The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting runs a quote by Joseph Pulitzer III at the top of its page:
Over the years it seems they’ve done exactly that, funding the kind of international journalism that often is without a sponsor in the USA. But for journalism to retain any integrity it cannot simply rely on something as intangible as ‘a deep sense of responsibility’, it must be grounded in a solid set of ethical principles and it must be accountable. Without these principles journalism doesn’t shine the light into dark places, it becomes the dark place.
Several weeks ago I came across a set of pictures on Facebook and Photoshelter by the talented photographer Marco Vernaschi which focus on the subject of child sacrifice in Uganda. The work is both being funded and promoted by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
It’s a decent enough story, but not one that is in any way new.
The pictures are black and white, often blurred, without hope and even evoke a sense of nihilism. Nothing however in my journalistic career could prepare me for the disturbing truth as to how a number of the photos were taken.
By his own account a grieving mother was persuaded by Vernaschi to exhume her child’s body so that he could take photographs of her mutilated daughter, after which payment was made money ($70) was given to the chief who facilitated the digging up of the body, and the picture published by the Pulitzer Center.
Vernaschi’s actions only became public when another journalist, Andre Liohn, traveled to Uganda to undertake his own investigation. He raised the issue with the Pulitzer Center last week but received no response. Instead they forwarded his complaint to Vernaschi who has written his own account of events on the Pulitzer Center website. Here’s an extract:
Being there, out of the blue, in the darkness of this creepy night asking a broken-hearted mother to show me the mutilated corpse of her daughter … then they consent to show me the body. I explain to them that this evidence will be crucial in several ways. Three people start digging in the garden by the house, where the family had buried Babirye just a few hours before … I give the mother some money, making sure this amount will be enough to hire a lawyer. She’s a proud woman, and despite the amount being very modest, she says it’s enough. I hug her again, and at this point she grabs my hand, and say: “Please, don’t let us down”.
On the 19h of April I emailed both Jon Saywer, (Executive Director of The Pulitzer Centre on Crisis reporting), and Marco Vernaschi asking them if they could answer a number of critical questions regarding the work. My two main concerns are:
1. That one of the images published of a naked child with his penis cut off and a catheter protruding from the scar is indecent and if published in the UK could potentially be deemed illegal under the 1978 child protection act.
2.That by requesting parents dig up their murdered child and then by taking pictures of the corpse and subsequently making payment to the parents Marco Vernaschi had broken any reasonable understanding of ethical behavior by a journalist.
In the UK according to the Protection of Children Act 1978 ‘it is an offence to take, permit to be taken, make, possess, show, distribute or advertise indecent images of children in the United Kingdom.’ I am of the opinion that should the full frontal photograph showing a boy naked, with his penis cut off and a catheter in its place, be hosted on a British website there is a possibility that it would be deemed obscene by a jury and therefore illegal.
To me the picture is a further violation of the child’s dignity, made permanent by the unrestricted publication of the work on the internet. If a three year old American or British girl had been abducted, raped and her vagina mutilated it is inconceivable that the Pulitzer Center would support a photographer to take full frontal nude pictures of that girl. Why then is this an acceptable act if the child is Ugandan?
In his defense Marco Vernaschi wrote to me stating:
I can hardly argue whether this picture would have been done/published if the boy would have been American, or European. I can only say that to me this makes no difference, and that when I was taking this pictures I was there with Mukisa’s father and aunt, who were desperate and worried about the future of the child. I’m currently looking for some foundation that will be able to follow and support Mukisa through the next years …
The Declaration of The Rights of The child states:
The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
Rarely, if ever, should the rights of a child be considered less important than an individual journalists pursuit of a story.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines are a highly regarded benchmark for objective journalism. They put child protection above almost any other consideration. This is taken from those guidelines:
We must ensure that the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under the age of eighteen, and in particular children under fifteen, are protected during the making and broadcast of programmes and online content, irrespective of any consent given by them or by a parent, guardian or other person in loco parentis.
We must ensure that children and young people are not caused unnecessary anxiety or distress by their involvement in programmes or by their broadcast.
If photography is dependent on showing naked pictures of grossly abused children to affect change than as a medium it is without merit.
Morally a parent cannot give a photographer permission to take a photograph that degrades their child. The argument that the end justifies the means only holds weight if you persuade me that there is no other way to help this child then to violate his right to dignity. Clearly that is not true.
Photography is too powerful and important a medium to be reduced to the absurd notion that only the most graphic pictures will affect change.
This is not the first time a journalistic institution has published a picture of the boy whose name is Mukisa. The BBC conducted their own investigation which ran as a documentary on TV, Radio and on the BBC News channels. The story was seen and heard by millions of people. Here is the photograph the BBC chose to publish. Its quite different from Vernaschi’s (seen below in an edited form). In accordance with the BBC Editorial guidelines a decision was taken to not show the boys face.
The role of the Pulitzer Center cannot be overlooked in the their institutional support of this work. In his response to me Jon Sawyer Executive Director of the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting wrote,
‘I can say that we work very closely with our journalist grantees, with the aim of adhering to the highest possible standards both of journalism and ethical practice.’
However there are a number of important questions I put to Sawyer in my email which he choose not to answer. These are:
1. Given the Center’s commitment to ethical practice do you believe this child’s dignity has been preserved firstly by the photographer taking this picture and secondly by the Pulitzer Centre funding and linking to this image?
2. Would you have published this photograph if it was an American child? And if not why is it acceptable to do so in Uganda and not in America?
3. In what way does the Pulitzer Center’s editorial guidelines differ from that of say the BBC?
The stated aim of the Pulitzer Center is:
‘to fund independent reporting with the intent of raising the standard of media coverage of global affairs’.
It has over the years been successful in achieving that goal. I am left puzzled though as to whether the Pulitzer Center actually has a set of editorial guidelines and if so how these were applied to Vernaschi’s work?
Another question that needs answering is how Vernaschi reached the point where he felt morally justified to ask a mother to have her daughter’s body exhumed so that he could take pictures; an act so far outside of my understanding of human decency that I find it hard to comprehend.
Furthermore what moral justification does the Pulitzer Center have for publishing the photos of the exhumed child?
In his response to me Jon Sawyer dodged the question:
In general my view is that the work should speak for itself, and that we should avoid injecting ourselves in side discussions on blogs, especially on a project like this that is both highly sensitive and in the very early stages of presentation.
I hope that you will permit Marco to present fully his reporting, and the reasons for the decisions he made, before reaching firm conclusions yourself. We will be weighing in ourselves, on the issues you raise and others, as the project proceeds.
By his own account Vernaschi persuaded the girl’s mother to commit a crime by exhuming the body, an extremely traumatic event for any parent. This is taken from the Ugandan penal code:
121. Hindering burial of dead body, etc. Whoever unlawfully hinders the burial of the dead body of any person, or without lawful authority in that behalf or otherwise than in accordance with rules made by the Minister disinters, dissects or harms the dead body of any person or, being under a duty to cause the dead body of any person to be buried, fails to perform such duty, commits a misdemeanor.
Vernaschi’s main defense revolves around the notion that his photographs are in some way forensic records and that he is following in the footsteps of photographers like James Nachtwey:
These kind of critics have already been moved in several others occasions, for example when James Nachtwey photographed a church where hundreds of children had been slaughtered and killed in 1994 DRC genocide. These pictures that were strongly criticized by some at the time of publication, contributed to document what was going on and are now considered history of photojournalism as they concretely contributed to bring attention on the war in DRC. I could mention many other similar examples, but I think the concept is clear.
According to Vernaschi the authorities were already investigating the murder of the child. By digging up the body vital evidence needed for a conviction may have been lost. Forensic pictures are taken in controlled conditions by professionals. In an attempt for a deeper understanding I re-wrote to Vernaschi:
Can you understand that if you asked the parents to exhume their child’s body and then photographed that body and then paid money people will find that extraordinary? Put everything aside and please try and answer that question. That’s the crux of the issue and I believe that that’s what people will focus on whatever is produced from now.
