "Africans are at it again" attitude.

 

So our news system doesn't look for stories about an upcoming election that will end years of civil war in a little country called Rwanda, and doesn't recognize the importance of warnings from the UN that the process might be derailed, and finally responds only when a full-blown slaughter is in progress.

 

Then, everyone is surprised and wonders what the heck is going on in Africa. The news says, "Hutus are killing Tutsis, and Tutsis are killing Hutus. It's the old African thing, tribal hatred exacerbated by our silly colonial borders. Let's all wring our hands about this continent we don't understand." (And this, of course, is not what was really happening in Rwanda.)

 

If you read Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Edwards offer some telling examples of the frame of reference at work, although I think their "propaganda model" puts too much stress on media ownership and not enough on the role of the audience itself (a whole separate discussion). In their view, Western news media never questions its frame of reference: the Vietnam war, for example, always remains a fight for a noble cause fought, perhaps, using questionable means.

 

(The important issue, before the Chomsky-haters chime in, is not which frame of reference is right, but that the established one is not questioned.)

 

So ultimately I don't think that we really disagree that widely.

 

Success stories? Well, what constitutes "success" depends on your frame of reference! But NATO eventually forced the combatants to an accord in Bosnia, which probably would never have happened without media attention. Images from Ethiopia prompted Band-Aid and all the rest. And so on. You must be a photojournalist, Brendan, since all you see is the bad news. :-)

OK,

So this thread has veared far off of the initial tack, but here goes any

way...

 

I started out in photography wanting to do fashion, but my teachers in

high-school told me there was no money in it, that it was impossible to

get into, etc, etc. (I had never heard the phrase "Those who can't--teach."

before [not to say all photo teachers are failed photographers]) So I

decided to go into lighting design instead, got tired of the road, late

hours etc. and went back to photography with a new interest in the

politics of underdevelopment and decided that I'd like to do

photojournalism. Well, after a number of years studying International

Development and watching all the horrors of the world unfold on 12'

high lecture hall screens, I start to wonder if it's really doing much at all,

or if it just reinforces the popular perceptions of underdevelopment. This

is a popular form of academic fatalism. probably not the opinion of most,

but when you look at it all, all at once, the world is an incredibly

complicated place that tends to prey on the weak and 'backward.'

 

That said, I have a hard time believing in "backwardness" And I believe

the promotion of such concepts is the most dangerous form of racism.

 

So, are these images of what a CARE photographer I know refers to as

"skinnies," the problem at all? In light of the opinions expressed here, I'd

have to say NO. My intial opinion has changed.

 

It really is just a part of the whole Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent

thing---which I had not initially thought about in my question.

 

Perhaps if you want to take pictures of a problem, you have to turn the

camera on yourself, as Martin Parr does...even if H.C-B. thinks you're

"from another planet."

 

Hmm, makes me think of going back to fashion...Toscani (the prodigal

Beneton photographer) anyone? How's that for bang-bang?

Leslie,

 

I'll look for the MSF book, sounds very interesting! And yes, I have

read "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With

Our Families: Stories from Rwanda* altough, I sort of wish I hadn't

after Linda Melvern's "A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in the

Rwandan Genocide"

 

Let us all pray to whoever we pray to, that such a thing never happens

again (again). And that we can come to understand eachother as equals...

 

As Albert Shweitzer (although I've heard it quoted as Albert Einstein)

said, "Untill he can extend his circle of compassion to include all living

things, man himself will not know peace."

 

Pass the granola.

Last one...

 

Andrew:

 

Are you from London? I really couldn't see anyone that wasn't from

London actually fishing in the Thames. I grew up there and recognised

the concrete embankments of many childhood misadventures istantly.

 

It looks like you've had some amazing fishing trips.

 

Best,

Yes, I am from London. You're not the first on photo.net to recognize those embankments!

 

And now you have me thinking about Martin Parr, too.

"What does this typs of photography really prove?"

 

The news medias' job is to educate, inform, inspire and entertain. One can be critical of the media, but remember, circulation and advertising is what makes or breaks a newspaper/magazine. Media is a business, and tends to provide what readers want. Photographs of war, suffering, etc., illustrate in a vivid way what is written. Can photos make a difference?

Remember the photo of a South Vietnamese general coldly executing a North Vietnamese prisoner with a handgun? Some say that photo marked the turning point of the Viet Nam war.....

