Tabloid sensationalism: Drowned father and daughter picture

[mattkime]

Lemon Drop wrote: I've already written 4-5 paragraphs here about it. That should be all the connecting you need.

The more you write the less clear it is.


More seriously though, who do you think is profiting off those images? Thats unclear.

[Lemon Drop]

mattkime wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]I've already written 4-5 paragraphs here about it. That should be all the connecting you need.

The more you write the less clear it is.
Maybe ask me a specific question then? I think it's an interesting topic and I'm very aware that not everyone thinks it's a problem to publish photos of desperately poor people (people who did not give any permission for the photograph) in the most desperate situations. They know it has shock value (as Ombligo writes above) and will benefit them as journalists or whatever, so they do it. The benefit to the subject of the photo? Did they give permission? - gosh you don't hear so much about that when it's a person from the "developing" world because we don't apply our own rules of dignity and privacy to them.

Some folks are fine with publishing these, using them to make political points (happening all over the place with this one on both sides of the argument) or to raise money for charity. Notice that all those things empower ONLY the powerful, not the people in the photograph.

A way to empower immigrants would be for us to hear their voices (when they want to talk to us). I mean actually listen. How many media outlets are doing that? Very few, because it doesn't get many people to look at news stories or write checks.


Who is profiting/benefiting?
every media outlet that publishes
every politician who tweets the photo
every nonprofit that will include this photo in their fundraising

even us right now - we're just gawking. We're not doing one damn thing to help immigrants.

[mattkime]

>Who is profiting/benefiting?
>every media outlet that publishes
>every politician who tweets the photo
>every nonprofit that will include this photo in their fundraising

I think your definition of 'profiting' is wide enough to swallow up the means of distributing the images.

I don't think you provide for a distinction between a nonprofit making an argument and doing good work and a cynical grab for cash.

[Lemon Drop]

mattkime wrote:
>Who is profiting/benefiting?
>every media outlet that publishes
>every politician who tweets the photo
>every nonprofit that will include this photo in their fundraising

I think your definition of 'profiting' is wide enough to swallow up the means of distributing the images.

I don't think you provide for a distinction between a nonprofit making an argument and doing good work and a cynical grab for cash.

I don't know what "swallow up the means of distributing the images" means.

This idea of "poverty porn" arose from all the photos of starving children in Africa and other developing areas and how they were used by NGOs and sometimes governments to raise money while not really engaging people in any understanding of the real problems. They are also exploitative in and of themselves.

An NGO may do good work but that doesn't make it OK to use these types of images and that's why many groups have statements and policies against using these types of photos in their organization's literature, particularly fundraising literature.
Here's a good article from 2013 by a development expert on the topic:


https://lindaraftree.com/2013/06/26/when...s-dignity/

[rjmacs]

Lemon Drop wrote:
even us right now - we're just gawking. We're not doing one damn thing to help immigrants.

Speak for yourself.

There’s a world of difference between saying that the image has been misused by some outlets and saying that it never should have been published at all. Seems like your argument is: if the image might be misused, it should never be used, which is a kind of restriction we should reserve for the most dangerous things.

[Sarcany]

Lemon Drop wrote:
In 2018, over 260 people died trying to cross our southern border. Most deaths are from heat, about 50 were from drowning. The number of deaths was actually higher in 2016, before Trump took office. Don't know numbers for 2019 yet but this goes on every year. You don't need an exploitative photograph to tell that story...

No, but more information would be helpful.

These people sought to enter LEGALLY, requesting asylum at a checkpoint.

They were turned away, not because they didn't qualify for asylum and not because the system is overwhelmed, but because the policy of the present administration is to make every effort to turn away asylum seekers who do not come with substantial wealth or an American attorney.

ICE killed those people as certainly as if they were shot by the border patrol. And the orders came from the highest levels of this administration.

If their deaths shine a light on this institutional murder then maybe it adds a little more existential meaning than otherwise.

[Lemon Drop]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
even us right now - we're just gawking. We're not doing one damn thing to help immigrants.

Speak for yourself.

There’s a world of difference between saying that the image has been misused by some outlets and saying that it never should have been published at all. Seems like your argument is: if the image might be misused, it should never be used, which is a kind of restriction we should reserve for the most dangerous things.
I'm saying I believe the photo should not be published for public consumption. I'm saying that in my opinion there is NO valid use of this photo for public consumption in the United States.
I get that the photo is not dangerous to you. It's not dangerous to anyone in our country. That's the point. There is no regard for the dignity or privacy of the subjects themselves.

[rjmacs]

I assume you disagree with the publication of this as well:

[Ombligo]

On the gut level - that man and his daughter are dead, nothing can change that. But if their image begins a serious conversation or other change, then perhaps there can be a meaning to it and they are not just another number.

As for propaganda - I am tired of hearing that word tossed out whenever someone doesn't like a photo. A propaganda photo is done with the intention of putting forth a message. There is a huge divide between propaganda and news. Both may convey emotion, but only the propaganda image is used with a particular political aim in mind.

Finally profit - since when is it wrong to make a legitimate profit? Without profit, there is no way for any news organization to survive. However news and revenue should and must remain separate, and it does at most news organizations.

-30-

[Ombligo]

One last thing and then I'm done -

Here are a collection of images that should disturb you at some level. They are not exploitive (with two exceptions in my opinion - Michael Jackson, and the subway death), but rather give the viewer an insight that they otherwise would have never had. Some had a profound effect on the public in ways that were not immediately apparent.

http://www.marieclaire.co.za/uncategoriz...ever-taken

I used to teach a class lesson based on one of these images shown, The Falling Man. many thought it would become the definitive 9/11 image, but it quickly disappeared into archives. I still believe it to be one of the strongest images taken that day. There is a documentary film about that image that I considered to be a must watch for Journalism students.

The Poynter Institute, a school for professional journalists, has a good column about the ethics and decision making that goes into running such an image.

https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/201...ad-bodies/