This is Vernaschi’s edited reply:
Asking the family for permission to exhume the body is not something I decided lightly. It was hard to do — hard to ask and hard to see. The family asked for money only after the exhumation, and after my filmed interview. This visit wasn’t planned, and I had very little money on me. When the family asked for help I gave them 150.000 Shillings — the equivalent of USD 70. That’s what was in my wallet. I do not see anything wrong with offering that help, under those circumstances. My hope is that the actions I took will be considered, and judged, in the context within which they occurred.
Vernaschi, who I respect for being so open with me, writes,
‘I can only give you my personal opinion, based on my moral guidelines and convictions as a photojournalist.’
For me that’s the crux of the problem. His ethical boundaries are dictated by how he feels and a delusional sense of the importance of his work that allows him in this instance to work outside any recognizable limits of journalistic integrity.
I have some sympathy for Vernaschi who has dug himself deep into a story so extreme that it would damage the strongest of minds. But I am bewildered by the role of the Pulitzer Center who seem oblivious to the damage this work causes to the integrity of journalism, as well as their own reputation, and the appalling precedent it sets.
In America the National Press Photographers publishes a code of ethics which I’ve listed below. You could read through the list and tick off which points of the code you think have been broken in the case outlined above, or you could save yourself a lot of pencil and just tick off the ones that haven’t.
Code of Ethics Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
- Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one’s own biases in the work.
- Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
- While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
- Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
- Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
- Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
- Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
UPDATE 1:
The photographer Jørn Stjerneklar has written a challenging analysis of another series of Vernaschi’s photos:
http://www.maydaypress.com/blog/page9_files/09f6d2fbd43e90615782e4e115d95b41-0.html
UPDATE 2:
The Travel Photographer has published a searing analysis of this story here.
Why can’t these photojournalists and publishers understand that they cannot continue to show pictures of mutilated children??
It’s immoral. It’s as simple and as complex as that.
UPDATE 3:
Joerg Colburg who writes the renowned blog Conciencious blog has also picked up on the story,
The idea that asking very crucial questions is just a side discussion that should be avoided because the project is “highly sensitive”? Oh really?
I am not so sure this is the kind of reaction I would have expected from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
UPDATE 4:
The Canadian writer, photographer and veteran A. J Somerset has just posted on his blog, Banjaxed. He is convinced that Vernaschi acted in good faith, but goes on to write:
Looking at Vernaschi’s slideshow, I find myself wondering if the publication of these pictures, and the photo of three-year-old Mukisa, whose penis was cut off, isn’t symptomatic of a problem with the work overall. These photos, for the most part, communicate little. We have many shots of kids in prisons or on the streets. We have photos of “healers” at work. And most of them tell us little; they’re high-contrast black-and-white pictures in which detail is lost to lighting and to various in-camera blur effects.
I feel that, without the three graphic pictures, Vernaschi’s story amounts to little. And I think that may well be why he felt they were necessary. But this doesn’t justify what he did to get them; instead, it suggests he should have found a different way to tell his story
UPDATE FIVE:
There is also a debate about the work on Lightstalkers here
UPDATE SIX
Miranda Gavin of Hot Shoe fame has written an excellent post on Hotshoeblog in which she asks an expert on the Convention of Human Rights to give an opinion,
Whether the British press, for example, would have published such graphic pictures of a British child is an interesting question. We may have become numb to reports of atrocities and mutilation in Africa, and it does appear as if there are two standards of decency, one for the sheltered Westerner, and another for the inhabitant of the ‘dark continent’.
related posts
Hi Benjamin
Thank you very much for this blog. Excellent work, really. I hope Pulitzer Center will set some guidelines for the future – and reconsider the publishing of some of the pictures in Vernaschi’s new story. As it is now they are in danger of loosing their credibility. Or maybe thats to late? I was writing a blog on some other aspects of Marco Vernaschi’s work when the discussion about his new project started on the web- it just has been published here:
http://www.maydaypress.com/blog/page9_files/09f6d2fbd43e90615782e4e115d95b41-0.html
Hi Jorn,
thanks for that. I read your article, which is troubling. If the image was photoshopped and staged in the manner you describe then The World Press should investigate.
I astonished by the Pulitzer Center. To be honest I’ve never come across something like this really threatens the integrity of photojournalism. We’ll just have to see what happens.
I’ll add your link as an update at the bottom of the post.
Thanks again
The whole concept of paying a subject to take a picture is something worrying. In countries where poverty is a major issue for many, paying someone for a story/image is effectively staging a shot.
You are no longer reporting on the truth by manipulating the story to suit your needs. If this was a white kid, shot in London or the US, what would the response be? Why is it ok to come to Africa, perform an act that is pretty barbaric no matter what your job, or intended use, is?
Staging any image is questionable, but done throughout this industry, but crossing this line seems a step too far.
I had utmost respect for Marco but feel in this case a line was crossed. Was the story really that important that the parents needed to be put through that experience again? Do the public need to see a body to believe the story?
Worryingly, this style of shock photojournalism is on the increase, we’ve already had the tour group to disaster zones, what’s next?
Vernaschi’s photos of the exhumed body and the mutilated boy are the most troubling aspects of what is, in its totality, a deeply flawed project.
You’re absolutely right to argue that the photo of the boy “is a further violation of the child’s dignity, made permanent by the unrestricted publication of the work on the internet.”
Vernaschi’s defense is damning, in ways that he seems not to understand or, perhaps, to care about: “I can hardly argue whether this picture would have been done/published if the boy would have been American, or European. I can only say that to me this makes no difference…” He’s saying that, yes, such photos of a white child would be unpublishable, but let’s take advantage of cultural racism and go ahead and publish these photos of a black child.
The playing with racism doesn’t stop with the exhumation of the girl’s body or the photo of the boy. The entire series owes much of its power to its embrace of deeply ingrained stereotypes about strange, devilish, barbaric rites being performed in darkest Africa. (Readers should follow the link at the beginning of this post to see them all.)
Yes, the photos are powerful, masterfully made. But by encouraging viewers to see this a part of a primitive, mysterious, and ultimately unknowable Africa, the photos promote a horrified indifference, not action. In doing so they undermine Vernaschi’s stated aim of ending child mutilation.
You ask if “photography is dependent on showing naked pictures of grossly abused children to affect change…” It’s not, as you a clearly aware. The problem in this case lies with the photographer, not photography.
Vernaschi made a series of indefensible choices here — both moral and aesthetic.
By the way, people who are wondering what I mean by the photos’ “embrace of deeply ingrained stereotypes about strange, devilish, barbaric rites being performed in darkest Africa” should visit the online Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, from Ferris State University:
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/traveling/grid/19.htm
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/menu.htm
[...] I can hardly argue whether this picture would have been done/published if the boy would have been American, or European. I can only say that to me this makes no difference, and that when I was taking this pictures I was there with Mukisa’s father and aunt, who were desperate and worried about the future of the child. I’m currently looking for some foundation that will be able to follow and support Mukisa through the next years … [...]
Fundamentally, photojournalism/reportage/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is broken beyond repair. More than anything it resembles big game hunting: unfeeling, arrogant westerners blasting away at the developing world wildlife. It’s now just a boorish but prize laden freak show, and you don’t win the prizes if you don’t score high on the freakometer.
Look at Perpignan, look at World Press, it’s just the Guinness Book of Records with added gore, disease, and sexual exploitation; Vernaschi scores highly on all counts which is why he’s done well recently. Even when there’s a portrayal of western life it never gets beyond the fattest kids at fat camp, the thinnest girls at thin camp, or the drugged, drunk, and disconsolate.
If you want to blame people for the current cult of crassness the finger should really be pointing in the direction of the judges who consistently reward some of the dumbest work out there. Why blame Vernaschi or any of the other headbangers? They’re only providing what the self-appointed gatekeepers want…
[...] fotojournalistikkens rykte Historien har spredd seg som ild i tørt gress på nettet. I bloggen «A developing Story – Media for a fairer world» hevder skribenten at Pulitzer Center er i en etisk krise når de godtar denne type journalistisk [...]
I read this post open mouthed.
