Comments on: Smile for the camera please

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:12:11 +0000

Sorry, erm, did this actually happen to that american boy? Or was that story just made up?

By: La ética, los premios y la circuncisión femenina « Entre granos y pixeles

La ética, los premios y la circuncisión femenina « Entre granos y pixeles — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:57:00 +0000

[...] un fragmento de otro artículo que protestó contra esta situación que salió publicado en Duckrabbit en la que plantea un caso [...]

By: Sierra

Sierra — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 07:18:26 +0000

You should read the entire article. Even underage children are photographed and their names and photos published when they have something important to say here in the States, and she did have something important to say. Even at 7 yrs old she knows she is now different and didn’t want the procedure. And all the mother can say is that they don’t know why they do it, they just do it? Are you kidding me? You want to talk about human rights, how about that little girl’s right not to be brutalized and assaulted by her own mother?

As copied directly from the story:

Back home, Sheelan lay on the floor, unable to move or talk much. She clutched a bag filled with orange soda and candy and barely said anything except that she was in pain.

But she became more animated when asked whether it was worth it to have the operation so her friends and neighbors would be comfortable eating food she prepared. “I would do anything not to have this pain, even if meant they would not eat from my hands,” she rasped slowly.

“I just wish that I could be the way I was before the procedure,” she said.

Now I want you to read that again:
“I would do anything not to have this pain, even if meant they would not eat from my hands,” she rasped slowly.

“I just wish that I could be the way I was before the procedure,” she said.

A seven yr old who kept crossing her legs and DID NOT want them to even touch her was cut and bled. She knew that what they were doing was wrong. They lied to her about going to a party to even get her in the room. It’s heartbreaking to see the look of trust on her face right before they pounced on her.(Hey little girl would you like some candy?) Well, she got the candy alright and lost her innocence and trust along the way. Right?

I’m fairly certain she probably wishes someone had protected and saved her. And isn’t all that concerned with her name and photo being published. In fact, i am going to have to say that she probably hopes that anything that would get those stupid crazy women to stop assaulting the other little girls would be OK. In fact she said it in her own words.

By: Charukesi

Charukesi — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 03:35:03 +0000

Hi! Thanks for the comment on the countercurrents piece… I first read it on The Travel Photographer’s blog – and this is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed… (the urls of the blogs I have quoted / sourced info from are missing from the published piece – I have also written to the editors at countercurrents. org to rectify this)

By: duckrabbit

duckrabbit — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:33:25 +0000

Sorry Jerome … you think rape is worse then having your vagina cut, your clitoris cut off, and then being sewn so that you might never feel pleasure in sex and so your husband has to cut you open on your wedding night?

According to you ‘child rape’ grossly crosses the boundary but FGM doesn’t? Hello are you for real? It seems the article has clearly failed in developing your ‘understanding’ of FGM, the very thing that you claimed made it ‘necessary’.

Clearly you are advocating for photojournalists to commit human rights abuses. That’s shocking. It’s also completely unnecessary. If as journalist you can’t find ways of effectively covering stories without abusing human rights then you work in a different profession to me.

And if you think these images will result in change you are in cuckooland. How? Can you name me a single image in history published in the West that has affected cultural practices in developing countries villages? Think about all those nasty images of people dieing of aids in Africa, shocking hey. But your government has pursued a policy of taking away funding from programmes that supply condoms and make it a matter of contract that prostitutes must be treated as second class citizens or funding will be withdrawn.

Once again I respect you work. I find your pictures very moving; some of the stuff that you capture is both much ignored and important. I would encourage people to go and look at your website to get a better sense of you as a person.

The world needs photojournalists like yourself Jerome who care about stuff. I beg you though, please please don’t do it at a child’s expense. Having parts of your vagina cut off for some girls will be far more traumatic than rape. Fact.

By: Jerome

Jerome — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:30:50 +0000

I should have started off the post by separating the issues between the child rape discussion and the FGM issue.
I believe the child rape image grossly crosses that ethical boundary just as Trent brought up in his first post.
Now back to the issue at hand with the FGM issue, I’ve seen how a photo can change public perception and induce change. XDR-TB wasn’t on the radar for the general public. But James Natchwey shot some photos of the work that was currently being done and the funding started to go toward helping deal with the pandemic. That’s just one example.
On a much smaller level, as you can see from my website, I’ve covered a lot of “chicken dinner” photo stories in my community. Many times we have done stories on with portraits of those affected by the organizations. It’s not until we focus on a person to put a face to the issue that the organizations received the most response. My paper is a huge supporter of the Wishing Star Foundation (a local group similar to the Make A Wish Foundation). We did stories every few months about funding needs, small features about wishes given after-the-fact, etc. But once I traveled with Alex and his family and documented their wish and showed the emotion they went through and that story got ran with solid photo play, the organization received a huge influx in funding and donations.
Totally different situations, but this the kind of positive response I would hope for no matter what the story was.
And what about those late-night infomercials about starving children in “third-world” countries, Donna Ferrato’s work on domestic violence or child laborers, refugees, the southeast asian sex trade, or even Melissa Lyttle’s story on a feral child? Do those stories need to be scrapped because they infringe upon article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I strongly believe that depending on what country, or continent, you are a journalist in, you will have a different gauge on the ethical meter as we are seeing here in this debate.
I had an intern from Sweden who said some papers in her country have no problem staging situations for photos and passing them off as news. Or how about the infamous “Green Helmet” guy during the Lebanon/Israeli conflict? Many U.S. photojournalist that I know who were either there or editing work from the wires were upset that these made it onto the wire. While some shooters and editors overseas were debating the issue saying it was okay to document the “orchestration” of a news event.
I see the value in capturing the moment in the story that will impact the readers/viewers most as Andrea did. But once again, this I can guarantee wasn’t taken lightly by the editorial board. Does the publication of these images make it right? Not for everybody and only time will tell how the images affect this little girl and the issue. If we are lucky, Andrea’s images will invoke some sort of change for the better for small children who have undergone the procedure or who will face the same fate later in years. At least if I was in the same situation, this is what I would hope for.
I’m sorry if this got a little convoluted. This is a damn touchy debate for sure, but a good one to have.

