War Photos

"To take pictures of the war is to be against the war"

I got really upset when I heard this statement in class because it implies that every aspect of the war is bad and the military is only there to kill people and cause destruction. If a photographer focuses only on the actual combat situations, obviously people seeing the photos will be saddened at the loss of life. But its all about the staging of the photos and telling a story. What if the photo was of a wounded American soldier being further injured by a terrorist? Than no one would be against the war. How about some of the iconic images of soldiers persevering through battle to raise the American flag? I don't think anyone looks at that photo and says how horrible it was. They look at that and feel pride for their country and the brave men who were there fighting for their country. No one likes fighting and death, but that does not mean we should ignore the effort of these American heroes who are sacrificing everything to preserve our country and keep us safe. Pictures should inspire people and commemorate our heroes, not condemn what they have been called to do. Yes, there are horrors in war ethat could be easily photographed, but does that mean everything about the war is terrible and convinces every person who looks at them to be against it?
 Combat is just one aspect of the war. My father spent a little over a year in Afghanistan doing wonderful things such as teaching a law class at the University of Kabul that boasted 10 women graduates, the first women to ever attend the university. He worked in the embassy helping to write the Afghan National Constitution and was present went it was voted on and accepted as the country's governing document. He supervised one of the first elections ever held by the people of Afghanistan and saw that it ran smoothly and had no violence in this transference of power. He spoke with real diplomats and ate with their families, learning about their way of life and teaching them about the American way. He helped women gain some more rights like attending college and law school and being seen as something other than a burden to their fathers and brothers. He brought one of his female students to the US to attend school and eat dinner with our family. After, she then went back to Afghanistan to work in the government and help other women be successful. Why are there never pictures taken of real stories like this one? If we had some photos of all the good things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe everyone would change their mind about it and not say things like the above statement.

Countering Subjectivity

Question:  What can subjective journalist do to counter subjectivity?

I think subjective journalists should use a disclaimer to warn their audience that their work may present information that is biased toward their beliefs.  This disclaimer can come in the form of them explaining their beliefs and why they have certain beliefs.  For example, in the TED Talk we watched in class, the photographer made is very clear in the beginning of this speech that he grew up in the 60’s during a very hostile time in the world.  It is because of his experiences growing up that he feels compelled to share stories of people around the world that are suffereing through his photographs, in order to bring light to situations that rarely are acknowledged.  By sharing this information with the audience, viewers of the TED Talk were able to take that information and either disregard it or view his photos from a different lens than we would if we didn’t know about his beliefs. 

            Another way journalists can counter subjectivity is by reporting both sides of a story.  By doing so a reporter could gather interviews and information from both parties that are involved in a news story.  However, this tactic would be much harder to follow because most journalists are reporting to make a living, which means their interest in the story is to please their audience.  For this reason, they would most likely only favor the side of the party that is most popular with their audience.  It appears that journalism will always have some form of bias and subjectivity that is inevitable.

Media Persuasion- Photography

This blog post is in response to the question asked in class, "should a photographer be subjective or objective?" Well, I do believe that a photographer should strive to be as objective as he or she can possibly be, but only because it is close to impossible not to be biased while taking photos that you are passionate about. Objectivity is important because it allows for the least amount of bias so that the audience can create their opinion on the photo without being swayed by its angle, lighting, or any other photography effects that allow the photographer's perspective to show through. So in this way, yes, a photographer should strive for objectivity. However, and most often, this does not happen. For example, when two people are arguing, it is nearly impossible to get your point across without a certain tone of voice and a biased opinion because you are trying to prove something. Unless one has not become close with a certain subject and is merely being factual, it is rare to not have your own perspective show through when you are talking. If it is easy for this to happen with words, imagine how easy it is to do this through pictures. When a photographer snaps a picture, they are usually doing so because they want to show the audience something. With that, and almost subconsciously, the photographer is providing his or her opinion through the picture they take. When you are watching the news in the morning and you see photos that journalists have taken of soldiers in Afghanistan, they aren't taking these photos just to take them. These journalists are taking these photos with motive; they want to show you the conditions of our troops and they want to evoke some emotional feeling from you. Through pathos, these photojournalists are providing their perspective that they hope will make you feel a certain way. This is why propaganda is, and has been, such a powerful force of persuasion. During wars, photographers aren't going to show our enemy struggling and in pain, unless they believe it is unjust and the war should be stopped. These photojournalists want to evoke a sense of pride and compassion from their audience for our soldiers. They want these photos of soldiers fighting for their homeland to make people feel pride and compassion. A great example of this media persuasion is during the Nazi propaganda and censorship, created in large part by Joseph Goebbels. The Nazi party censored and eliminated negative viewpoints from the media that could cause any potential threat to their power.  They made lists of books that should not be read by Germans and they ended up burning about 25,000 of them. They eliminated any pictures from the media that could potentially make them look bad. All in all, media persuasion is maybe one of the strongest forms of persuasion, especially in today's technologically fast-paced society, because of how fast it spreads and how "truthful" photos seem. The saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words" is extremely true. People take the word of a photo over just hearing someone say something. Whether or not that photo has been manipulated, well, no one would really know. So yes, photographers should strive to be objective for the sake of morale and genuinity and to allow for the smallest amount of bias. However, and as proven, this is almost never the case.

Inside the War

The video we watched really opened my eyes to the struggles going on around the world. So often photojournalists only show the fluffy version to the public so that we don’t really know the depth of the hardships going on around the world. When faced with the question, “Should journalists be objective?” I was fully aware of my answer upon hearing a quote by Nachtwey. “I chose to cover the war from the inside,” was my answer. By him saying this statement, it showed me that he fully believed that getting an insider view and perspective helped show the public what was really going on. He put the danger he was putting himself in beside and decided to only focus on relaying the truth to the public. This helped show the pain, suffering, and hurt going on all over the world. This really opened the eyes of everyone seeing these dramatic issues. Nachtwey could’ve taken the easy route and snapped some pictures at opportune times; however, he decided to dive into his work and put himself on the frontline. By him putting it so bluntly, “I chose to cover the war from the inside,” it showed viewers how passionate and firm he was in his decision to put his work before all else.  His monotonous tone throughout the video helped to show the crowd that his work wasn’t always cheerful and upbeat. He did a wonderful job of conveying the pain through his voice. By going directly to the inside of the battlegrounds, viewers were able to see the pain more easily and relate to the struggles.

Documentary photography

Comm 369

Elisabeth Peters

            By choosing to cover the war from inside Afghanistan and waiting for the American invasion, he was able to really capture a different perspective of the war. A majority of American journalists take the perspective from the American side, which is fine but it doesn’t give us a good view of what the rest of the world sees. It keeps us citizens in an American bubble, which is not representative of the entire world. It seems as though this journalist realized the limitations this could place on Americans and therefore chose to rectify this situation by catching the war from a different angle, from the angle of the ones being attacked. In every story there are two sides and I believe that both sides deserve to be represented. His work accomplished this and showed us how the American soldiers were being viewed by the Afghans. Regardless of ones political opinions on the war, it is helpful and good to learn more about our opposing side. I also think it was great that he got an “insiders perspective” because it humanized those we were fighting against. It demonstrates that emotion is universal, and love for family and friends is also something that extends far beyond our American borders. He painted us a story of these people’s lives so that they were not overlooked, and this is something that he needed to be on the inside for. I think it was a genius move on his part that not only supplied photos that had not surfaced, but also providing photos that really created an emotional connection with his audience. The photos help us see how our actions are perceived by others and show us the human heartache and horror that is going on in the countries of our “enemies”.