I think Benjamin hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that, “Vernaschi…has dug himself deep into a story so extreme that it would damage the strongest of minds…”
It seems to me that Vernaschi must have got so entangled in the gruesomeness and power of this story that he lost himself in it. I hope these debates give him some perspective.
I also hope the Pulitzer Center take some time to take stock.
Unbelievable.
Yep, I agree – a line has been crossed here and the dignity and rights of two children (and a grieving family) have been trampled on.
I’m also confused what the point of making these pictures actually is – if the project is genuinely about educating the wider public about this issue – because few mainstream media outlets would surely run them. So that leaves industry awards entries and websites aimed at other photographers, as far as I can tell.
To me that is part of a trend of some photojournalism losing its way. I think the photographers who spend their time dwelling in life’s ‘darkest corners’, so to speak, often seem more arsed about impressing others in the profession than really ‘raising awareness’ as they’d have us believe. I hope I’m wrong but it all feels very gratitous and exploititive.
I’m sorry Marco but I think you’ve strayed off track here. And the Pulitzer Center really needs to stand up for journalistic integrity here and not bury its head in the sand.
Troublingly, people keep referring to ‘Marcus’. Given that there is a photographer called Marcus who is well known for his black and white work in Africa, it’s worth emphasising that the photographer in question is called Marco Vernaschi (with a c).
Good point … all amended now!
How can there be strict guidelines regarding photoshop trickery within news/photojournalism imagery, but no solid ethical guidelines? I suppose we thought we didn’t need them…the above unfortunately proves we do. I am deeply troubled by what has happened here, troubled indeed by the actions of a photographer I much admired, troubled greatly for the children within the story and almost as equally troubled by the Pulitzer centre’s seemingly hands off approach. Their answers to Ben’s questions are wholly inadequate, dismissive and rather arrogant imo.
I have spent a good while trying to understand Marco’s reasons. All I can think is that he has indeed gone so far down a dark road that he has lost himself. I worry for him and I worry for those that follow him thinking that this sort of excessive behaviour is the way to ‘get on’ in the world of photojournalism.
I don’t have the words really…I’m still in shock about it all..sad on so many levels.
[...] and the Pulitzer Center are now getting plenty of criticism for this, and also for publishing (as part of the same story) a full frontal [...]
there’s an interesting debate on this subject on
http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/illegal-exhumation-a-debate-about-marco-vernaschis-methods.
I am by no way condoning the method of this photographer but I find the arguments put forward here are sometimes beside the point, such as referring to the declaration of the rights of the child, which legally doesn’t really apply here, as she’s dead.
Or talking about possible evidence that might be lost by exhuming the body, sorry, I don’t understand what you are talking about, I guess she was not buried where she was killed, but I may have misunderstood your point.
You seem much more to be on an agressive campaign against what you clearly feel is immoral and obscene and it doesn’t really bring the debate further except making the reader think ‘how awful’.
Yet it is a very important debate. When do you decide as a journalist that the end doesn’t justify the means? It would personnaly never cross my mind to ask parents to have their daughter exhumed hours after she was burried, so that I could take a photo but I have never reported or been exposed to the tragedy of ritual killings.
I think things aren’t as clear cut as you seem to imply.
In this case it would very interesting to have the point of view of the parents.
From what I’ve read they have given their consent to the exhumation. And they weren’t payed so the photographer could get his photo, they were given money after the whole thing (which in East Africa is quite common, when someone dies people visiting the family of the deceased are often expected to give money or things).
Your wording suggests they were coerced to give their consent, on what evidence do you base this assumption?
And why assume systematically that the poor African family is inacapable of taking an informed decision, that they are so naive they are necessarily the victims of the morally debased western journalist?
Maybe it was the case, but we don’t really know.
You also say that exhumation is a deeply traumatising experience for parents, you mean in general I guess, although it seems confusing for the reader as you’re talking of this family in particular, and I’m sure it was for them as well.
There are many situation in a reporters career when victims of crimes or injustice, or relative of deceased people, have to go through the ordeal of telling their stories, or going back to the site where the incident happened.
By many accounts this also is very traumatizing, does it mean that even if they have agreed to talk to you, their testimony shouldn’t be recorded?
I feel the right answer is, it depends.
Are you exploiting your subject at a time when they are most vulnerable? Do they really realize what they are agreeing to do? Aren’t they accepting your request because an interested third party is present (I’m for instance thinking of interviewing or photographing people in hospitals in developping countries when the doctor accompanies the journalist to patients, does the patient accept because he wants to share his story or because he/she feels that the doctor will give him better/preferential treatment if he/she accepts)?
Is there some kind of scale of pain or trauma, for instance parents having their daughter exhumed is a greater trauma than, I don’t know, a little girl being circumcised, so we shouldn’t report or photograph it, is there a limit that journalists shouldn’t trespass, how do you define this limit?
Also it’s unclear which picture you are referring to in your post, the photo of the exhumed dead girl doesn’t depict her naked, and the one of the young boy who has had his penis mutilated, well he isn’t dead so not exhumed. I was confused when I first read your post (I hadn’t seen the pictures then) on what exactly you find obsene or unethical: the depiction of a dead body? the depiction of a dead child? the depiction of a naked child? the depiction of a naked child who has gone through extensive trauma? The fact that the girl was exhumed at the request of the photographer? All this can be misleading for a reader when assessing the morality of the person you are attacking.
Again, I am not defending this photographer, I’m just interested in knowing if there is some universal consensus on what is obsene or immoral, to me these notions seem very subjective and there is nothing in the texts you provided either the bbc guidelines or the declaration of children rights or the NPP guidelines that makes me think that this photographer had an unethical behaviour.
Except that he broke the Ugandan law on exhumation, and breaking the law to get a story isn’t necessarily unethical, stupid maybe. Is the exhumation of a body at the photographers demand a reconstruction of the events and therefore unacceptable from a journalistic point of view?
Were the pictures of the journalists accompanying American troops liberating the concentration camps obsene? Many of them depicted emaciated naked dead bodies of adults and children and were taken and published without the consent of their relatives.
What is obsene, this phenomeneon of ritual killings or the photograph depicting its victims? these are genuine questions and I’m not being rhetorical here.
Regards.
Carla, thank you for taking the time to write. Apologies, yesterday I wrote a flippant response at the end of a long day. No excuse your opinion is welcome here. Thanks again for taking the time to write.
Ben,
Thanks for the post – it raises a number of issues and is certainly needed.
My take on whether or not such a photo would be taken if the child (dead body and especially the face) were American, European or for that matter just White, is not really the issue here. Such photos regardless of where and of whom should be made when the photographer finds himself/herself witnessing such a scene. That said, the bottom line is no double standards – but who sets the standards? The Bush administration? The editor’s? I think that is a seperate discussion.
“If photography is dependent on showing naked pictures of grossly abused children to affect change than as a medium it is without merit.” What of McCullen’s starving children in Biafa? Or Nick Ot’s shot of the little girl burned by napalm? I don’t think it is the subject matter as much as the manner used to get the shot and treat the subject that determines whether such an approach is valid.
“Morally a parent cannot give a photographer permission to take a photograph that degrades their child. The argument that the end justifies the means only holds weight if you persuade me that there is no other way to help this child then to violate his right to dignity. Clearly that is not true.”
I think these are two different arguments. First while I have opinions and beliefs which determine what I shoot, how I shoot and how the story is framed, morality is a matter of local customs and beliefs. It maybe illegal for a parent to allow a photo that degrades their child but that is because the photo depicts an illegal act. Non forensic photos of sexual abuse and perhaps exhuming the body for display come to mind.
“… the end justifies the means” being sometimes OK is a very slippery slope.
So after that what is left in the case of VM: Ethics is the salient issue here and probably the most important overall Asking, whether for pay, favor, or exchange, that the family dig up the body is setting up a situation which did not and would not have happened and constitutes the staging of a photo. That has always been unethical. Ethics of not staging events and images in general seems to me an endangered practice. The reasons are numerous: increased training in TV methods where video requires more setups, educational departments folding journalism into communications and PR, technology which allows for easy manipulation of the image, and the cult of celebrity with desire for fame. And my personal favorite, the total and unquestioning use of the “photo op”, controlled and setup events for the cameras designed to best highlight a desired message, the ethics of which no one seems to question.