My reply is not meant to offend anyone, but the above quote reminds me of a nightmare I experienced. I disarmed someone who shot and killed my friend after the killer shot his wife three times and was about to shoot her in the head as she lay on the street pavement. I was fighting with the gunman, his gun in his hand, and I forced the gun into the gunman's face.... it went off and it merely grazed his eyebrow.

 

I am a peace-loving man, I abhor violence. When I first saw that image so many years ago, toward the end of the Viet Nam War, I had mixed feelings. I first thought of how brutal and despicable the act was.... then a wounded GI asked me, "How would you feel if you had just captured one of the looters and murderers who had just 'wasted' a small village, and you found old people, women and children tortured and murdered, raped, dismembered, some burned alive....?"

 

I remember thinking, "Why didn't that bullet go into this motherf-----'s mouth" when I was struggling with the man who had shot and killed a dear friend and wounded a woman; I was fighting for my life, the gunman was trying to shoot me as we struggled for the gun. Not a single person jumped in to help me, and not a single witness later volunteered to speak on my behalf.

 

The gunman later told the police that I had taken the gun from him and shot him. The only thing that saved me from having to defend myself in a trial was the angle of the bullet as it grazed his eyebrow.

 

Sometimes we see images and we don't know what exactly had just taken place when the image was taken. What would WE have done had we just caught someone who pillaged and burned and tortured many innocent elderly people, small children, women....? What would someone else have done if they had just witnessed a friend�s murder and the gunman was now shooting a woman....?

 

I think differently today as a result of a few friends who survived the Viet Nam War. I think differently, too, because of some unique experiences I've had.

 

Photos have the unique quality of making some people react differently, depending on their unique personal experiences. Without photographic images, we often miss the "whole picture" (no pun intended) but, again, we're all subject to our own experiences in interpreting what we see.

 

The intentions of the photographer and the publisher have a lot to do with it. Take the images of O.J. Simpson, some magazines added more hue to make him darker and some magazines lightened his skin tone and they all achieved a different perspective (before the "Trial of the Century" on his guilt or innocence BEFORE the trial and before the jury rendered its decision. (PLEASE, let's not get into the logistics and the end result of THAT trial).

 

With today's digital technology and the ease with which images can be manipulated, what's going to happen? We can easily manipulate and make people disappear from a scene or we can add things to an image.... what a mess! Weren't photographers doing this in the past by cropping through their viewfinders or in the darkroom? Very little difference there except that it's now easier and more realistic than years past.

 

Oftentimes we see images of starving children and it moves us to contribute to charities. We often hear about atrocities and we find it difficult to believe until we see images (i.e., the Holocaust).

 

I suspect that our friend, Brandon is rightfully angered or annoyed with the notion that some indigents are exploited. Yes, there is indeed exploitation going on. But, really, think about it, what CHARITY doesn�t also exploit? What are the CEOs and top echelons of charities getting paid? Ridiculous, exorbitant monies! Isn�t that exploitation? What about the television ministries? Aren�t some getting ridiculously rich with their �charities� and requests for donations? What is the percentage that eventually DOES trickle down to the intended charity after the "corporate" or "managing" or so-called "overhead costs"?

 

The charity BUSINESS is also employing many in the advertising field, too (photographers included). What about secretaries, accountants, lawyers, etc., and the many others employed in offices and the building maintenance crews? Oh, let's not forget the chauffeurs for the CEOs; and chauffeurs, like the other employees, also receive health benefits and are entitled to yearly sick days and vacations....

 

Some of the images displayed on photo.net by some of the amateur photographers receive uncomplimentary critiques because some of the viewers don�t have the advantage of knowing that one particular photographer donates her time and medicines she purchases (with her own funds) to help the less fortunate.

 

So, where do we go from here? Do we demand that she not photograph some of the conditions she witnesses? I don't think her photos are in bad taste; she has not submitted images that put her subjects in a "bad light," so what do we do?

 

Why don't we, instead, make a concerted effort to complain about the professional "ghouls" who chase after celebrities (remember Princess Diana?), and take advantage of anything that falls within the sights of their viewfinders to sell to gossip "rags." Those ghouls are the ones who give all who hold a camera a bad name!

