Politics and Photography

[Neare]

While I believe the two coexist naturally with each other, do you think it is appropriate when photographers use their photos and give a background story to that photo which is 'false'?

Mainly found in photojournalism, so many of these photographers go out to take photos to fit a certain political stance regardless of what the actual situation is. They sometimes 'craft' photos to make a certain point, even if the scene in front of them is entirely unrelated (or even if that point itself is untrue).

What has always made me upset is when a photographer claims to photograph both sides of a conflict, yet still manages to demonize one side and hails the other. And in this situation will disregard any photos or information that will contradict their stance on the matter.

Photojournalist's do have agendas and political motivations, but is is appropriate that a photographer falsifies the background story to a photo, or ignores contradictory photos to make their point? Or do photographers simply choose to ignore any other truths apart from their own, blind to the other side of the story as they enter into a conflict?

Your thoughts?

 

[DanOnRoute66]

While I believe the two coexist naturally with each other, do you think it is appropriate when photographers use their photos and give a background story to that photo which is 'false'?

Mainly found in photojournalism, so many of these photographers go out to take photos to fit a certain political stance regardless of what the actual situation is. They sometimes 'craft' photos to make a certain point, even if the scene in front of them is entirely unrelated (or even if that point itself is untrue).

What has always made me upset is when a photographer claims to photograph both sides of a conflict, yet still manages to demonize one side and hails the other. And in this situation will disregard any photos or information that will contradict their stance on the matter.

Photojournalist's do have agendas and political motivations, but is is appropriate that a photographer falsifies the background story to a photo, or ignores contradictory photos to make their point? Or do photographers simply choose to ignore any other truths apart from their own, blind to the other side of the story as they enter into a conflict?

Your thoughts?

Sounds as if you have your mind made up. What could I possibly say that would change your mind? And, by your comments, if you were in their place would you do your job any differently?

 

[Sparrow]

Objectivity was first introduced into photojournalism during the wars in Indochina, at the time it was just a fig-leaf to cover various misdemeanours that were going on.

Had you asked Capa, Eisenstaedt, or even Larry Burrows they would probably laugh in your face ...

 

[blw]

Well you're question kinda covers a lot of philosophical ground really. I tend to find it hard to believe any human can observe any type of 'conflict' or 'contest' without finding a way to pick a side- on some level or other.

But the point about falsifying a background story can be pretty subjective. While I personally believe the American public was lied to in getting us involved in Iraq, I also think that the powers-that-were also really believed in their cause and wouldn't have defined their actions as "lying". So, then it comes down to one's personal opinion of what a lie is; and this can be the crux of the problem in your post. Personal perspective determines the meaning of a lot of subjective terms like truth, respect, etc.- if not all of them.

Perhaps more simply put...one person's sacred cow looks like steak to someone else.

I apologize in advance for such a non-answer though.

 

[Sparrow]

... my bet is, Capa's Fallen Soldier will get a mention before Hitler does

 

[Neare]

Sounds as if you have your mind made up. What could I possibly say that would change your mind? And, by your comments, if you were in their place would you do your job any differently?

Perhaps I do, but that is also because I have not discussed this with anyone else before therefore getting to know what others think. This question is not about my beliefs, I am interested in yours.

But the point about falsifying a background story can be pretty subjective. ... So, then it comes down to one's personal opinion of what a lie is; and this can be the crux of the problem in your post. Personal perspective determines the meaning of a lot of subjective terms like truth, respect, etc.- if not all of them.

Yes, but if we look at this situation more so hypothetically rather than if it had actually happened and it was subjective, what would your answer be?

So lets say that the photographer themselves had admitted to falsifying a story, what would you think?

 

[Neare]

... my bet is, Capa's Fallen Soldier will get a mention before Hitler does

Even Eisenstaedt's kissing Sailor

 

[zauhar]

The question presumes (as is popular in the today's media) that there are two valid sides to every conflict.

I disagree. There is evil in the world, and evil always wants the opportunity to tell "it's side of the story". The Nazis felt justified in exterminating "undesirables". Franco felt justified in cooperating with the massacre at Guernica. The Japanese felt justified to rape and pillage at Nanjing.

We Americans feel justified to imprison without trial, to torture, and to kill innocent civilians, all so we can be "safe".

Evil always feels it has a compelling and true story to tell, and wants you to cooperate in telling it. It is your responsibility to say no.

Randy

 

[Sparrow]

Even Eisenstaedt's kissing Sailor

... not sure what political message that one conveys

Oddly I was looking at both the Fallen Soldier and that one of Larry Burrows' where the four Marines are rescuing a wounded comrade, and Capa certainly had the steadier hand under fire, even allowing for the smaller print size ... assuming they were both under fire

 

[Damaso]

As a photojournalist it is not falsifying, it's lying and is unethical. There have been plenty of examples of photographers in the U.S. lying about a photo or manipulating it and being caught and fired, as they should be. Viewers trust that while we may have agendas and perspectives that we aren't outright lying to them.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Well, part of the problem here is that what one man considers "truth,"' another man considers "propaganda," and vice versa. It's often a matter of your own point of view, whether you think a photographer is being objective, or pitching a certain political agenda.