The bottom line with VM is he pushed for the circumstances needed for the shot he wanted to be created – if he paid or not doesn’t matter. If the family had the moral right or not doesn’t matter. What does matter is he violated the standard and pretty damn universal ethics of the profession he is a member of. If Jørn Stjerneklar post is correct it is not the first time he has done so and probably won’t be the last. Unfortunately VM does not seem to be that unusual in his blindness to what he has done
Thanks Robert,
you make some important points.
However the photographer did not ‘witness a scene’, as the other great photographers you site, he set the photos up.
I doubt if he found the boy naked (not all Africans run around naked with spears doing voodoo as some people seem to think) in the same way that he did not find this girls body. By his own admission he persuaded the mother to have her dug up. For me that is wrong.
Too much is made of what photography can achieve. History is re-written about the impact of certain photos but the research is not there to back it. That is not to say they are unimportant, but rather they are not the magic bullet many make them out to be.
THE PULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTING AND MARCO VERNASCHI RELEASED A STATEMENT, POSTED ON PULITZER’S “UNTOLD STORIES”.
YOU CAN READ IT AT:
http://untoldstories.pulitzercenter.org/2010/04/questions-on-uganda-child-sacrifice.html
[...] more detailed and comprehensive opinion, along with some responses from the Pulitzer Center, check A Developing Story. Subscribe to The Travel Photographer RSS Filed under: [...]
Thanks to Carla for providing a slightly more considered approach to this, she raises some very strong points which are not even addressed beyond a patronising and insulting answer.
These kinds of issues are usually more complex than you have indicated in your post and I think you should respond seriously to the well intentioned answers raised by Carla.
It’s easy to write a knee jerk piece about the moral outrage of childs rights being violated, but the important debate (that we do need to have) here is being negated by this kind of criticism. The Photographer seems well intentioned and articulate enough to defend his position, so lets have a good quality debate minus the shock and awe.
Thanks for this Felix. What is the important debate that is being negated? Where is the shock and awe? Please some more details?
The specific points raised by Carla that I think are worth you exploring further:
(and I’m glad to see that you have edited your response to her, thank you)
“Your wording suggests they were coerced to give their consent, on what evidence do you base this assumption? And why assume systematically that the poor African family is inacapable of taking an informed decision, that they are so naive they are necessarily the victims of the morally debased western journalist?”
“Were the pictures of the journalists accompanying American troops liberating the concentration camps obsene? Many of them depicted emaciated naked dead bodies of adults and children and were taken and published without the consent of their relatives.
What is obsene, this phenomeneon of ritual killings or the photograph depicting its victims? these are genuine questions and I’m not being rhetorical here.”
Hi Felix,
thanks for that. On the points raised:
POINT ONE
Your wording suggests they were coerced to give their consent, on what evidence do you base this assumption?
In my article I wrote:
By his own account a grieving mother was persuaded by Vernaschi to exhume her child’s body so that he could take photographs of her mutilated daughter.
And this is in line with Vernashci’s account. Would any parent agree to having their daughter dug up for a photo without persuasion?
POINT TWO
And why assume systematically that the poor African family is inacapable of taking an informed decision, that they are so naive they are necessarily the victims of the morally debased western journalist?”
I’m sorry where is this systematic assumption in the text?
Apart from that Vernaschi points out how traumatized the mother was. What state of mind do you think you’d be in 24 hours after someone mutilated and murdered your daughter? I did not use the words ‘poor African’ or ‘Western’. This woman is Ugandan.
POINT THREE
Were the pictures of the journalists accompanying American troops liberating the concentration camps obsene?
You would have to refer to a single image, as I have done in my article.
POINT FOUR
What is obsene, this phenomeneon of ritual killings or the photograph depicting its victims? these are genuine questions and I’m not being rhetorical here.”
Reply
This question doesn’t make sense. Why is it either or? I’m sure you’d agree it’s wrong for a Priest to rape a child but in what sense does that preclude it being wrong to take a picture of a priest raping a child and then publishing it?
The final point is I think answered in the text.
I wouldn’t ask a mother/father to allow me to exhume the body of their daughter just so that I make photos for whatever cause. The only reason those parents agreed besides being in a vulnerable state of mind is that they believe they will get justice for their daughter. You should also note that a chief is considered of very high authority in a village. Would Marco have gotten the consent from the family had he gone to request by himself? Just asking. In my village you rarely say no to the chief. For all the pain that Marco has caused them, I hope they do because if they don’t they will have to deal with it for the rest of their lives. And we all know our work never always amounts to anything. At best we just end up telling the story and providing some relief to our subjects that people know what they are going through.
I wouldn’t portray a boy in the nude exposing their mutilated genitals with their face and name to it. Maybe Marco should ask himself if the boy would feel dignified seeing that image. I always ask myself this question when representing others. But that is just me.
I was shocked when I first saw his work… even more so when I learnt how he got some of it. I wasn’t aware of who Marco was until this body of work. So maybe more people know you now Marco. You have great skill judging from your work and I believe you definately are aware of several other ways of having told that story with the right impact. Maybe it was natural for you to work it that way… maybe it was subconscious if so then it is scary to imagine.
Babirye’s story had been covered by local photojournalists, Marco could have partnered with them where necessary (for content he missed) He was there for two months, for an issue that he claims to be rampant, I’m sure he would have gotten another opportunity. Buy hey.
As a photographer working in East Africa, while intentions for giving the grieving mother some money ($70) were noble as you claim, the impact of that action will live on for many years. Often when journalists from the West come to Africa, they make it harder for the local journalists to keep pursuing the same subject for their local audience. This is because many will ‘give something’ not much according to them but a lot according to local standards. The Ugandan journalists will not have it easy as they will be expected to give something too because word spreads. It has happened in my country on many occasions with different issues when people won’t talk to you because you don’t have ’something’ to give. Remember, as much as the international community need to know to help mobilize action, the local community affected knowing is all the more important in order to find permanent local solutions to the problem. Otherwise it all noise.
There’s much to say about the so-called ethics of this story, and many above have said it. I certainly side with those who find it hard to comprehend how a talented photojournalist collaborated in the exhumation of a child’s body in order to take a photograph.
But, I think in the way the debate has unfolded there is also a danger of insufficient attention to what for me is an even larger and more damning point…what do Marco’s photographs tell us about the story? How do the photos contribute to the journalism?
I think both Marco and the Pulitzer Center have failed lamentably in their telling of the story of child sacrifice to date. Reading the text on the Pulitzer Center site (at http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=157 you get no sense whatsoever of the scale or history or context of the issue. It ends with the claim that “nobody has done anything to stop the killings,” implicitly suggesting that coverage like Marco’s will be essential to making the problem visible.
But click on the links to the BBC in the left menu and you find detailed accounts of this issue that reveal government concern, police action and local NGOs at work. In an excellent story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8441813.stm) we even read, under the heading “activism,” that the “former witch-doctor turned anti-sacrifice campaigner Polino Angela says he has persuaded 2,400 other witch-doctors to give up the trade since he himself repented in 1990.”
Given these reports, how is it justified for Marco and the Pulitzer centre to claim “nobody has done anything to stop the killings”?
If photojournalism is to succeed, it has to deal with the ‘journalism’ bit as much as the ‘photo’ part. Producing a series of black and white images of victims — while potentially part of the story — is worthless without proper coverage of the context. Indeed, in the absence of the context, those photographs could have the opposite effect from that intended.
The noted American photographer and Yale professor Tod Papergeorge reworked Cartier-Bresson’s dictum to say that “if your photographs aren’t good enough, you aren’t reading enough.” Both Marco and the Pulitzer Center need to get reading, starting with their own links.
David thanks for your important comments. The ethics of a journalist is totally linked to the way in which they approach a story. This was a transparent exercise in sensationalism, not understanding. And without understanding, how can their be change?
