Comments on: Photography and dirty propaganda?

By: Stan B.

Stan B. — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:35:20 +0000

Finally- TIME done right:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/31/time-afghansploitati.html

By: diederik

diederik — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:59:11 +0000

Add to that that a whole set of acid mutilated women portraits came from Pakistan recently, a US ally. No war in Afghanistan is going to prevent these things from happening. To imply that is naive at best. War is maybe the worst strategy to do that, Duck is right.

By: Sean Hayes White

Sean Hayes White — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:37:01 +0000

Some great comments above.

What a terrible shame for such powerful portraits to be embroiled in a strange form of patriotism and justification for war.

A massive paradigm shift is taking place: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan on the grounds of anti-terrorism which has failed, so the justification changes to a ‘liberation’ front. Thank God the U.S. and Britain are here to save the Afghans from themselves…

The Taliban are not the route of the problem. Poverty is the problem. Poverty beyond our imagination, bringing out the worst in the human condition.

By: Rita Banerji

Rita Banerji — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:40:44 +0000

When I lived in the U.S. I knew some Afganistani women whose family had fled the Taliban rule in Afganistan. Most of these women came from relatively wealthy, educated, influential families. That was the reasons that they could escape and settle abroad when Taliban rule was imminent. Looking at the photos that Bieber has taken I can tell that many of these women are from the same sort families — with high contacts and connections. It is the same reason that Karzai got his job too. These are the families that have a far more protected existence and “freedom” if you can call it that — under the American occupation right now — and that’s what I see in Bieber’s portraits. But the Taliban is relentless and ruthless. It wants absolute power (like it did before). And it is the poorer women like Aisha who continue to suffer. But if you go back to what it was like for women before the U.S. invasion (where women could not leave the house without a male escort — that was the rule, even if they had an emergency) — I do believe it will be 10 times worse should the U.S. pull out and the Taliban take over like before. Because for them it will be payback time. And the ones they will first target will be the women (for violating codes of supposed “islamic conduct”). Most of the women — well dressed and sophisticated that we see in Bieber’s gallery — will pull out and find homes in Europe or the U.S. (like before) — but it is women like Aisha who poor, who have no where to flee. Can you imagine what would happen to Aisha — for daring to pose for a picture like this for the American media?

By: Zarina Sojournposse

Zarina Sojournposse — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:14:15 +0000

I was filled with anger and sadness as I went through Jodi Bieber’s photos, until I read Richard Stengel’s words:

“I would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.”

He ruined it. To me, he ruined the great job that Bieber’s had done to present the plight of Afghan women under the Taliban. Why? Because it sounds like a patriotic star-spangled delivery we see on The West Wing. It’s self-righteous and we recoil from that. The images would have made a greater impact without the verbose.

By: Biniam Ghezai

Biniam Ghezai — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:39:03 +0000

If we go back to 1917,JP Morgan hired 12 high ranking news managers to determine the most influencial newspapers in America.This is to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.Those 12 managers were going to control 25 of the greatest papers.
‘An agreement was reached ;The policy of the papers was bought,and an editor was placed at each paper to insure that all published information was in keeping with the new policy”.
People involve are: Rockefeller,Warburg and JP Morgan.
Take care.

By: Stan B.

Stan B. — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:18:08 +0000

To be so horribly abused, and then be so calluosly used, tells us all we need to know about either side.

By: Andy Levin

Andy Levin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:39:43 +0000

Spot on comments, including the reference to Nachtwey’s cover story.

By: Tom White

Tom White — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:13:35 +0000

When you put your into the hands of editors you have to trust that they have the same intentions as you. It is remarkable how often an article or a caption can completely alter the context and reading of a photograph and underscores the importance of a working relationship where respect and trust and paramount. It is a shame that there is not more collaboration in the industry between all the people who put an article together. I always thought that the writer, photographer, editor and designer should all be working together while the truth is that often the pieces are assembled without the input of the producers. A good editor is so important. I think this is the reason why many people are embracing the ideas of self publishing and distribution today, so they can have editorial control. Once your work is out there then it can be appropriated and used to further a multitude of agendas and it is near impossible to stop that, but it is also important that in the initial presentation it is put forward in the correct context. That way, you are not backtracking and having to say “No, what I meant was …”. You will have the context and be able to point to it directly as an anchor. My initial reaction to the caption on the cover was that it turned the photograph into a propaganda tool to support the war, rather than what I think was the original intention, which was to draw attention to the barbaric acts of violence perpetrated against Aisha and other women in Afghanistan. The idea that the war is justified and it’s continuation will prevent this from happen is a matter for debate, and is not a fact, as Time’s cover copy would imply. It turns the personal story of this woman into an archetypal illustration. That they focused on Aisha and not any of the other women photographed in the essay, which shows women in many different situations in Afghan society, many of whom are – for want of a better word – empowered, shows how far from the original intention of the photographic essay the editorial spin goes. It is very obvious that this essay is about women in Afghanistan and not about why the war should be sustained. It is fine – and important – to state your opinion, but it should be clearly stated that this is an editorial opinion and not fact. In this instance, you might as well replace the TIME logo with one for the U.S. Military. With that one phrase on the cover, TIME have shown themselves to be propagandists and not reporters.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:43:32 +0000

Working with a magazine like TIME (and the same applies to those other supposedly ‘liberal’ outlets, Newsweek and the NY Times) you just have to accept that your work will, in all likelihood, be misrepresented. It’s part of the deal – they pay you an insultingly low $500 day rate, and, in return, use your work to advance US foreign policy.

Time has never been a particularly sophisticated source of news, but since the advent of Richard Stengel and international editor Mike Elliott (ironically a Brit), the place has just been a cesspit of ugly Americanism. The real turning point was when they mawkishly anointed ‘The American Soldier’ as Person of the Year in 2003 – from that patriotic moment onwards they lost all claim to rationality and decency. Since then, pretty much every credible journalist they had has either left or been fired by Elliott and Stengel. Ignore it and let it die.