This was the charge laid against Larry Burrows, et al, when certain groups in America claim it was "the media" which lost the war in Vietnam. But having looked at Larry Burrows' work, I can't say he was advancing any political viewpoint. He was objectively recording what was happening in front of him--a war. Unfortunately , wars are terrible things, as his photographs showed, and it's too bad certain people were uncomfortable with that and chose to blame the messenger.

 

[Dr Gaspar]

It's not appropriate, but at the same time that's how politicis work around here.

Down here in Latin America we have fake photographs, fake journalists, fake politicians. Both sides lie. People for or against the government.

 

[tlitody]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima

 

[Pablito]

fake journalists

and dead journalists.

 

[claacct]

While I believe the two coexist naturally with each other, do you think it is appropriate when photographers use their photos and give a background story to that photo which is 'false'?

Mainly found in photojournalism, so many of these photographers go out to take photos to fit a certain political stance regardless of what the actual situation is. They sometimes 'craft' photos to make a certain point, even if the scene in front of them is entirely unrelated (or even if that point itself is untrue).

What has always made me upset is when a photographer claims to photograph both sides of a conflict, yet still manages to demonize one side and hails the other. And in this situation will disregard any photos or information that will contradict their stance on the matter.

Photojournalist's do have agendas and political motivations, but is is appropriate that a photographer falsifies the background story to a photo, or ignores contradictory photos to make their point? Or do photographers simply choose to ignore any other truths apart from their own, blind to the other side of the story as they enter into a conflict?

Your thoughts?

When a fact is falsified and presented it as true that is categorically wrong, whether its through a photo or video or writing etc... Your question is rhetorical.

 

[emraphoto]

working as a photojournalist, with all the responsibilities and such that go with the title, and staging or 'faking' photographs would be all sorts of wrong. presenting personal agendas would be difficult in todays press world. it does happen but like airliner crashes and lightning it is very rare.

with that said, witnessing extreme violence or conflict can be a life changing experience. to be up close and witness the heavy toll most modern conflicts inflict on non-combatants is very difficult to reconcile and overcome. speaking from experience, this event can change ones professional life almost instantly and set it on a course one cannot control.

it is naive to expect every photojournalist to maintain an unbiased approach to what unfolds before them. most will rise to the occasion but a few will always be swayed into taking sides. it math really.

where the rub lies is how you present yourself as you move forward. if you know you are no longer able to to remain unbiased then it would be wrong to label one self a photojournalist.

i could not remain unbiased. i rarely, if ever, present myself as a photojournalist these days. i rarely pitch and almost never accept press assignments. it has been a very, very hard transition but in the end i know i am a far better photographer. i am VERY comfortable with presenting my interpretation of what i see before me as it is all i can do at this point in my career.

be alert and vigilant when viewing images and reading stories in todays press. one should be more concerned about 'journalists' crafting stories about places they have never been and know little about. with modern press budgets this is becoming far more common than you would believe.

 

[JoeV]

I'd like for the OP to give us a few specific examples to support his thesis, especially regarding PJ's who have deliberately provided falsified work or demonized parties in opposition to some preferred favorites.

Specific examples, including hyperlinks, will be required, and points will be deducted for spelling and grammar.

~Joe

 

[claacct]

There is also an overestimation of still photographs in this thread as if they amount to anything in public opinion other than an iconic image. For example the Tank guy in china who was idealized in the west for propaganda reasons and portrayed as a romantic notion of the individual standing up for democracy. In fact no one knows what that guy wanted, he could have been just some crazy street person acting weird, as its common in street protests.

In the end of the day its not the photographers, its the press who decides which photographs should be touted for propaganda and which one's ignored... Just like the protests in Egypt were all over the place but in Bahrain no one give a damn, In Libya NATO got involved where Syria is ignored... The corruption and cynicism in the very system is so deeply rooted that the best of intentions would be used for the complete opposite end. A few corrupt photographers are as harmless and inconsequential in the big scheme of things as most photos that show so called human suffering and injustice.

 

[emraphoto]

Syria is far from ignored. hell, even fox news has coverage.

one must take into account how difficult it is to to enter/operate in said country. Syria is a VERY dangerous place for foreign journalists. Bahrain equally so with two political bloggers recently receiving LIFE sentences for their comments.

you are right though claact, the photographer has little control over what gets run these days. specifically in wire situations where you may not even know where your stuff appears.

 

[semilog]

To the original poster: could you live through any of these situations and remain completely apolitical*, or even impartial?

*whatever that even means.