David, the BBC report turned out to be a fake.
on the other hand, the pulitzer project has been launched three days ago, and will include among many other things, a video documentary, three web portals and other articles.
Marco your comment has been moderated for libeling the BBC Reporter.
We welcome your comments, but please note we cannot allow you to make accusations against journalists without the evidence to back it up.
Its worth noting that the possibility that the BBC were lied to about the numbers of children killed, and that you were aware of this fact, makes me wonder why you and Pulitzer suggest the killings are ‘rampant’?
Please be assured that the BBC would sack any reporter who paid someone to make something up, or stage a fake event (like a man held at gunpoint). In most news organizations that goes without saying because without audience trust, they are dead in the water.
Marco:
You are right in one respect — it seems there are questions about Angela’s information as provided to the BBC for their reports. The BBC reported as much on 25 Feb 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8536313.stm). It’s probably premature to conclude this means the reports are “faked” in toto. We should also note that the Pulitzer Center continues to link to one of the BBC reports alongside your story, and that there are other stories reporting more details.
However, all this demonstrates to me is that the full context of this extraordinary story requires careful and detailed telling. I am not convinced that the either the photos published to date, or the text on the Pulitzer Center site with them, help offer that context, but I will look forward to the additional material you indicate is forthcoming to see if we get the sort of photo/journalism this story demands.
Vernaschi’s work ( http://www.photoshelter.com/c/marco_vernaschi/gallery-list ) raises other issues worthy of wider discussion.
There’s a series of photographs of black sex workers with their identity clearly visible, but in two of the photographs there’s a white guy who conveniently gets cropped at the neck giving him anonymity. This directly relates to the point made by others that it would be unlikely that Vernaschi or The Pulitzer Center would have so easily made the decision to identify the children if they’d been white Westerners. It seems curious that the privacy of a white punter has precedence over the privacy of the women in these images. I anticipate that the defense might be that the framing was driven purely by aesthetics, but even allowing for this there are very real questions to be asked about the current trend for ‘concerned’ photographers to focus so readily and so starkly on female sex workers: not least that if money changes hands in return for access there’s arguably a very thin line between being a journalist and being a punter.
Another thing which is apparent is the prevalence for long exposures coupled with a spinning camera or a zooming lens to give drama to static scenes. This technique is used over and over again in the ‘Child Sacrifice’ series to lend a sense of ’spookiness’ to what would otherwise have been ‘ordinary’ moments. Is this really legitimate in the sphere of reportage?
You could argue that Vernaschi is the consummate modern photojournalist: he’s taken onboard every facet of currently successful (read prize winning) photography – developing world trauma, shock, heavily stylistic tics – and put it together in a very potent package.
[...] morning, I was pleased to find that the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting responded swiftly to criticism of Marco Vernaschi’s photographs of Babirye Margret, who was exhumed so that he could [...]
Ben,
I haven’t actually seen your first answer to my comment. I hope it wasn’t too nasty.
I cannot refer to any particular image of the concentration camps liberation, I just remember seing many of dead bodies, bodies of people who clearly had gone through extensive trauma, needless to say. When I have time I can dig out some, but I think it’s silly to argue that these images don’t exist…
Maybe you don’t ’systematically’ assume that ‘the poor African family’ is being exploited, reading the thread again maybe I got this feeling because of some of the comments posted in response to your post. I apologize. I think it’s as much a stereotype on Africans, sorry to generalise, to see them as victims of Western media, my (small) experience in East Africa is that they often know very well how to defend themselves or how they want to appear to the outside world. But I am not saying in this case that the family weren’t manipulated, I don’t know.
I find many journalists reporting on some negative aspects of any African society often come under the attack of holding post colonial attitudes, or having some deliberate intentions to portray Africans, Ugandans in this case, in a way that fits Western stereotypes. Your later comment ‘not all Africans run around naked with spears doing voodoo as some people seem to think’, makes me think that maybe that’s also something you are resenting in the work of Mr. Vernaschi.
Should we only report on positive issues in Uganda, or anywhere else, simply because you have misinformed people who will make generalisations?
Besides, what’s wrong with running around naked with spears?
The fact that some people misinterpret the traditional lifestyle of certain communities in remote parts of that continent as being somewhat inferior to Western lifestyles doesn’t mean that these communities shouldn’t be portrayed or reported on (some are facing major environmental issues at the moment, I also find obsene to find a Mursi or a Karo in Ethiopia being somewhat forced to adopt western way of dressing because western christian ngo’s think it’s bad to be naked, anyway, I digress completely).
I wrote earlier: ”What is obsene, this phenomeneon of ritual killings or the photograph depicting its victims? these are genuine questions and I’m not being rhetorical here.”
I guess my wording was not great, I was trying to engage a debate about this photo of the mutilated naked boy, weighing the photographers intentions, the issue at stake versus the children future welfare, the role of the parents, what is it that makes it obsene or exploitative or illegal, having less of an emotionally charged debate.
I personally object to the method used by mr. Vernacshi, but I hate this Stalinian trials you see on blogs and internet communities like lightstalkers.
I think it’s difficult to judge in retrospect the intentions and the morality of a photographer, especially when so many of the protagonists are not being asked their version of the story. As I tried to explain in my previous comment, it’s often up to the photographer on the ground to make these decisions often based on very subtle and subjective impressions. My only guess is that Mr. Vernaschi clearly got carried away.
Rgds.
Hi Carla,
thanks for your comments. Read this:
http://vigilantejournalist.com/blog/archives/1615
you may change you mind?
It’s an interesting account. thanks for sharing. I don’t know if it changes my mind, or make me rethink what I have said before.
In the post http://vigilantejournalist.com/blog/archives/1615 Anne holmes brings new elements to the public, the fact that Vernaschi asked her to change the caption of the photo of the exhumed girl, and a testimony of the Ugandan policeman who is in charge of dealing with ritual killings in Uganda.
We don’t really know whether Mr. Vernaschi asked Anne Holmes to change the captions after he checked his facts with Ugandan police and realised he had his facts wrong or if he had intentionnally invented these facts (the forensic details of how she died) and realising people were inquiring the matter ask to change them.
I agree it’s pretty bad to forget the name of the person who was exhumed under your eyes and at your request or the exact circumstances surrounding her death, but it’s possible if you have covered many of these incidents, although it can appear shocking.
Also, why the police did leave the exhumation happen and turned a blind eye to Vernachi’s doing, supposidly for the cause of bringing awareness to the issue of ritual killings (as it was reported before), if in fact it was not a ritual killing as it’s now being argued.
I don’t think also the testimony of this policeman is necessarily totally impartial, I don’t really know the subject, I haven’t got a first hand experience of the Ugandan police force, or how effective they are in fighting these crimes, or whether they may have or not some interest in casting doubts on reports of such killings. The policeman also doesn’t really say who are these people who he says mislead mr. Vernaschi and in what way they did so.
In anycase that wasn’t what you were attacking Mr. Vernaschi for in the first place, if I understood you well it was because he portrayed a mutilated naked boy and that he payed the family in exchange to have the body of their daughter exhumed, which Vernaschi refuted (he said he later offer them some money out of compassion or to pay lawyers fees), and now the policeman refutes Vernaschi’s allegations. It’s very much the word of one man against another. In the word of the policeman although the court case is being carried out by the state, families may also put forward a civil case against the alleged murderers, so it’s still possible that mr. vernaschi genuinely wanted to help this family. We don’t know.
I think it is still a very opaque case. I don’t know what went through Mr.Vernaschi’s mind that made him feel to have someone exhumed to take a picture was justifiable, if only from a journalistic point of view, because in my opinion it’s staging a photo, (although I don’t know whether he had clearly stated this or not in his captions from the start). I want to believe that he deeply felt that the end justified the means, and that he got carried away and that no other motivations pushed him to do what he did.
rgds
[...] But the ever vigilant Benjamin Chesterton of adevelopingstory.org certainly did. In a post titled Pulitzer Center Crisis in Ethics, Benjamin raised some very targets, and in retrospect, very appropriate questions about the ethics [...]