By: duckrabbit

duckrabbit — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:49:21 +0000

I’m sorry Jerome, I’m finding it really hard to understand how you think that it’s justifiable to abuse a child’s rights in order to put a ‘face to the issue’ so you can understand? How fucked up is that?

Do you need to see pictures of a child actually being buggered to understand rape, is that really what you are suggesting, because that’s the logic of your argument? And if you do, as you seem to be suggesting, what does that say about you as a person that you would need to see that stuff to understand it? And beyond that even if you do have that need and desire, is there any justification for a photojournalist or magazine fulfilling your desire? And even beyond that what difference does it make to the practise of FGM if you understand or not? None.

What if it was your mother being raped Jerome and I decided to take some pictures so people could understand what it’s really like? I mean as you say yourself the pictures of your mothers rape ‘wouldn’t change the outcome of her situation.’ So why not. Nevermind some people would get off off on the pictures, would enjoy them. What would you think of me if I did that? If you came up against your own argument in that way?

Many, many women have spoken out in front of the camera on this issue. You can see there faces. Why don’t you ask them to show you their private parts, so you can take a picture, I mean how else are you going to understand? Or maybe you wouldn’t think it right to ask a woman to show her vagina just because she is speaking out about FGM? But on the other hand when she was seven years old it would be alright to pretend with her that she’s going to a party and then take pictures whilst she has her clitoris cut off. That would be fine because some bloke in America gets to ‘understand’ what’s really happening.

What this comes down to is your right to see or take these images, because the truth is they do nothing to eradicate FGM. That will only come from education of the communities in which the act takes place.

What I find incredible is that in an institution like the BBC, where we consistently covered subjects like this, there would be absolutely no need for a debate on this subject. I don’t think I worked with a single journalist who would have wanted to use, let alone defend that picture. It’s just such a no brainer. If we adopted the attitude you are suggesting we would have lost trust very quickly and the damage to our reputation would be profound. That is why such strong editorial values exist in the BBC.

I had no idea that people in other journalistic communities had such a different grasp of ethics or so little appreciation of human rights.

Dumbstruck. Genuinely.

By the way I had a look at your work on Alzheimer pictures and found them very moving, congratulations for covering such an important story.

By: Jerome

Jerome — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:04 +0000

This is an issue that every photographer has to deal with when documenting these difficult stories. And I’m sure, as Trent posted, there were many discussions on how to go about the presentation of this article. At the root of this debate is whether or not it was ethical to use these images of the girl. In my opinion, I believe it is necessary because it puts a face to the issue. It shows those readers who aren’t educated in what FGM is, what it entails and how it affects the child as well as shows what the families are willing to put their children through in order to stay true to their cultural and religious beliefs. If her face wasn’t included, would it have changed the outcome of her situation? Wouldn’t her entire town know that most, if not all girls (depending of the size of their community) go through this procedure?
What do we think about those late-night infomercials about starving children in “third-world” countries? I’m sure no parents want to have their children used as the face of poverty, but I don’t see any debates about the usage of those images.
Or how about Donna Ferrato’s work on domestic violence? Her photos were of course adults, but her work was still of a highly personal nature that was and still is used on the lecture circuit and still published in books.
The list can go on with child laborers, refugees, the southeast asian sex trade, or even Melissa Lyttle’s story on a feral child. When do we say that we are not allowed to photograph any children for news purposes because it might interfere with their privacy?
Some see this as exploitation while others will see this as education. I don’t think either is completely wrong, but both are right. For me, I lean more toward education.
It’s a thin line to walk and poses an interesting debate.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:17:00 +0000

Thanks, Benjamin.

Even if you’re right and the broader journalistic community is supportive of how this piece was handled, I imagine they may be quite willing to explain why. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a tough call for all involved, with considerable internal discussion. Who knows, some folks may welcome the opportunity to share how the decision was made, the arguments pro and con, and may even be heartened to know that some of the readership is interested in the decisions they are required to make.

By: duckrabbit

duckrabbit — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:25:58 +0000

Kevin,

really appreciate you taking the time to write.

I will look into your suggestions, but you know I am based in the UK not the USA and I don’t think any Editor in the USA will be interested in my thoughts! Also consider that these photos were voted for by leaders in the journalistic community and I think you can see which way the land lies.

Congratulations on your own award which was richly deserved … people you can see it here:

http://www.kevinwellenius.com/moments_mm/