[Lightstalkers] Photojournalism As Activism?

Photojournalism As Activism?

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:54:25 +0000

any thoughts? http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002343598 Photojournalism As Activism: A conversation with Lynn Johnson April 12, 2006 By David Walker Freelance photographer Lynn Johnson has been published in Sports Illustrated, National Geographic, Newsweek, The New York Times Magazine, and LIFE. As we report in our feature Photojournalists Seek New Audiences To Affect Change, Johnson won an OSI grant to produce “From Intolerance to Understanding,” a series of exhibits, workshops and seminars beginning in May that is meant to build social tolerance in that in that city. Her goal is to create a model for spurring public conversation about intolerance that she can implement in other cities. Johnson is also working on a book titled Hate Kills: Moving from Intolerance to Understanding. We talked to Johnson about how she came to give up objective observation in support of a cause. PDN: When you’re a documentary photographer, aren’t you supposed to be "objective"? Lynn Johnson: Is it not time to move beyond that observer status, jump in, be an advocate, and affect change? I see the impact of hatred ever day on assignment. When I work for SI, I see it on the field of play. When I work for National Geographic, I see it in Zambia or wherever I happen to be working. At this age (52), [some of my colleagues and I] are releasing ourselves from the journalistic imperative to be a mere observer. What they’re still teaching in j-school is this dispassionate observation, and it’s so clear to me that’s false. You can’t do this work if you are not passionate. You can’t sustain what it takes to be in this life. It tears down your body, it tears down your relationships. If you don’t fall in love with your subject, then you can’t photograph, operate, relate, collect, immerse yourself at the level that’s require to survive in the business today. I don’t take an assignment I don’t care about. The implication of that is, I take a point of view. You can only produce from [the perspective of your] culture, gender, race, and age. So by default, the idea of objectivity is not a working premise. It’s all sort of smoke and mirrors. Still, you have to base the pursuit of a story on accurate info, great research, and the continuity of experts you work with. PDN:What reaction do you get to that position from other photographers? Johnson: There’s not a lot of discussion about it. But my students are also challenging this premise [of objectivity]. They’re mostly in their late 20s, early 30s, and have already begun careers in newspapers, for instance. They’ve been faced with situations where things are not black and white. When I [first] showed [my intolerance project] to colleagues, I felt I had to say, "I’m stepping over the line to advocacy. I am advocating for understanding." PDN: Why did you feel you needed to do that? Johnson: In some ways, you feel you’re stepping over a standard that’s been implied all these years. Objectivity was always the golden rule. If you were going to advocate a position, you were going to be stepping out of the line. PDN: What reaction did you get from colleagues? LJ: I felt their response was, "Once you do that, the work is even more powerful." You step into your power, your voice. You become a complete story teller, artist, human being. You’re not fragmented anymore. PDN: So it’s liberating? Johnson: Oh yea. I don’t need to stay locked in those beliefs [about objectivity]. But if I were to get an assignment, my feeling is that I would need to step back over the line, and operate in a different way. The boundary is more permeable, though. I think it’s age related. You’re giving yourself permission to step over the line. PDN: What’s your advice to younger photographers about negotiating the line? Johnson: That’s a dance: trying to find balance between imperatives. You can’t shoot without passion, but if you lose your credibility as a journalist, you can’t get your passion on the page. It’s a Catch-22.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:35:37 +0000

Ouch - looks like this discussion could quickly go down a rat-hole... But - for me to feel that I am doing my job as a journalist, I need to know that I am doing all I can to offer a viewer sufficient information for them to make up their own minds, to come to a conclusion. If I feel strongly about a subject, I will work harder at showing either the stark contrasts or ironic similarities of a story. What I will not do is specifically take a side. To do so would mean that I am no longer giving an audience all the information they need to formulate their own conclusion. I am giving them one side of a story, am being seen as biased which can lead to a situation where I would be deemed untrustworthy. That can close all kinds of doors. The subject matter I have covered, and continue to cover, includes extreme racism. But when I go along to shoot more content on this subject, I am there to record what I see so that others can see it, they can get a sense for what is going on and can form their own opinions. If I were to go along with the intent of specifically supporting or criticising extreme racism, then I would not be doing my job.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:21:30 +0000