I dont know where to begin, but this image is one that truly troubles me as a photojournalist I am all too familiar with working on a story that can have complications. While I was working on East Side Stories Gang Life in East Los Angeles . When I shot Chivo with his baby daughter after they tried to shoot at his family the night before. I could not help feel the immense guilt of letting this image out into the world. But many of us were trying to ban automatic weapons which were killing many of our kids. So the image was very important for us here in the states to see.
But I also had come across situations that I know if I would photographed would have raised even more eye brows. I dont know if this image Mr. Vernaschi has taken is even going to be viewed by many, its too gripping. We make the point of the story without the horrific image and respecting the DEAD. As a father I would not want to see my daughters mutilated and exposed, its disrepectful where I come from and I am not sure if an image like this will change much
Thanks for responding Ben, and thanks again to Carla for challenging your response.
I have tried to imagine if that was my child, how I would feel about this, and I can conceive of a theoretical parent who believes that the story being told to the world and maybe helping to end whatever practices led to the death is worth the trauma of exhuming the recently buried body of that child. I’m not trying to say what has happened is right, or wrong, but maybe the parents and the photographer both felt that what they were doing would have a positive impact in some way? The photographers intentions are an important part of this debate, whether we agree with how he conducted himself or not.
The issue seems to revolve around how much awareness raising or changing of perceptions photographs can bring and how much this can override individuals rights (to privacy, dignity etc). I think this is a very difficult area, with a lot of moral uncertainty, a lot of the issues are hard to judge until later too, until the historical circumstances become clearer and the role of a particular image is clarified.
Think of some of the images from the Vietnam / American war, I guess the obvious example is Nick Ut’s image of a naked girl running, in pain from napalm burns. Would you argue that this image should not have been shown because it violates the privacy / dignity of the child?
Good points. Again though I have to point out the photo that you are talking about was not staged. The photographer shot what was happening, he did not create the shot. Also the idea that the photo had much to to with the war ending is simply not true.
This is worth reading:
http://ugandajournalist.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/disrespect-pulitzer-center-publishes-pictures-of-exhumed-dead-ugandan-child-for-a-story/
[...] photographing of the exhumed body of one of the victims in particular has sparked debate – read Ben Chesterton’s post here and Roy Greenslade’s piece here for the full [...]
Felix, I agree. I think the photographer’s intentions are always central to any debates on journalistic integrity, representation of other cultures, objectivity etc. Especially in the photographic medium where you could argue there is always some form of interpretation of the events unfolding or the issues explored by the photographer (I’m not even talking of the choice of subjects but only what you chose to frame in your shot or exclude, whether you decide to shoot B&W or colour, elements of the image you chose to highlight by means of burning and dodging etc, I mean, that’s an old debate). At the end of the day you can always accuse the photographer of having some agenda, of being biased etc and to some extent it is true, photojournalism isn’t always an objective medium, you make choices.
So why as a photographer you make these choices is very important in assessing your professional integrity.
I find that being pushed in a corner by sloppy diatribes that swiftly jump to conclusions on Marco Vernaschi’s intentions as soon as something is revealed probably didn’t encourage Mr. Vernaschi to debate further his choices.
I guess it is also healthy as a profession to have people who feel they have to safeguards certain values and, rightly so, ask certain questions.
rgds
Carla says: “I think the photographer’s intentions are always central to any debates on journalistic integrity, representation of other cultures, objectivity etc”
The problem with this proposition is that we can never actually know what the intentions of a photographer are. I don’t think it’s controversial to point out that for many photographers being ‘concerned’ is no more than a marketing position in a shrinking market.
[...] http://www.adevelopingstory.org/2010/pulitzer-center-crisis-in-ethics [...]
[...] to take pictures of the corpse, child exploitation, and outright fabrication. A Developing Story raised some strong questions of both Vernaschi and the Pulitzer Center. The Pulitzer Center took time in responding to the allegations. Other bloggers led the charge, [...]
[...] http://www.adevelopingstory.org/2010/pulitzer-center-crisis-in-ethics [...]
Thank you for helping bring this to light and providing this forum for discussion. This whole scenario has been incredibly bizarre, I didn’t quite know what to make of it at first- and in some respects, still don’t. I know Gilles Peress has photographed the remains of wholesale slaughter and exhumed mass graves, but under different circumstances and for different effect than what has occurred here. News as a whole has gone so sadly downhill in general, it should come as no surprise that (some) photojournalists have also jumped on the sensationalist bandwagon, along with their bastard paparazzi offshoot. Perhaps this Marco cat really did “mean well,” I don’t know. But it would be nice to hear both from the parents- and especially from other giants in the field of photojournalism to review and reaffirm some of the basic tenants governing photojournalism and the rights of those being focused on.
Much of the photo coverage of Haiti left a big enough stench, something like this, if left unaddressed can only create significantly more doubt, dismay and disillusionment.
Read more questions from André Liohn on: http://untoldstories.pulitzercenter.org/2010/04/uganda-babirye-the-girl-from-katugwe.html
Dear Helle,
I’ve edited your comment as I did Marco’s before. I don’t like to do this but in the article we stick to what is known and do not make further allegations. I think these would need to be put to the Pulitzer Centre for some response. I also think that at this point Andre is starting to look like he is vindictive towards Marco. Again this is a distraction from the more important points about ethics.
THANKS
Benjamin
Please see my statement on Untold Stories regarding this matter, which includes a new statement from the Pulitzer Center and links to video interviews with the mother of Margaret Babirye Nankya and Richard Omongole, a Ugandan lawyer and former country director for Amnesty International
http://untoldstories.pulitzercenter.org/2010/04/uganda-response-to-critics.html
INTERVIEWS:
http://untoldstories.pulitzercenter.org/uganda-child-sacrifice/
Andrew,
you say: ‘I don’t think it’s controversial to point out that for many photographers being ‘concerned’ is no more than a marketing position in a shrinking market’.
Please be more specific, anyone in mind in particular? If you make sweeping generalisations and by doing so discredit a profession and its practionners at least have the courage of your convictions.
In the Vernaschi case, nobody, Benjamin Chesterton included, know about the exact ins and outs of how the report was produced, much which is relayed are hearsays, uncorroborated facts and fantasies on Vernaschi’s intentions and agenda. While he may very well be guilty of all the things he is now being accused of (among which fabrication), I find ironic to see that many of his detractors are not afraid to treat the subject in a sensasionalist, tabloid like manner when denouncing what they perceive as ‘a transparent exercise in sensationalism’.
What makes me uneasy about all this is that some use this story to advance their own agenda and their own vision of what they think reporting on Africa should look like.
I respect the opinions of Benjamin expressed in this post and generally on this blog or on Lightstalkers, or the ones eloquently expressed by Asim Rafiqui on his own blog
(http://arafiqui.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/hey-buddy-hold-that-execution-while-my-memord-card-reformats-or-how-far-do-you-have-to-go-to-a-story/).
They clearly feel Africa is misrepresented in the press and often a playground by ruthless, self serving and opportunistic photojournalists who trawl the continent in search of sensationalist stories.
While it’s maybe a very noble cause, I don’t think Benjamin Chesterton or Asim Rafiqui, (who from looking at his website, and with all due respect to all the work he has done in other parts of the world, doesn’t seem to have ever reported on any African issue or country, but please correct me if I am wrong) are either authorities on Uganda, Africa or are photojournalism scholars or legal experts on ethics in the media for that matter. Yet their opinions have been widely relayed on the net (the Guardian even linked to this post).
I deeply believe that if ritual killings of children exist in Uganda then it should be reported on. Regardless of the fact that some people might be deluded in thinking that these practises are shared by the vast majority of people living on that continent.
No one, photojournalists included, can be fully responsible for the stupidity and lack of general knowledge of the general public.
I also refute the idea that Africa, sorry again to generalise, is only represented in stereotypes or as a dark and barbaric continent as it has been expressed in some of the comments here or by Asim on his blog.