The incident you mentioned seems a bit innacurate. First of all, the newscrew was there because the father of the girl who had committed suicide or was murdered by the woman's new husband, if I remember correctly, had called the authorities and the news media trying to get attention to the fact that his child was being sexually abused by his ex-wife's new husband. They got wind of the child's death (either suicide or murder) and decided to go to the cemetery to question the mother, where the father of the child showed up unexpectedly. The father had not been allowed to visit his daughter (for whatever reasons).

 

The father of the deceased child came unexpectedly, he was not invited there by the camera crew or by the news station covering the incident, and he was not invited by the news reporter or the woman who was eventually killed. He got out of his vehicle and he starting to shoot without saying a word; he shot the woman he blamed and held responsible for his child's death. He did not shoot the woman out of jealousy but out of anguish over his child's death and his inability to have done anything to have prevented it.

 

The TRUE tragedy was not the shooting death of the woman, or that the camera crew was there while a woman was killed but that a child was sexually abused and she had to be murdered or commit suicide for anyone to pay attention; meanwhile, no one listened to the father's pleas for help in the situation. THAT was the TRUE tragedy!

 

(Please, let's not respond to the first sentence of the above paragraph; I admit that the killing was indeed a tragedy but I said, "The TRUE tragedy...." so let's not lose track or sight of what I was saying by digressing into yet another topic over a woman's tragic death.)

 

At the cemetery, the news reporter was asking questions and the mother of the deceased child was not responding. The news reporter (a woman) started screaming in fear of her life when the shooting began. The man dropped the gun in view of the camera man who captured the entire scene and at no time did he threaten the camera crew of the news reporter or the driver of the news crew.

 

All of the dialogue took place in Spanish. This happened a few years ago and I remember the jist of it because the father's plight at the time really caused me to think of what I would do under the same circumstances.

 

What would any of us do under those circumstances? A tragedy was captured on tape; what was the photographer to do, turn off his video equipment? It was not bad taste to record what happened; it was bad taste in airing it under the nonsensical, overused cliché that "the public has a right to know."

 

By the way, I've done court evidence photography and I've had to photograph some distasteful things, too, but my work was never aired on TV or published in magazines or newspapers (which has been of consolation to me, personally).

I think it should be available with fact and opinion clearly highlighted. People should then assemble the picture in their own minds and figure it out.

 

I was recently shown a "bang-bang" photo that impacted me greatly. I live in Africa and I know enough to know the good and bad. Funnily enough I came across the photo because someone was looking for a photojournalist named Paul Watson who had a shot from Mogadishu (you know, made infamous by the movie Black Hawk Down) in a World Press book. My name is Paul Watson and the mistaken identity has been made before. I am not him. Anyway the photo is attached, hope I am not stepping on anybodies toes to much, I just think it illustrates what you are getting at.

 

It shows the lifeless body of an American soldier being dragged through the streets. African's line each side with smiles on their faces, others dance in joy as they beat the body.

 

Is this an image of Africa we should show people? Will people take it and think this is all Africa is, savages exhulting in violence? Sadly it is one aspect of Africa, as are other images you have seen showing people like Desmond Tutu helping the poor or Nelson Mandela leading a country to freedom.

 

I guess as long as we don't show only one aspect all the time, then it is ok.<div></div>

Paul,

My heart almost stopped when I saw your name here...but then I read that you

weren't the man himself. I think he's in California right now...L.A. Times I

think.

 

I spoke with some of his former coleagues at the Toronto Star (where he worked when

he shot this photo) and they had much to say about it's impact and Mr. Watson's

response to it after the fact. As far as I'm told, this shot was taken with Watson's

escorts pulling at him to get out of there, but Watson turned and went in again to get

this shot before fleeing the area. Lucky for him, he got the Pulitzer prize out of it in

the end. Unluckily for the Somali people (maybe) the U.S. fled the area as well--

leaving the country just as f%$#@'d as when they came in on the humanitarian

mission. I won't go into the politics of this or talk about the strange 'mortality

exchange rate' between different countries around the world and how it's similar to

the monetary exchange rate. I'm a raging humanist, so I'd probably be biased and

offend those who believe that CNN broadcasts journalism.