I think you would like what PaoloPellegrin has to say about this at the end of the Magnm in Motion segment he did: "I'm interested in photography that doesnt reveal itself entirely. Ideally I see the pictures I do as the beginning of a conversation. . . . If you leave things unsaid, you create a space for the viewer to engage his own conversatoin and journey." I find that a better way of defining the situation than reverting to terms like "objectivity" which have very little analytic validity and really do not describe what it is we do as journalists or documentarians. I cannot say that I am detached when I shoot, I have a definite point of view, but I do not let that point of view prevent me from seeing what is there. Like Pellegrin in his series on the settlers, he is clearly not in sympathy with their situation, but he records it faithfully. I do not believe that having a "bias" (another word which really does not serve our purposes here) necessarily disables you, and all storytelling has a point of view. Now you may try for an approach like that of the Modern Novel, with various points of view undercutting each other; but let's face it, that may work in a book, but it does not describe everyday journalistic practice, so how can we honestly say that we are presenting an objective view of things? During the Birmingham riots, when the hoses and dogs were let loose on the marchers, do you really believe that Charles Moore was concerned to present the point of view of the dogs and cops? Do you think that he didnt take sides? He most certainly did. He took a very clear stance, he criticised racism, and that _was_ his job. Take another example: Do you think that the greatest book to come out of the Vietnam conflict, _Vietnam Inc._ is not in fact a very "biased" report and that Jones Griffiths did not take sides? Of course he did. But it doesnt damage what he had to say one bit. Is truth objectivity? Does moral judgment in fact admit of objectivity? Are we not moralists? Myself I am not concerned that people should be able to look at my work and form opinions thereafter as though this were some kind of a debate: Racism, right or wrong? I am not providing them with a conversation piece. (Frankly I dont see how you can form any more than one opinion: sugar production is slavery!). I want them to see the humanity, their own humanity, in the subject displayed before them. That is the opinion I am after, short and simple. And that is a supremely moral act. And it requires that I take sides. I can portray the overseer as well as the slave, but my heart and my camera are with the slave. Accuracy is one thing, but objectivity is a chimera. I would never lie, I would never falsify the facts. But beyond that I am free to tell my story, as honestly and as pointedly as I can. And I think that means, inescapably, taking sides. PS: sorry Mike, I am not attacking you, you make your point well. But this is a serious issue for all of us. I dont necessarily agree with Johnson on all points either. I dont think of myself as an advocate. But I have always felt that journalistic objectivism was a sham.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 04:21:02 +0000

Really good question Matthew :) If you are an activist, you will use your skills for what you believe. Photojournalists don't have to be activist,of course, but I influenced by the War which occured in my land and then I became an anti war activist and then I used my photographic skills against war business.And then finally, I became a conscientious objector. I am an activist photographer, may be not. War and human rights abuses make me angry, I strongly feel that I have to be in someonelse's side who face human rights abuses. I still do care of reality that I photograph. I just want to give you an example, may be which will make me more clear. I have seen photographers, here in LS, who seek NGOs to "work". Well, everything is fine but I really wonder that do these photographers exactly feel what Greenpeace(just for example) activists feel? Or do these photographers want to use NGOs as a career step? You have got an oppurtunity to work with Greenpeace and then you got back home with lost of good pictures and then you have got publishing(bear in mind you have your own copyright)in the best voice of American imperialism, even may be you have won some awards. But would you really care of recycle issue in your city? Are you going to throw away your cigarette? Are you making dirty where you live? If so, where is the your honesty???? May be you are against the using of child labor force but you are still wearing the most famous shoes and other f..ing brands. You are against the something which you don't know what?????? May be you are still eating in Mc Murder(Vomit) which is the great example of American colonialism..????? The one thing I strongly defend is that working with NGOs, that really fits with your ideology, must be your humanistic responsibility. It cannot be a career step. I could be wrong but I believe that. Same thoughts also valid for NGOs,too You are photographing the results of war,poverty, slavery, land mines, etc. but you can also fight for the reasons of poverty, homelessness etc. I am the photographer who wants to show reasons of social issues instead of reflections. I know I need more time to make exist this aim.:):) Journalistic objectivism is just absurd like artistic approaching to reality!! Want to finish with the words of Eugene Richards" I was also accused of giving clean needles to addicts, which I did, of setting up pictures and paying addicts to model,which I didn't." Bests Ali