Read The Africa Report, National Geographic, Sahara Reporters, the French La Lettre du Continent or Jeune Afrique, listen to the BBC world sercice, the French RFI, DeutcheWelle, watch Le Journal de l’Afrique on francophone channel TV5, and I forget many others, maybe you’ll change your mind.
Even if one looks at the decried WPP, this year 10 stories or singles dealing with a theme or issue in an African country were awarded:
Unrest in Madagascar in February last year
Guinea Buissau and the drug trade
The stoning to death of a man convicted of adultery in Somalia
Starving villagers in Zimbabwe reduce a dead elephant to bones in just 2 hours
Portraits of Senegalese traditional wrestlers
Drought in Kenya
Middle class in Mozambique
Fashion shoot by Malick Sidibé
JR project in Kenya
Les Sapeurs of Congo Brazzaville
I’d say it’s a balanced view of Africa in terms of so called ‘positive’ and ‘dark’ outlook on the continent
Whether Mr. Vernaschi’s treatment of ritual killings in Uganda was insightful or a grossly exaggerated account of the issue is difficult to judge if you don’t have a first hand experience on the subject. What seems evident though, and from Vernaschi’s own admission is that a picture was staged, and the Pulitzer centre should shed light on all aspects of how this story was produced, as much as the BBC should investigate how also they were allegedly misled in their report.
In any case I find problematic and misleading to make huge generalisations on the quality and the value of photojournalism coming from that part of the world, and by doing so discredit the work of many dedicated professionals, without referring to particular stories, photographs, or photographers. And my guess is that most of the time the reason is that the detractors know little about the issues, the people or the countries they feel are so badly portrayed.
On another note and to further the debate about the utility of photographing children and trauma, while I also personally take issue with Vernaschi’s picture of the mutilated little boy, I recall the case of a young boy, orphaned, badly burned and mutilated after the bombing of a market in Bagdhad, in 2003 if I remember well. The reports both visual and written (and the video was hard to watch) by the news agency Reuters resulted in an outpour of generosity from the international community, so much so that the young boy was eventually evacuated from the war zone to Britain and received prosthetic arm and leg.
Rgds,
Carla,
I’ve lived and worked in Ethiopia and Kenya. I was the BBC World Service Trusts Country Director in Ethiopia.
As an Editor I was responsible for a lot of output as well as a massive journalism training programme in East Africa, so yes I am qualified to talk about editorial guidelines because all output was my responsibility.
I was also responsible for kickstarting UASID funded training in photojournalism that has taken place in Kenya and Ethiopia. I work with two photographers resident in Kenya, one who is Kenyan. We were nominated for an Amnesty International Media award for our work in Kenya … blah, blah, blah.
You write as if I object to all children being photographed. Not true. Each photo should be judged on its own merits. I think you need to say why you would publish this particular photo.
Really, though you should stop commenting as an anonymous person. You have an important point of view, but who are, where you live and what you do are all relevant to where you are coming from
Carla says:
April 25, 2010 at 8:49 pm
“Andrew…Please be more specific, anyone in mind in particular?”
I don’t need to point the finger at individuals; that would do nothing but reduce the thread to a slanging match. The key point is that the majority of grants and awards available to reportage photographers require a clumsy statement of ‘concern’ or desire to ‘change’ the world. As the editorial market is now so underfunded that puts a great deal of pressure on photographers to conspicuously ‘care’ in order to give the gatekeepers what they want. I think a cooler and more detached viewpoint is generally more illuminating than a schmaltz-laden attempt to simultaneously change the world and keep your head above the financial water.
“If you make sweeping generalisations and by doing so discredit a profession and its practionners at least have the courage of your convictions.”
If only I had the power to ‘discredit a profession’ with a few ‘generalisations’…Thankfully, I don’t need that power because the profession is successfully discrediting itself with every further foolish act. As for having the courage of my convictions I accompanied a series of my photographs in the current edition of OjodePez with the following statement:
“I’d been looking at the lives of others for far too long. There was no thunderbolt that jolted me out of the world of editorial reportage, just a long slow painful realisation that I’d lost my way. It was like leaving a religious cult with the believers incredulous that you could turn your back on the one true path for those who were “concerned”. Concerned with what? Death, disease, and disaster in the developing world. Anorexia, obesity, and addiction in the first world. More than anything, concerned with winning prizes. It never deviated from the pre-ordained script. I mean, why whisper about the ambiguities and complexities of life when you can let out a deafening roar of conspicuous grief?
Looking through the window doesn’t seem to have made things any clearer, maybe it’s time we paused and glanced at our own reflections.”
Maybe you can tap into the courage of your own convictions and let us know why you feel so strongly about the debate.
[...] “due diligence”, they may have realized what the incomparable Benjamin Chesterton of A Developing Story did. Had they investigated the story a little more seriously, they may have realized what the [...]
Benjamin,
As you mentionned you lived in Ethiopia and Kenya, for a year and three months respectively? That’s what I’ve gathered on the net, please correct me if it’s inexact.
In anycase that makes you more qualified than me on East Africa as I’ve only worked in Kenya for a 2 months, but I don’t write a blog accusing other photographers and their work of ‘transparent exercise in sensationalsim’.
I’m sorry but from what you’re telling me, and it’s impressive by all accounts, and in my humble and otherwise meaningless opinion, you are not an authority on Africa or Uganda either from an academic point of view or a journalistic point of view.
But you clearly know a lot about ethics within the BBC, and I guess that’s what your debate and this post is about. So I apologise for digressing.
As for the picture of the little boy, as I’ve said in my previous post I have issues with the photo. I don’t find it obscene or degrading for the young boy. As I have said I remember when such hard visual account proved to be useful for the victim. But here, as it touches to his future sexuality, I think there are probably more taboos attached to this than to not having a leg or an arm, and being clearly identifiable on the photo makes it problematic in my opinion. Although, it would be interesting to know if his own community is already aware of him being the victim of sexual mutilation and if the photo makes him prejudice in that respect or not.
Thanks Benjamin for forcing me to divulge something that I had decided to keep private. That’s your ethics for you I guess…
For anyone else info, I had contacted Ben personally to inform him of my real identity, as I was challenging his opinions on his blog, I thought he ought to know my name. The reason I have use the pseudo Carla is that in a recent past, after having defended AP photographer for her photo of the dying American soldier on another online community, I had been bombarded with threats and insult on my personal email account. I didn’t want the same thing to happen with this case as it’s a very controversial and sensitive one. But as I am now pushed in a corner, my name is Eve Coulon and I have been living and working in north Africa for the last four years.
Cheers.
Eve,
thank you for letting us know who you are.
Please don’t try and engage me in an argument about whether I am an expert on ‘Africa’, something I have never claimed to be. I’ve lived in Britain for thirty years and I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on ‘Europe’ either!
That said a number of East African journalists have responded to this case. Ignore me and read what they have to say as I’ve already suggested to you. Or John Edwin Mason who believes this is a form of ‘cultural racism’, or Glenna Gordon who had lived as a photographer in Uganda for two years and writes,
‘Before I even clicked on the link, I knew which photos he was talking about. I’d seen them, months earlier, and they struck me as somewhat off. I couldn’t put my finger on it exactly, but the dark and eerie photos didn’t look anything like the country I’d lived in for two years.’
To suggest that I forced you to reveal yourself is totally absurd. I wrote:
‘Really, though you should stop commenting as an anonymous person. You have an important point of view, but who are, where you live and what you do are all relevant to where you are coming from.’
Is that not true?
[...] week, I got an email from Benjamin Chestertonof duckrabbit about a post he’d written on the ethics involved in a series of photos by Italian photographer Marco Vernaschi about child sacrifice in Uganda supported by the Pulitzer [...]
Benjamin,
I don’t know if knowing my name and what I do is relevent to my comments. I cannot be the judge of that.
I don’t things it is absurd to suggest that I was forced by your comment to divulge my name.
Your comment on me commenting as an anonymous person was in my opinion misleading for others as it could have suggested that I had some personal interest in challenging your opinion or that I was related in some way to the case.
I am not related to the Pulitzer Centre or to Mr. Vernaschi and to my knowledge I don’t have any interest, personal or otherwie, to challenge your views on this case.