'The father of the deceased child came unexpectedly, he was not invited there by the camera crew or by the news station covering the incident, and he was not invited by the news reporter or the woman who was eventually killed. He got out of his vehicle and he starting to shoot without saying a word; he shot the woman he blamed and held responsible for his child's death. He did not shoot the woman out of jealousy but out of anguish over his child's death and his inability to have done anything to have prevented it.'.............................................

.....................................................I'm glad someone else is aware of this incident, which hopefully lays to rest the suggestion that I made it up, I will never forget watching that incident on videotape, and I suggest that your characterization of it is simply not the way it happened, the tape of the incident clearly shows the reporter turning around to see the man showing up, this is while the woman who was eventually murdered was STILL IN HER CAR, the reporter continued filming and interviewing AND TURNING AROUND to 'eye' the man several times, she had the time to tell this lady to leave so they could conduct the interview later at a safer place and a safer time and all the lady has to do is gun her engine and then you have no murder, she chose not to, so I stand on my characterization of this reporter and consider her behavior almost criminal.

 

There were choice this reporter didn't make that she had time to make, the choices she made were for the story/interview at the cost of someones life, and it didn't have to happen, she could have/should have told this lady to leave the cemetery and gotten the interview later, and she had time to do it, consider you involved in this kind of situation, you're at a cemetery with your sister, and her ex-husband who blames her for the death of her son shows up, I'll gurarentee you that you'll leave in a heartbeat, if you have any sense, well, I suggest that you show this same kind of concern for ANYBODY.

 

I disagree with the suggestion that the reporter/cameracrew were 'surpised' by the murderer, and were helpless to do anything about the murder but to shoot it, THEY HAD TIME TO PREVENT IT.

 

This photograph of a human being being dragged through the streets is repulsive to me, it is understandable though that whoever took it, wasn't in a position to help the individual or the situation, and did the only thing he could by recording the event for history, that is something different, and in terms of any reference about this image as some barometer of Africans, I would remind folks there are plenty of pictures of joyous individuals posing around the dead bodies African Americans who they had just hanged in the south.

 

I accept that imagery dealing with human suffering is a reality that in some circumstances may help humanity with exposing and alerting people to injustice, but when you have a chance to save somebodies life or to prevent them from being harmed, you do it, just like it was your mother/sister/brother, or you.

 

This is the end of my posting here.

Johnathan, I can vividly remember seeing the incident you discuss which is highly relevant to the discussion at hand. I saw the actual video tape of the woman being shot several times in the documentary of death footage titled "Faces of Death". Anyone who does not believe him can check it out for themselves.

I can still picture the video clip to this day, yet it has been over 7 years since I have seen the video. That is imperative in understanding the impact of violent images. I can replay it over in my mind anytime I want to. Through this negative imagery I became to understand the full horror of the incident.

To answer the original question of the host, images of violence in our media are crucial to understanding the realities of unfortunate circumstances, for example the war in Iraq. Right now, our media depicts a one-sided war emphasized by images of high tech weaponry used to portray the superiority of the U.S. as an invulnerable war machine. The lives sacrificed are printed in titles of articles "1,500 Iraqi National Gaurds killed in bombing" (as if it was a sport's score) and signified with the image of a U.S. soldier standing in the desert, sweaty with a drop of blood on his cheek to exemplify his bravery.

Where are the 1,500 dead Iraqis? Why have I not seen any maimed bodies? Am I sick and twisted to wish that these images were printed in our daily paper? I don't think so. If a country goes to war, they should be forced to digest the horrors and hell that come with it. Do we want the truth of the war, or do we want the sugar coated truth so we can sleep soundly at night?

Such violent images, as we saw during the Vietnam war (little children peeling their napalmed skin off their arms) made audiences turn away in repulsion and disgust. To react to the photo 'with horror' is to respond not only to the visual image, but to register in that denial the other's suffering in one's bodily shudder. That shudder can be seen as the reciprocating aspect of the depiction - however unintended - that reveals the complicity of the observer in the situation of the suffered. We do not turn from the image as such, but from the depiction of that which exemplifies unbearable suffering. In this instance, an understanding of the suffering is experienced. For these reasons I argue that violent imagery during warfare is imperative. Without full access to the realities, as horrific as they may be, we are uninformed as a public to make an intelligent decision whether or not the sacrifices being made are worth attempting to meet are intended ends. Thank you.

 

Christopher Nieliwocki