One night two years ago, two giant New York Times’ front pages were plastered to a brick wall in New York City’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. Both covered the 2014 fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The first was the original run by The New York Times, giving “both sides” of the story: a young black teenager’s and that of the white police officer who shot him. The second was a version edited by artist Alexandra Bell. Instead of presenting “two sides,” it simply memorialized a young life lost.
Bell’s work to “correct” newspapers to call out racial bias is part of a growing recognition that who is behind the story matters — especially when that person has more power than the subject in the story. The ratios within the photojournalism community are particularly skewed and ripe for bias: in the United States, journalists of color comprise only 16.5 percent of the industry, and only 15 percent of photojournalists surveyed are women.
This conversation resurfaced recently amongst photographers when Italian photojournalist Alessio Mamo posted images of poor Indian children posing in front of fake food for a series titled “Dreaming Food” on World Press Photo’s Instagram account, and again when photojournalism grappled with its own #MeToo investigation.
Last week, BRIGHT Magazine tackled some of the issues in a Twitter chat with The Everyday Projects, a nonprofit that uses photography to challenge stereotypes. In the excerpt below, photojournalists and contributors to Re-Picture, an Everyday Projects’ publication, chat with BRIGHT about race, representation, and a rapidly changing industry.
BRIGHT Magazine: A few weeks ago, Alessio Mamo’s staged photographs that were supposed to illustrate hunger sparked outrage in the photojournalism community. What, if any, constructive lessons can we take from it?
Elie Gardner: I believe circumstances like this force us to pause and think about why we do what we do. We need to continually examine our motivations. We need to consider both how the individuals in our photographs and the general public will be impacted by the photos we take. We need to make sure we are offering viewers context to a singular moment seen in a photograph. There are many ways to tell a story, and whether a photograph is good or not is extremely subjective.
There are many ways that Mamo could have woken up the West to food waste without using young, malnourished Indian children as models. Did he think about how the experience would impact them? Not all conceptual ideas we have are good, and there will be images that divide the industry.
Neeta Satam: Sometimes photographers photograph symptoms rather than the causes of an issue. It could be for several reasons: lack of time and resources, lack of research, or maybe pure laziness. Why single out Mamo? It’s an issue that goes beyond Mamo’s problematic portrait series. What photographers need to take away from the issue is that it’s not only important to give dignity to the people they are photographing, but to research your story before setting out to photograph.
Shaminder Dulai: I’ve had a hard time trying to parse out my feelings about this entire incident. Partly because I have worked with and come to respect Alessio, it deeply troubled me to see such a tone-deaf portrait project, and it broke my heart and deeply disappointed me to see Alessio’s name as the byline. The series was done in poor taste, exposing deeply ingrained issues with Western coverage of minority communities, and, from the onset, should never have been undertaken as a body of work.
One of journalism’s lofty goals is to understand something about the world around us, to aid in making informed choices for the public good. By that barometer, the goal of teaching the public about food scarcity in India is lost completely: the people are turned into objects, the message is completely lost, and the very premise of the food, table, and composition screams “other.”
World Press Photo, the organization which hosted the photography competitions that Mamo won and which featured his work on their social media, disappointed me greatly with their response, essentially saying they do not maintain any level of editorial standards and choose to blame the photojournalist. For an organization that trumpets itself as an arbiter of photojournalism, I expected better. If WPP wants to maintain its status, then in the words of the First Lady, “be best.”
I am a stickler for good captions. I am annoyed by how often they are an afterthought in the craft of visual storytelling. This attitude of photographs “standing on their own” with no context is nothing but self-aggrandizing masturbation masquerading as a purist pursuit. If you are going to claim your images are journalism, reportage, or documents of history, then for goodness’ sake, don’t forget the second part of the title — you’re a photo-JOURNALIST.
Had this series been introduced with some context and background, as Alessio attempted to provide after the fact, it might have at least given us some proper context — still a bad idea, but at least some idea of intent. And had WPP taken ownership of the editorial on their platform, I would hope someone would have brought up concerns during the edit and prevented it from being published.
Danielle Villasana: What really struck me about this series besides the issues that have already been discussed was the deep level of objectification of the people photographed. The fact that the people in the image covered their faces with their hands was disturbing—as if they weren’t even human beings but props. Sometimes good intentions can go terribly wrong, which is why a lot of thought should go into picture making and photographers should consider factors such as history, race, power balance, and sensationalism before clicking the shutter. Sometimes we miss the mark but we should try to always be guided by these questions.
BRIGHT: Photography is more accessible and democratic than ever. Is this reason to be optimistic or pessimistic?
NS: Photography was the privilege of Western inventors, experimenters, and anthropologists. With the advent of affordable cameras, photography has finally begun to democratize and decolonize. At the same time, Western media and its visual narrative has a hegemony over the global media and visual discourse. We have a long way to go before we see any equity. Yes, there are more people with cameras in the developing world. But has that made a dent on the colonial gaze? Not a whole lot.
