•User Rating•: / 0
•Poor••Best• 

What role does imagery and journalism have in the reporting of war, climate change, humanitarian crisis and other global issues in a world where public information platforms are constantly changing? Does journalism need to re-invent itself in order to adapt? And how can young people, who rely increasingly on UTube, the Daily Show and other new media, learn to critically discern credible information and not be open to manipulation by political, commercial and other interests?

Writer Edward Girardet explores these avenues for The Essential Edge based on a recent keynote speech he gave at the International Center for Photography (www.icp.org) in New York on “Inspiring Dialogue: The Intersection of Images, Journalism and Global Issues.” This brought together journalists, photographers, editors, film-makers and other media professionals on the inauguration of the “On History” exhibition featuring American photojournalist Susan Meiselas, particularly renowned for her coverage of Nicaragua and Kurdistan.

Images, journalism, global issues - all these are close to my heart, especially for someone who has covered wars and humanitarian crises for so many years and in so many parts of the world. I don’t want to sound like a dinosaur proclaiming that rock ‘n roll – in this case reporting – is not dead. I’m actually commenting as someone who has NOT given up on what good journalism should be about, and the roll it needs to play both in an increasingly global - but also local society.

For anyone, whether journalist or informed individual, I believe that we’re all deeply concerned by the need to sustain – and to nurture - independent, quality reporting. This is crucial for any society that takes its humanity – and democratic values - seriously. It’s also pertinent with regard to the coverage of global issues, whether the rising conflict in Afghanistan, AIDS in Africa and Asia, the impact of climate change on island states and coastal areas, the trafficking of young women from the former Soviet Union, or the 50 million Americans without proper health insurance.

Whether considered ‘hot’ or not, these are all issues that affect everyone on the planet, no matter who, no matter where. Today, no one can afford NOT to be informed. It doesn’t matter if you’re a business manager, school teacher, factory worker, student, soldier, and yes, even a politician...Whatever happens in China, in the Congo, New Orleans, Darfur or Wall Street will affect you, your family, your community – maybe not straight away, but eventually.

Clearly, some of these issues run into compassion fatigue, something that tends to happen when international aid agencies – often obsessed by the need to fund-raise – simplistically push the issue to the brink with imagery and content that becomes tedious to many audiences. Emaciated babies, wrecked houses, heart-wrenching appeals for more aid, for more money. It all becomes the same.

However, for editors to argue that malaria or child-rape victims in Africa do not merit being on the agenda is simply not good enough. There are ALWAYS imaginative ways of drawing public attention, particularly given that indirect economic or social effects may re-emerge in forms that seem completely unrelated. For example, this can be increased African migration to Europe -which may prove to be one of Europe’s biggest challenges in the years to come. This is where the media has a responsibility to report.

The point is – our world has become so crosscutting and so interlinked that we have no option but to be involved. Can ordinary Americans and Europeans afford to ignore the impact of emerging economies in China or India on their own jobs or the way natural resources are exploited? The Chinese, for example, are rapidly becoming the new imperial presence in Africa. Wherever you go, you can see English-language CCTV – the Chinese counterpart to CNN or Al-Jazeera. Both the Chinese government and companies are increasingly involved in a blatant form of neocolonial raking in of Africa’s hidden wealth – and in a manner that does not necessarily benefit Africans. The Chinese have always been there in Africa but the change over the past five or six years has been poignant. THIS needs reporting.

Of course, the joke in Europe where I am based is that everyone, whether Americans or non-Americans, should have the right to vote in the US presidential elections. Whatever Washington decides on the global platform – be it starting a war in Iraq, its position on Palestine or its channeling of massive resources into the battle against AIDS in Africa, has a positive or negative impact on every human being on earth.

POORLY INFORMED AUDIENCES

What makes it scary, however, is how poorly informed the average American is about global issues – despite the United States being the so-called land of communication. In many cases, I have found the local taxi driver in Nairobi or the Afghan peasant with his two-dollar radio transistor for receiving the BBC World Service - or Voice of America - to be far more savvy about what is going on in the world.

Most of the mainstream US broadcast media – and I am not talking just about FOX News – but also many once good newspapers - have long since given up on real journalism, especially when it comes to the critical reporting of their government (eg. The way the Bush administration has been misrepresenting or otherwise manipulating information for starting its war in Iraq, the abuse of the US constitution or the corruption of US contractors resulting in the disappearance of hundreds of millions of dollars, all aspects that many mainstream media have failed to question properly).

The same goes for many global issues. I believe that we have all seen a serious deterioration in the quality of international coverage be it for budgetary, corporate or editorial reasons. Sadly, Europe appears to be going the same way with many mainstream media, such as Le Monde or even the Guardian, also cutting back. Quite frankly, this is a disgrace but we only have ourselves to blame if our media fail in their jobs.

