Gaining Trust: Not Just the Photojournalist's Dilemma

Originally submitted by: barcode 2x

There have been examples of poor children being given video cameras and such and taking footage of their own lives to compile into a documentary. This has its pros and cons; the footage might be more authentic or the cameras might get into places that an outsider could not. But on the other hand, the folks on the inside might not know how to depict their own circumstances on film in an objective way. Documentaries have bias, and the filmmakers create an agenda around their subject, quite often. Documentaries are often praised for their evenhandedness, and their fairness in allowing all subjects the opportunity to speak.

I asked Jack Bridges a question, and he had several answers for it: Are you a photojournalist, I asked, or are you a documentarian photographic artist? He allowed that he is most likely both. He admits that he crossed many lines to gain access to the Projects. He befriended drug dealers, he bought groceries for needy people, he babysat, he became a friend and confidant to his subjects. The photographs are striking in their intimacy and immediacy. And he admits that there were some photos that he did not allow himself to take. An ethical dilemma sprung up for him when he asked a woman he knew to pose for a portrait. Her boyfriend had hit her in the face.

The choice of format is significant as well. He shot in striking sepia-toned black and white, which lends an unnatural and otherworldly beauty to the subjects. The format creates a bit of aesthetic distance for the viewer. This is no longer hyper-realism, this is an artistic angle on a subject.
The place where I viewed the pictures, as well, makes a statement. The exhibit was held at Greenhills School, a local prep school where some of the wealthiest people in the area send their children. I asked him, What can the students here gain from viewing the photographs?

The project opens up an entire discussion on the nature, purpose, and role of photojournalism and documentarian photographic art. What is the role of the audience, as well?

Originally submitted by: jadelay

The question about what the audience can learn from looking at photos of an experience and life that is not one's own, such as a person of affluence looking at photos of people who live in poverty, is one I have thought about. But I have thought about it in other contexts. So, for example, I just learned about a travel company offering tours through the slums of countries in the developing world. Is this comparable to the tours through the wealthy sections of Los Angeles to see the homes of movie stars? Looking at photos, to be sure, is alot different than being a tourist of the slums. Are tours of the slums the kind of experience that photojournalists such as Jack Bridges, travelled when he took the shots of the residents of the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago? The difference is that Bridges was not a tourist, but someone who trailed and followed the residents, taking photos of them at their leisure and work, for almost five years. He had their consent and gained their trust. He gained their trust in the ways we often gain trust: by keeping his word to those he was photographing; by showing them that he was dependable; and by lowering his professional persona when he felt it was necessary to help people in need and in immediate harm's way. Mostly, Bridges respected the people he photographed and honored their views about their lives. In doing so, did Bridges become too close to his subjects? I don't think so. I am fascinated in this case, and in all others, with the various ways we look at getting too close to our subjects and the broader issues surrounding the ethics of embeddedness. What does embeddedness mean? Is it a positive term? Or does it reek of compromise and collaboration? Most often today, it is used to describe the formal permission by the U.S. military to include photojournalists and other media correspondents as "members" of military units. The idea of embedding the media into the military has several strategic advantages for both the media and the military. For the media, embedding allows a photojournalist the chance to go wherever the unit goes and thus to learn firsthand what is happening on the ground, so this knowledge can be sent back to the home front. To some extent, this advantage is offset by the easy opportunities soldiers themselves have to take their own photos, given all the communications technologies now available. In fact, I think the main advantage of embedding right now is the physical protection it affords, based on the type of warfare and tactics characterizing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the military's standpoint, the embedded system is very appealing for the obvious reason that they now have possibly rogue and loose cannon journalists under their "command" and potentially more sympathetic to their views. Yet at the same time, it would seem to me that from a military standpoint, the idea of embedding is very dangerous when it applies to soldiers embedded with the people. I would say that one of the reasons why war is so deadly to civilians today is because it is difficult to know and recognize a soldier from a suicide bomber. I always remember this lesson from Vietnam: that the Vietcong (loosely those South Vietnamese fighting for the North Vietnamese, that is the American forces' enemy) used the strategy of "living, sleeping and eating with the people." In other words, the Vietcong knew how to embed when they needed to. But I am way off topic. I wanted to ask about whether embedding was really a way to truly learn the realities and "the truthfulness" about the experience of places and people? And that when these embedded experiences are photographed or written about, whether they lead to any social change, if in fact that is what they are supposed to do in the first place? I think the main fear about tourists and people from the outside trying to get the inside story, is that they, too, will become insiders. And when this happens, the audience of outsiders can no longer trust the person who has embedded himself or herself, whether photojournalist, writer, soldier, whomever. The audience of outsiders is left to wonder who was protected and for what reasons. So we come back to the issue of trust once again. I could go on. But this is quite enough for now. There are more thoughts on embeddedness and ideas to try out. I hope you will feel free to leave comments if it moves you. If anyone is interested, there is an upcoming event taking place at the University of Michigan next week at the East Quadrangle Residential Building, Room 126 (701 E. University) on matters of photojournalism and war. The speaker is Peter Turnley, a photographer, whose topic is "Iraq Uncensored: Images From U.S.-led Wars in 1991 and 2003." According to the publicity for the event Turnley is "an award-winning photographer who has covered the world for various news agencies over the last twenty years...Turnley refused to participate in the pool and embedded system of press coverage of both wars [the first Gulf war in 1991 and the current one in Iraq and Afghanistan], choosing to work independently of the U.S. Military." The talk is Tuesday, April 8 at 7PM.

Originally submitted by: barcode 2x

New technology in digital photography has changed things. Journalism has expanded and has been open-sourced so anyone can document their own lives and the events they witness. Camera phones take it even further. There is an amazing exponential distribution of online images that can begin from anyone's phone or digital camera. There are 3 billion cellphones in the world. Trust and integrity are important principles for media professionals to uphold. But in this age, the media is no longer in control of information. It is in our hands now. So an inflamatory story or image can spread quickly. Youtube, Youporn, etc, offer channels of distribution never before possible. And legislation has passed, allowing the flow of information on the internet to go unregulated. It is the Wild West, mob rule, and ethics and morals disappear. We have great access to what is dark and perverse. The public eats it up. The public now craves things that are human and ordinary, embarrassing and disgusting. Now that the public is in charge of what they watch, and the media is not, look at what people choose! So the person with the camera phone witnessing the accident, they are the ones with the choice. Do they protect the privacy and integrity of the subject? Or do they invade the subject, and objectify them for the perverse and morbid curiosity of New World Open Source Media? All you have to do is load it up onto your blog or myspace page, and the public can do the rest. An embarrassing image of your ex? What great revenge! A picture of a car accident taken by the first guy on the scene with a camera phone? Don't mind if I do! Public executions? Celebrity sex tapes? Why not! I'm on my lunch break!

Originally submitted by: jadelay

I think I understand what you are saying. I have some questions though about the consequences of everyone becoming a photojournalist. 1. If we all have cameras and we are able to get tell our own "story angles," does that change the question about trusting what you see as the truth about an event or an issue? For example, if all the soldiers in Iraq are taking pictures of what they see and do, should we trust these pictures more than the ones photojournalists for news organizations take? Are the soldiers' stories more real, and closer to the truth than the ones the embedded photojournalist shoots tagging along with the unit? 2. Is one of the problems with democratizing photojournalism that serious subjects will be ignored because everyone will be shooting pictures from their cells to get attention and to increase their personal brand awareness? 3. Is the problem with amateurs taking pictures the fact that they don't feel any responsibilities for the consequences of their pictures and how they are used? Thanks for answering these questions.