This image got a lot of publicity, and won a Pulitzer Prize. It put Sudan on the map, as far as the regular public goes. Effecitve? Too drastic? Post thoughts below.
In a totally different vein, Oxfam’s video “The Luckiest Nut in the World” talks about how the Structural Adjustment Programs affected developing countries. It’s pretty much an advocacy video, and very well done. Thoughts? Does this constitute effective media-spread-awareness?
How would you compare the image to the video? Would you take into account different circumstances? Which one is more effective and why?
Filed under: General
To get us started, below is Hans’ opinion on the effectiveness of media:
“I just want to post what I thought about Media and humanitarian efforts. This is closely tied to what Dr. Shafik Dharamsi is working on (Ethical International Service Learning). The whole thing with the media reporting upon what is happening around the world by portraying the worst does cause compassion fatigue, but wouldn’t ‘progress fatigue’ be the result of what happens if we show what is good. I just think the the media has taken this path because it is what appeals to human nature the most. Everybody knows how it is: we remember one bad thing, its hard to remember all the good., people remember mistakes. This is probably because humans view themselves and others as ‘good’ , so good becomes normal, and when something bad happens thats out of the normal so we remember it.
Now back to ethical ISL, by having advertisements that compel people to volunteer overseas, at least I think, won’t do the world any better. This will just contribute to voluntourism which I personally don’t think helps. As Dr. James Orbinski said, politics is important, and it is politics that I think will cause the greatest change, and these political efforts will be based on the awareness and activism of citizens in their own country. Granted, those who go overseas bring back a certain amount of awareness, but weighing the good and bad, having professional journalists overseas reporting is better than having people going overseas to build buildings or teaching english (I have no evidence to back that up though).
So I agree with what Kevin said in class. Raising Awareness. That is what media should do. Not pushing people to go overseas to help. Because if we do, for-profit organizations will sprout up catering to those who want to help (but how much help are they providing). If that is the path we take then ethical ISL is something that should have to be looked into.
Media and politics. I recommend people read about “CNN effect” and “Manufacturing Consent” (manufacturing consent by Noam Chomsky is really good, or just look up the terms online).”
This picture is powerful. Its simple and its real. Words don’t need to be used in supplement , it speaks for itself. That is the power of good photo journalism.
Desperation, isolation, submission. The looming vulture signifying the ticking clock… what can be done within the time that is left for that child? Can you feel yourself wishing you were there, to pick up the child, or beat the bird with a stick? (I’m interested to know what the photographer did). It’s hard to pull your eyes away… you can’t help but stare… and feel overwhelming guilty.
As Hans said, I don’t think anything beats raw, professional journalism when it comes to raising awareness. We need journalists that are know the facts to communicate what is going on in the world around us. But I’m not sure that it’s one size fits all. It’s an interdisciplinary problem that calls for multiple approaches. The job of the journalist is to keep the issue alive, to keep people aware, with the hope that you will reach the people that have the knowledge, skills, and above all, creativity, to come up with NEW ideas and approaches.
People do suffer from “compassion fatigue”, but my response is to keep pushing. Push through the fatigue, and there will be another wave of interest on the horizon. In fact, push harder. Take more pictures, write more stories… tell it like it is… and explore new avenues for doing so. (I like the Nut Video… I’ll write about it later)
I understand the frustration with ‘volunteerism’ and wonder myself at how much good it does. But it is something and it shows that people are listening. Perhaps we haven’t perfected the role of the international volunteer. But everything in life operates like this… it’s a matter of trial and error. When volunteerism goes to far, when it becomes a self-righteous holiday at the expense of the people we are trying to help, we need reporters to say that and tell the world what went wrong. Feedback… it’s all about feedback systems. Trial, error, trial, success.
People will probably undergo ‘volunteer fatigue’ at some point anyway. When it seems that everyone has done everything, and the novelty has worn off, I’m sure there will be a slide… and the next new thing will be on the agenda. In the meantime, let’s just keep an eye on volunteers and tell the world about the good, the bad, and the ugly… sparing no expense.
To build awareness in today’s public arena that is being pummeled with information, media input, and meaningless stimuli at every angle, photo-journalism and journalism for that matter need to sensationalise issues, stir emotions, inspire thoughts, and take risks. This picture does just that.
What one must really take to heart in this field is the ethical issues at hand. I wonder if this photographer gained insight into who this child was, what his/her family history was, what his/her fate was? Or was this photographer viewing this context from an external lens, detached, exploiting the environment around? Is that justified if it in fact raises awareness and gets a message accross to a public audience who would otherwise rather care to watch the new episode of Grey’s Anatomy then know what is occuring in the world around them?
These are the questions you must take forward with you as you get deeper into your field..
Just to comment on “the luckiest nut in the world.” I like that it tries to address the economic and politicals problems, which are critical to significant change as Orbinski and Hans point out.
The video basically suggests America protects its peanut industry through tariffs while preaching free trade via IMF structural adjustments. This means African countries like Senegal are producing export crops (peanuts) that are worth very little, in order to get loans and aid from the west. It makes sense for each country to produce what they’re best at, but this clearly isn’t working for Senegal.
Countries with successful liberal economies are trying to help less developed countries – while at the same time competing with them! I don’t know what the solution is, but I think it starts with playing by one set of rules.
In my opinion, the only set of rules that works that really works is free trade. Free trade hurts some people in the short term, but we can’t help but compete with each other regardless, so might as well focus on competing better. As long as we’re following the same set of rules in good faith, the poorest countries have a a better chance. What are other people’s thoughts on this?
I also think this type of video gets directly to one of the root causes of poverty in a way that most people can absorb and enjoy. It puts a complex problem into simple terms, while entertaining the viewer. I think that this is just as effective as the Pulitzer winning vulture photo. What do other people think?