Just someone interested in photography, photojournalism and its practise.
You knew my real name, as I had sent you a personal email early in the thread, so you knew what I’ve just said.
I can only remark that you did not suggest to the commentators in this post who agree with your views to reveal their identity.
Thank you for pointing out to me what Glenna Gordon wrote, I haven’t had the time to read it yet but will, it sounds insightful and pertinent.
Thanks for your post and taking the time to answer to my comments.
All the best.
e
Eve,
‘Your comment on me commenting as an anonymous person was in my opinion misleading for others as it could have suggested that I had some personal interest in challenging your opinion or that I was related in some way to the case.
I am not related to the Pulitzer Centre or to Mr. Vernaschi and to my knowledge I don’t have any interest, personal or otherwie, to challenge your views on this case. ‘
You could have of course pointed this out without revealing your name. I wasn’t suggesting any of the above but if you or anyone took it that way I’m sorry. Actually I think the work that you do gives a real validity to your opinions.
‘I can only remark that you did not suggest to the commentators in this post who agree with your views to reveal their identity.’
This is s VERY GOOD point and fair to point out!
We probably should ban anonymous comments all together.
Once again Eve thank you for expressing an important point of view. I’m sure many people agree with much of what you have said and perhaps haven’t felt comfortable to say so here or elsewhere.
Benjamin
This is to rectify my above anonymity..
[...] very much appreciate the article written by Mr. Benjamin Chesterton, titled Pulitzer Centre Crisis in Ethics which starts with the quote by Mr. Joseph Pulitzer III himself: “We will illuminate dark [...]
[...] Role of the Pulitzer Center (Adevelopingstory.org) [...]
Please read our latest blog about the ethics in general news stories. It raises some interesting questions regarding Marco Vernaschi´s winning pictures in WPP from Guinea-Bissau. See: http://www.maydaypress.com/blog/page9_files/024fe1f5a1638b898aee32fcbb1aa95d-1.html
Cheers from Jørn Stjerneklar/Mayday Press
Thanks for this Jorn. You don’t just start by asking people to dig bodies up right?
There has to be a process by which you arrive there.
Certainly the questions you are asking about Marco’s work in Guinea-Bissau, which I know you have thought long and hard about, offer some pointers.
Ben,
I just read Vernaschi’s latest statement on the Pulitzer Center website and feel there is some truth in what he has to say about the blogosphere.
Especially concerning the spreading of unverified allegations, as it was the case with the allegations on the exchange of money and with the statement made by the Ugandan police inspector Binoga to Anne Holmes on her blog Vigilante Journalist, relayed by you on this blog and which so far are only uncoroborrated rumors.
I feel satisfied with the elements put forward by the Pulitzer Centre yesterday, unless proved otherwise, that there was no deliberate fabrication of the stories by Vernaschi.
I think if you criticise, and in this case rightly so don’t take me wrong, other practionners from a moral highground, then you should apply the same high standards to your writing. Being fair to your subjects and checking facts in the pursuit of truth should be the rules for bloggers as much as for journalists, especially if what you say, imply or link to might further damage someone else’s reputation. Blogs are only opinions and not news, but they are influential and unfortunatly unlike the Pulitzer Center they are not accountable. Besides there is no need to be vindictive, the admitted facts are already bad enough.
rgds
Eve,
‘I think if you criticise, and in this case rightly so don’t take me wrong, other practionners from a moral highground, then you should apply the same high standards to your writing. ‘
If you’re going to make a statement like that Eve, please at least have the decency to back it up.
Its seems to have completely slipped you by the the Pulitzer Center withdrew and apologised for the photos I mention in the article above. I said I thought they were wrong and and they agreed. Then they also just slipped out that Marco has another three bodies dug up, incidentally because someone suggested in a comment on a blog.
I’ll let Joerg at Concientious have the final word:
‘One of the sentiments you still hear about blogs (here is a brand-new example) is that blogs are run by amateurs who don’t really know how to behave like real journalists, whereas the professional journalists know how to do proper work (let’s ignore the simple fact that some bloggers are professional journalists). Turns out that in the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting story the roles are actually exactly reversed: It is a blogger – Anne Holmes – who is unearthing all the background information, putting in long hours or research (and even telling the Pulitzer Center about her results), and it is the supposed professionals who gloss over some of the most glaring details. It seems the idea that the idea of amateurish blogs and professional mainstream media doesn’t seem to hold too much water, does it?
There has been a lot of talk how photojournalism is in crisis. I don’t know whether it is. But if it hasn’t been in crisis a few days ago, you can be certain that a lot of people who find out about this story will be convinced that it is now. This story has done photojournalistic credibility no good. Oh, I know, it’s just one photojournalist. But a public that is very distrustful towards the media certainly is not going to bother making any kinds of distinctions, is it? As I argued in my post about image manipulation, trying to regain the public’s trust is one of the most important tasks for the media, and clearly this is not happening here. Quite on the contrary.’
COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED ON THIS THREAD but anyone who wants to can continue the debate at LIGHTSTALKERS Thank you to all that took the time to comment.
Please note, after a discussion we decided to close the comments on this post. It was felt that the debate had run its course and otherwise would go on endlessly.
It is standard practice on many sites to close comments for obvious practical and legal reasons.
I was contacted by people on BOTH sides of the argument who wanted to make further points and I declined to re-open the comments.
In response Eve Coulon has written to me demanding a right to reply, stating that because we closed the comments I am ‘dishonest’. of ‘double standards’, that if ‘censuring the people who disagree with you is your idea of a fair and open discussion on the subject, well, you’re a piece of work’ and that ‘I find it worrying that someone like you goes and teach ethics to aspiring journalists or was part of a BBC trust, whatever this function entitles, and I will raise my concerns to whom is willing to hear it.’
Fair enough she’s entitled to her opinion and some may agree with her. So I will let her Eve have the last words. At the same time I would like to point out, that if you read the original post I never wrote that Vernaschi paid the family to dig up the body. We will wait and see in Vernaschi follows through with his threats to sue.
Eve Coulon:
I have backed up my statement, I have mentionned the allegations made in your post that Marco Vernaschi paid the family to have the body of Margaret dug up and the allegations of fabrications (in relations to the exact circumstances of Margaret’s death) made by the policeman Binoga to Ann Holmes on her blog, which she didn’t corroborate with other testimonies, and that you linked to on this post and encourage me to read to make me change my mind, as you had put it.
So far, and as I said, until otherwise proved, I find the elements put forward by the Pulitzer Centre convincing. And I believe there was no fabrication. Mr. Binoga admitted it and he also admitted he was not on the site of the exhumation so cannot know in which circumstances the exchange of money was made.
Far from me the idea to argue the utility of blogs of whether they are written by professionals or amateurs. This allegation is just again an unprofessional way to discredit my position and make diversion.
That said you will agree with me that this blog and the others linked to on this post, are opinion pieces and not news pieces, and that any conscienscious editor before putting a damning piece like this one on the net will have checked and re checked all the facts, spoke to all the protagonists etc, if only to avoid being sued for libel.
All I am saying is that if you write something which is going to further damage the reputation and career of someone, you should do it in the most neutral manner and without jumping to conclusions or influencing readers opinions with rumors and unverified evidence.
As Joerg said this story has done photojournalism no good, but I dare say that it has done blogging credibility no good either. And I dearly hope for you or Anne Holmes that no libel or diffamation case will be pressed.
[...] fierce criticism, directed both toward Vernaschi’s reporting methods and ethics and the role of the Pulitzer Center in backing this project. The issues raised are serious and we address them [...]
[...] ha risposto ad alcune dei suoi critici, riconoscendo di aver osato, ma adducendo il valore etico finale del [...]
[...] 付费去拍照，展示死亡和受伤的孩童，这在西方记者守则里白纸黑字绝对禁止的行为，作为代表记者最高追求的普利策新闻中心，如何让这样的照片过关？继网友Ben Chesterton率先开炮之后，谴责的声音一浪高过一浪，最终普利策相关负责人道歉，并撤下了有争议的两张照片。 [...]