Tabloid sensationalism: Drowned father and daughter picture

[$tevie]

I think the problem is that these powerful images end up being shared by quasi-news-outlets, non-news outlets, and social media users, until they end up being almost of no value as we become desensitized to them in, like, 48 hours.
The days when you saw a photo like this in your local evening paper, and it stopped you dead, and your heart broke, have morphed into seeing the photo dozens or hundreds of times until it's just another pic on the internet.


_____________________________________________________________________
LIGHTS for LIBERTY https://www.lightsforliberty.org/
Ways You Can Help Separated Families Beyond Giving https://momastery.com/blog/2018/06/27/wa...nd-giving/

[SteveG]

I think NPR has it correct
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/26/736177694...mmigration

The desperate and tragic plight of a father and daughter who drowned while trying to cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. has become a new flashpoint in the border crisis, after a photographer captured a haunting image that shows the pair lying facedown, washed onto the banks of the Rio Grande.


Le Duc also photographed the bodies of Ramírez and his daughter, which were found after Ávalos alerted authorities in Mexico. Le Duc's images show the pair lying along the riverbank, with their feet in the water and their heads on the reeds of dry land. The toddler is tucked into her dad's T-shirt — an apparent attempt to keep her close as the current took them away. Her arm is flung around his neck.

The shocking and unsettling image has drawn comparisons to other powerful photos, of the death of Aylan Kurdi, the 3-year-old Syrian boy who drowned in 2015 as his family tried to reach sanctuary in Greece, and of Omran Daqneesh, who was 5 when he was wounded in an airstrike in Aleppo.

In the same way those images focused the world's attention on the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Turkey, the intense image from the Rio Grande comes as a stark reminder of the human toll of the immigration crisis. As in those earlier cases, it also shows the devastating effect strife and desperation often inflict on children and families.

[Lemon Drop]

mattkime wrote:
>9/11? That's not poverty porn.

I'm still not clear how you're drawing lines between things. is this wrong because the people are poor? Are there other reasons why its wrong?

Poverty porn is defined as “any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause”.

Much has been written on this topic in recent decades, I encourage looking into it if you're interested. You may not think it's a problem.
I've reached the conclusion that it is. Many NGOs and media outlets have rules prohibiting the use of these types of photographs.

[Lemon Drop]

Steve G. wrote:
I think NPR has it correct
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/26/736177694...mmigration

The desperate and tragic plight of a father and daughter who drowned while trying to cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. has become a new flashpoint in the border crisis, after a photographer captured a haunting image that shows the pair lying facedown, washed onto the banks of the Rio Grande.


Le Duc also photographed the bodies of Ramírez and his daughter, which were found after Ávalos alerted authorities in Mexico. Le Duc's images show the pair lying along the riverbank, with their feet in the water and their heads on the reeds of dry land. The toddler is tucked into her dad's T-shirt — an apparent attempt to keep her close as the current took them away. Her arm is flung around his neck.

The shocking and unsettling image has drawn comparisons to other powerful photos, of the death of Aylan Kurdi, the 3-year-old Syrian boy who drowned in 2015 as his family tried to reach sanctuary in Greece, and of Omran Daqneesh, who was 5 when he was wounded in an airstrike in Aleppo.

In the same way those images focused the world's attention on the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Turkey, the intense image from the Rio Grande comes as a stark reminder of the human toll of the immigration crisis. As in those earlier cases, it also shows the devastating effect strife and desperation often inflict on children and families.

I'm disappointed that NPR published the photo, they will also get more revenue as a result. I'm sure they are going to get a lot of negative feedback.
As for the photo of the Syrian toddler, donations to nonprofits increased a hundred fold after the photo - life for refugees didn't get much better though. That's why we keep seeing these photos, they work for the powerful, don't they?

[deckeda]

There are many politicians and policy makers who do not think what's happening at the border is serious, or that they can affect change. Witness the blaming of Congress (read: Democrats) for not funding beds.

Do Republican leaders need a kick in the pants? Do their constituents? Are we to assume conservatives should eventually, at some point, possess enough basic human decency to cry out, "enough is enough!"

So why would anyone think a photo intended to prompt action is "too much?" The picture is not "poverty porn" any more than war pictures of dead people are. Sorry, i just don't understand the conflagration.

[deckeda]

$tevie wrote:
I think the problem is that these powerful images end up being shared by quasi-news-outlets, non-news outlets, and social media users, until they end up being almost of no value as we become desensitized to them in, like, 48 hours.
The days when you saw a photo like this in your local evening paper, and it stopped you dead, and your heart broke, have morphed into seeing the photo dozens or hundreds of times until it's just another pic on the internet.

Yes, when the message is diluted as a cast-off story, it becomes weaker. And in the mix on the same day, we had a president treat an accuser as "otherness" by saying she wasn't his type.

[Ombligo]

I spent 30 years as a photojournalist at one of the most highly respected publications in the US media. I ended my career as a photo-editor helping make the difficult and sometimes heart-wrenching decision of what image to publish. I am quite sure that on occasion my selection caused someone to spit up their Cheerios while looking at the front of their morning newspaper.

I'm quite okay with that.

The visceral reaction you are having is a good thing. It means you are thinking about the image and the ugliness it represents. The world is not always a pretty place, there are times that society needs a slap in the face to remind them of that fact. Trust me when I say that there were some very protracted discussions amongst editors before that image was published. There were editors and publishers on both sides of the discussion. Ultimately most national news organizations decided that it needed to be seen. To make unsupported claims that it was done simply as clickbait is an insult to those who agonize over these decisions.

Yes, there are websites that claim to be news publications but are little more than revenue producers. They run whatever will sell simply for the potential money it can bring in. Those are not journalists. However, there is nothing that can be done to restrict them with gutting the first amendment. As for the mainstream media, the news division is separate from the business and advertising sides. The staff of those do not sit in a news meeting where these decisions are made. At a quality news organization, the thought that something may cost advertising or circulation does not enter into the discussion. It comes down to one simple question - does it have sufficient news value.

This image said so much more than simple words can convey. It speaks to the values of our nation and the desperation of those trying to come here.

So yes, this image needed to be seen. It is there because of decisions made by this government. Decisions that reflect on every one of us. So look at that image and feel uncomfortable, because it is the truth, and that can be damn uncomfortable.

[mattkime]

Lemon Drop wrote: Poverty porn is defined as “any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause”.

I'm very familiar with the topic. I'm asking why _you_ think this is poverty porn. Connect the dots for me.

[Lemon Drop]

Ombligo wrote:

This image said so much more than simple words can convey. It speaks to the values of our nation and the desperation of those trying to come here.

So yes, this image needed to be seen. It is there because of decisions made by this government. Decisions that reflect on every one of us. So look at that image and feel uncomfortable, because it is the truth, and that can be damn uncomfortable.

This screed summarizes very well that the photo was published for emotional punch and that those publishing know very well how to exploit that emotional punch for their own messaging/purpose, be it political or profit or whatever. Notice no mention of the dignity or power of the SUBJECTS of the photo, because there is none.

[Lemon Drop]

mattkime wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]Poverty porn is defined as “any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause”.

I'm very familiar with the topic. I'm asking why _you_ think this is poverty porn. Connect the dots for me.
I've already written 4-5 paragraphs here about it. That should be all the connecting you need.