EG: Photography is certainly more accessible than ever, but I wonder if it is truly more democratic. We have the potential to see photos from multiple perspectives, the power to document injustices and beauty alike, and the ability to see places we would never venture. But how do we as journalists make sure those multiple perspectives are seen by the masses and not just by people who already have a vested interest in or connection to the subject? Does that even matter anymore?
DV: Definitely optimistic! The fact that more and more people have access to control of their own stories has helped make the industry, as a whole, more diverse. That’s why The Everyday Projects resonate so deeply with me and thousands of others around the world — suddenly, with access to a phone camera and free sharing platforms such as Instagram, people have the freedom to control their own narratives. This, of course, has its own set of issues, but it adds more perspectives to the mix beyond the mainstream — often Eurocentric, male-dominated, white — narratives.
SD: Totally optimistic! It means we have more people interested in the craft and more voices taking part in creating work. Lower threshold means more access means greater liberty to participate.
BRIGHT: A lot of the bias that goes into taking and editing photographs is not visible to most people. What are some things normal people can do to call out media bias or check their own biases?
EG: This is an excellent question and one I ask myself a lot. Knowing our biases is the only way we can begin to check them, so it’s really important to take the time to know and acknowledge our own biases. Some are obvious; others are more hidden and difficult to acknowledge. We shouldn’t be afraid to ask our family, friends, and colleagues to help us identify our biases. It’s easier said than done. But once we know them, when prejudices emerge, we can consciously work to monitor and correct them.
DV: This is a tough one because media makers often can’t even wrap their heads around this one! But the average person should approach news with critical thinking and, as Elie said, don’t always take everything the media says as truth. Readers should have easy access to share their own opinions about what they see and read, which is another reason why social media can be a tool for more democratic communication. Ultimately, I think it boils down to continuously questioning yourself and your ethics and to remember that you might be wrong about something.
NS: In being more aware of ourselves, we have the potential to become more empathetic and egalitarian — both as individuals and as a society. The audience should reach out to photographers or editors if they see problematic work. As we noticed with Mamo’s series, people used social media to voice their opinions. Of course, accepting that one has unconscious bias is the starting point. We all have biases. Assessing your privilege is the first step towards it.
SD: In viewing images, take a moment to tap into what you’re feeling. If you have a knee-jerk, gut reaction to what you’re seeing, ask yourself what is driving this emotion or response.
Perhaps we have some assumptions we are forming our opinions from which is acting as a filter in interpreting an image? Or perhaps the image is challenging something that we are not comfortable with? It’s important to have this dialogue. We all learned to think the way we think, and by learning and questions, we can evolve the way we think. Also, because we’re Americans and we never want to admit any fault or weakness, don’t worry, you can do all this internally in private and no one will ever know you had a bad thought or weren’t always so perfect.
BRIGHT: In today’s media landscape, do you believe that photography opens up people to others in the world or draws them closer to people like themselves?
EG: I believe photography certainly has the power to do both, but I’ve witnessed it more often as a tool for connection. Curiosity is at the root of this. When we see an image of unfamiliar places or people, even if it initially frightens or challenges us, we are exposed to something new. The Everyday Projects has certainly connected photographers and communities from across the globe through our shared goal of documenting everyday life. Teachers like Tracy Crowley have used photography from various Everyday accounts on Instagram to educate their students about foreign cultures. This exposure gives us a point of connection.
DV: Humans will naturally draw themselves towards what is most familiar, which is why we need to diversify the way we produce media. We need to value the everyday as well and not always focus on the sensationalistic aspects of reality.
NS: When I started graduate school in the U.S., one of my American classmates asked a Kenyan graduate student if he lived in a mud hut in Kenya. Recently, someone asked if my parents would give dowry during my wedding and if bride burning was common in India. Questions like these don’t shock me anymore, because if people are exposed to images that show disparity rather than commonality, then it will obviously result in polarization. Photographers need to strive towards showing things that are universal to the human race rather than what is of shock value.
SD: If I had to hypothesize, I would think that it’s easier today to silo off and find your own tribe or echo chamber so you are only exposed to the worldview that confirms your beliefs.
In terms of photojournalism, I have always had this nagging feeling that many of the projects we create and publish are only consumed by our fellow photojournalists. I hope I’m wrong, but based on my own empirical experiences, it often feels like the case.
I love this question however and would be very curious to hear from other editors and photojournalists. Are we doing any good or is it just slipping away?
BRIGHT: Let’s talk about the way that conflict is reported today. Has it changed fundamentally in the past decade? What, if anything, do you think needs to change?