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:28:04 +0000

Objectivity is hard. Just by choosing a certain story you want to photograph, tells a lot about how you feel about a subject, and a lot of the times you loose the objectivity. But like Jon said, you can try to tell it as honestly as possible and still leave some room to get a discussion going. Let people make up their own minds about a certain topic or moral issue, but give them something to think/talk about. I think that choosing with your heart, being passionate to tell a certain story, is ultimatly the best way to go about it.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:06:58 +0000

This is a very important issue. It affects all of us. I myself have been swayed into being impartial but that came about after knowing the subject in question & being attracted to one side & repelled by the other. I won't go into the details but I believe it happens a lot. At the end of the day we are human beings & if we have empathy it's almost unavoidable that we get emotionally charged up. I do believe having strong emotional feelings relate well when your making images. You can see the soul in the image. Impartiallity is something not too be taken for granted. I watched a BBC documentary where War corespondents talked about their time on the front line. The BBC has a charter that advocates impartiallity at all costs but in private it's a differnt story. One particular story was really upsetting: A corespondent witnessed the infamous Shelling by the Bosnian Serbs on the market place in Sarejevo. He reported it straight & focussed on 1 little girl who had died. He then went to film the funeral which was subsequently shelled by the Bosnian Serbs & he flipped on camera live on TV. He was apparently repremanded but it was real TV with real war & real feelings. Not sure about full blown activism but I reckon it's fine to care! Mark

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:43:39 +0000

Hi Jon, No, I don't feel attacked in any way. In fact quite the opposite. You always provide valuable content and raise the bar of a discussion. I took a glance through all the replies here and realized that this collection of various opinions and ideals is exactly what would offer a newbie to LS the range of insight for them to develop their own conclusion. If, on the other hand, all of our responses had been in the vein of a White House Press Corps (!) press release, then a reader would only see one side to a situation and, based on that common reporting, may be drawn in to believing that they are reading the truth. Does that make sense? Let's take a look at Iraq. In another thread (the White House Press Corps thread I think), someone mentions the book "Unembedded". Here, a number of journalists took it upon themselves to report on the other side of the conflict (sorry, I'm not calling it a war), in Iraq. VII photogs did the same much earlier in the campaign, mixing content from the Iraqi side with content from the US side to deliver a more complete view of what was happening over there. I agree that a journalist can illustrate a preference for one side of a story or another by reporting on what is important to them. There is often a place for this. Frequently, the World thinks something is all white and a journalist introduces some black, causing the World to realise that what they originally perceived to be white is in fact gray. (OK, it's a little early and I haven't had coffee yet). How about this - (word other than, but similar to "objectivity") can be taken as meaning the description of a situation which is black or white, left or right, one side against another. But as Jon rightly suggests, it is never as simple as that. Let's call it "nuanced" objectivity (sorry, no thesaurus at hand). Let's say we have two sides to a story and call them subject A and subject B. We establish a passion for subject A and shoot a story in support of subject A because it's our passion, and then we present that story as the truth about something. What about the nuances, the gray areas? Have we covered all those as well? Are we offering a complete and honest interpretation of subject A? Or is there another side to it that may be more sympathetic to subject B. Are we ignoring the content favorable to subject B to paint subject A in a whiter light? And if so, why don't we just use Photoshop to pull together a photo illustration of what we are trying to present? (I feel a whole new thread starting based on that comment...) On the other hand, if we are aware that there are pros and cons to both subject A and subject B, gather and collate sufficient content to offer a reader/viewer insight in to both sides, and allow them to draw their own conclusion, isn't that a more traditional (and for me, honest) approach to journalism? The original PDN article mentioned someone who has a passion for a particular cause. My passion is for effectively and as honestly as possible, telling a story, to educate my audience and not to mislead them. Yeah, sure, I can push the essence of a story one way or another if I choose to do so, if I need to, or if I am assigned to. But I think it is harder, takes more work, and requires considerable innovation and story-telling capabilities to communicate a truth to an audience that is as complete as possible. Congratulations to Ali, above, for pointing out the NGO dilemma. I have seen, too frequently, photogs that try to exploit the access an NGO can offer for the betterment of their careers. Not cool. If the NGO's get something out of the deal, and it is fair and equitable - then sure, why not. Otherwise, definitely not cool. And with regards to the BBC (Mark's comment) - yep, you are right about the BBC approach - that was my training ground! See, I KNEW this would be a rat hole :-) Happy Easter !!! Mike