EG: There are photos of conflict today that look identical to ones taken a decade ago. There are conflict clichés. Certain conflicts — like the ousting of ISIS from Mosul in 2017 — have been very accessible, which means the coverage was as varied as those taking pictures. In Mosul, you had seasoned conflict photographers next to hobbyists. Is this what #InclusivePhotography looks like?
I advocate for an even wider range of coverage: coverage that includes stories in the shadows of battle and wake of war. I learn something from seeing images of the front line, but I also crave context to the conflict.
I want to see daily life. What does commerce look like? Are civilians organizing? How do families cope with loss? I applaud photojournalists who stay with stories of conflict and help us understand their broader impact, during the peak of war and in the decades that follow.
DV: If you look at the images that are rewarded and recognized, they still tend to be violent, sensationalistic, often showing people of color in distressing situations. This needs to change. Again, adding more layers to the story — because life is layered — will help that change. We have to stop focusing only on the negative and, again, value everyday moments. This will give us a clearer understanding of all the world’s horrors and beauties.
NS: Stories on conflict have predominantly been told through the lens of white men. I haven’t seen a whole lot of other perspectives. Unless we have diverse perspectives, the narrative on conflict photography will lack nuance.
I hope photo editors assign native and women photographers to document conflicts in their backyards. Right now the narrative on conflict photography is somewhat monochromatic.
SD: Conflict coverage has fundamentally changed in the U.S. The images that make it to the public are generally the most dramatic, but also the most expected: those that fit our idea of what a war is supposed to look like — bombs, smoke, rubble guns, sad faces, dead bodies (but only brown bodies), and places that look “over there.” The nuanced and more everyday images are often trapped on a hard drive, to be pulled out and shown to editors who fall in love with the work and recognize their importance but can’t get them published.
Couple this with the public’s lack of interest (or so we’re told), poor explanation of conflicts for Western readers and viewers, lack of travel budgets for staff, lack of safety protocols for freelancers, and low return on investment. It’s easy to see why there isn’t the same level of coverage as the past.
A way to combat this is for newsrooms to collaborate: couple writers with visual storytellers early, instead of attempting to use the wire or hiring a freelance for a day after another reporter has already spent three weeks in the field reporting and has returned to the office. By pairing them early, reporting can be more in-depth and nuanced, and hopefully, devoid of clichés.
BRIGHT: For photographers especially, ethics are an essential part of the job. Do you think there’s been enough effort to counter unethical photojournalism?
EG: I don’t think we could ever put too much effort into making photojournalism more ethical. We owe it to the public and those whose stories we tell to get it right, to document with dignity, and do our jobs with high ethical standards. If we don’t get our ethics straight, the future of the industry is in trouble because it depends on trust: trust from those we photograph, trust of each other, and trust from the public.
SD: As a community, I think we do a pretty good job of self-policing and speaking up when it’s time to speak up. I think we all know how sacred photojournalism is, and how its integrity must be protected. I can think of multiple times when the community turned up, spoke up and got something terrible out into the open and addressed.
But then there is also the other side, where we know something isn’t kosher, but we don’t speak up. I know right now of a few bad apples, as I’m sure you all do too, but we don’t speak up out of fear. How do we make it safe to speak up? In an industry such as this, how do we do it?
Overall, I am optimistic. The world of photojournalism is small, and word gets around quick. Unethical photographers are squashed out fairly quickly, and the few that make it through don’t stay there for long. It’s too important to let that $#!t slide.
NS: When the photojournalism industry talks about ethics, it seems to be mostly about image alteration and staging. Conversations around representation, colonialism, eurocentric perspectives, and Orientalism are almost rare. The industry needs to focus on that as well when they discuss ethics. When I wrote a piece focusing on these issues for Re-Picture, a few photographers wrote to me saying they hadn’t thought about these issues before.
When the Souvid Datta photoshop controversy broke, the photojournalism community was outraged at his cloning and manipulating images. There was no discussion about the photo he made standing right above an underage girl being raped in a brothel. Prior to the photoshop controversy, our industry was lauding this body of work, although it was in violation of human rights. Black and brown bodies are often photographed in ways photojournalists would not photograph white folks. Grants, awards, and galleries continue to laud and showcase such racist work. The industry rarely takes offense to such work that steals dignity from the powerless.
DV: Yes, we’re starting to see more efforts to diversify the industry & address ethical issues. The more we diversify the media landscape and think critically about photography, the easier it will be to prevent unethical situations from occurring in the first place. The fact that organizations like Women Photograph, Diversify Photo, Native Agency, The Everyday Projects, and The Authority Collective have formed in the past few years is a sign of improvement. That’s not to say that people around the world who have felt misrepresented by mainstream media have not been shouting out for decades…but again, with further democratization of the media, speaking out against the powers that be and power in numbers seems more possible.