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:07:27 +0000

It’s interesting that a word like “objective” plays such a role in the code for professionals in a field as subjective as journalism.
We all know that most journalists are drawn to this work, in part, out of a strong sense of justice (that’s what draws most of the audience as well). To be _truly_ objective is to lack any sense of judgment, it’s perspective above the law (which is often skewed to favor some group and open to interpretation).
But, objectivity as a _goal_ (not dogma) is perfect; it’s a code of conduct that keeps a disparate group of journalist considering other angles, and reporting what is there (not making it up). It keeps journalists from becoming mere propagandists. Objectivity as a _goal_ leaves it open to interpretation…and how it’s interpreted is, in part, what separates the really good journalists and editors from average ones. I think Lynn Johnson has embraced this nuance.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:16:55 +0000

That's awesome, Mark - yes, objectivity as a goal - that makes a lot of sense.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:23:26 +0000

That's awesome, Mark - yes, objectivity as a goal - that makes a lot of sense.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:46:00 +0000

Actually I still dont agree, though I understand that in fact the word "objectivity" usually functions in this manner, as a goal to guarantee a certain code of conduct. I prefer to talk in terms of truth: I will not fudge the facts, I will not lie. And honesty: honest story telling, and above all honesty with myself as a photographer, which may not be the same as my editor's idea of honesty. Once you begin to tell a story you are forced to make choices that decide how that story will be told and from what perspective, there is no avoiding this. while some stories may permit you to provide a broad perspective, some do not, and in fact I would say that the appearance of "objectivity" in the face of certain themes like racism is just plain mealy mouthed. How can you talk of objectivity in the face of hoses and dogs loosed on the Birmingham marchers? There are times when you have to choose sides. By the way, VII's attempt to cover the war on both sides was not done in the name of objectivity either. Their points of view are clear. Indeed, I think having a point of view makes you a better photographer and does not necessarily prevent you from rendering an unpleasant subject somehow sympathetic. View Paolo Pellegrin's piece on the evacuation of the settlers and you will see what I mean. He disagrees with their motives, but he renders a fair and "objective" piece of reporting. Actually I have yet myself to do a story on a group of people I dont like, and Pellegrin's piece has started me thinking about that. I am not sure how I would handle it. Btw, Mike, glad to know you didnt misinterpret me. sometimes in this anonymous space, without human gestures and countenances, it is easy to mistake one's tone. I think we are all much closer in agreement than we realize, and the real problem is semantics, just as in the case of the long thread of photography and art.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:52:19 +0000

For me there is no such thing as objectivity. Only the appearance of objectivity. Your point of view will allways inform the work that you do, even at a subliminal level - and then the editorial line will inform how your pictures may be treated. Some people even work against the editorial line - or fight very hard, to get the story as they see it out on to the stands. I think it is happening more and more that PJ's are seeking alternative methods to get their stories out. As Lynn Johnson said, 'That’s a dance: trying to find balance between imperatives. You can’t shoot without passion, but if you lose your credibility as a journalist, you can’t get your passion on the page. It’s a Catch-22.' That is so true.

Re: Photojournalism As Activism?

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:20:10 +0000

Jon:
I don't sense much difference in our opinions on this topic at all. I see the _subjective_ nature of journalism as the rule. It's the _subjective_ that determines the sense of injustice that gives life to a story--as you've illustrated above with Birmingham and VII.
Objectivity is the unattainable "goal"...but holding it up as a goal, despite the fact it _can't_ be acheived, is what keeps this diverse fellowship seeking truth, honesty, and considering opposing opinions--it loosely provides a framework for conduct in a field where _everything_ is filtered through _someone_ with a cultural, economic, religious, historical and regional perspective. That's not to say there's no room for personal perspective--it is _all_ personal perspective.
If there's no personal perspective expressed, then it's just the daily farm report.