As journalists, or those who believe in good reporting, whether readers, viewers or corporate sponsors, such as Shell which is funding the Susan Meiselas exhibition, we now have to push the envelope in the pursuit of information excellence. It is heartening that Shell, a company that has been heavily criticized for its activities in places like the Delta in Nigeria, is actually supporting the need for better journalism. I wish that more companies would do the same especially as traditional government donors, such as Switzerland and Britain, are tragically failing in the need to support of critical media initiatives aimed at promoting greater accountability in the area of international aid, peacekeeping and post-conflict recovery.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that the Fourth Estate - photojournalism, television, documentary films, print, radio and new media - continues to do its job. And better. Obviously, many countries – here I’m thinking of Russia, Burma or Zimbabwe - lack the sort of informed and outspoken reporting needed to keep tabs on their governments, or the way some companies do business, or even the effectiveness of the United Nations and the aid agencies. Whatever happened to UN reform for example? Or how effective really is development aid? Or why are certain government donors funding projects with taxpayer dollars or Euros which cost a lot but make little sense other than to feather political egos.

At the same time, you’ll always find people, such as that small band of exiled journalists who founded The Zimbabwean newspaper, which operates out of South Africa. They know only too well that if you give up the flame, you will lose your dignity and your freedom. These are the people who give one hope. These are the ones willing to take risks because they believe that only this way can they help produce change. Good reporting, despite the threats and dangers, can make a difference. Sadly, however, the public does not realize this until it is too late.

MEDA21 AS AN EXAMPLE

However, this is not something that simply happens. One needs to work at it. And one needs to support it. I am involved with a Geneva-based programme – the Media21 Global Journalism Network initiative (www.media21geneva.org) – that seeks to encourage better reporting of global issues. Of course, this is only one of a number of international initiatives such as Internews’s current effort to involve local journalists in the reporting of humanitarian crises (www.internews.org) or that of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in London to improve local reporting skills in places like Central Asia and the Balkans (www.iwpr.org)

The whole point of Media21 is to involve as many outside partners as possible, whether sponsors or media. The objective is to provide experienced local and regional editors, reporters, photographers, producers from all over the world with a more global perspective of key issues that concern both them, and the planet. These have included the likes of Chinese Central TV, Seychelles Broadcasting, the Kenya Nation, Chad TV, Science Magazine in India, investigative journalists from the Philippines, independent film-makers, BBC Latin America service and even – believe it or not - the deputy editor of Gourmet Magazine here in the New York.

We bring in journalists for week-long workshops to Geneva to focus on themes such as climate change, access to health, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, human rights, humanitarian disaster response and so on. This offers them access to a wide array of experts – people they normally never have the chance to meet - from the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, private sector, the military, academia, governments – and media itself. From there, they go onto field trips to places like Haiti, Uganda, Benin, or even the Swiss Alps (to explore the impact of climate change on glaciers) to obtain first hand reporting in a part of the world they would otherwise never visit.

Equally important, is the experience-sharing amongst the journalists themselves. It’s exciting to see how often the journalists discover that they are not alone, that their colleagues elsewhere face the same problems. The Media21 network now has over 1,000 members interested in global issues, so this is one way one can respond to this need for better reporting.

THE IMPACT OF IMAGERY

Looking at Susan Meiselas’s extraordinary contribution last night at the opening of her exhibition, I also realize that with a fast-changing media, we really need to think about how we’re going to ensure the continuation of good photojournalism as a crucial component for making the public aware. (I am particularly glad to see that Susan has been able to bring back her photography to the very people she was covering and not just have it published in magazines or exhibited in places thousands of miles away).

The image plays a vital role as a witness of moments in history in a manner that no other medium, whether television, radio, print or even the Internet can convey. And while there is indeed far more competition for people being at the right place, at the right time with their mobile telephones or digital cameras, nothing can really replace the experienced professional who may spend months, even years focusing on a particular subject. And of course, Susan Meseilas is precisely such a professional.

So where does this intersection of images, journalism and global issues lie? Back in 1984 - some 23 years ago - I was traveling in Ethiopia on assignment for The Christian Science Monitor, but also to shoot a documentary. I was accompanying Brazilian photographer Sebastao Salgado http://www.terra.com.br/sebastiaosalgado/and a medical team from Medecins sans Frontieres. MSF wanted to help get the word out about what was really happening with the famine situation – one which was impoverishing and ultimately devastating the lives of millions of Ethiopians. Hundreds of victims were dying every day in sprawling refugee camps, such as Kobo and Korem. Names that some of you may remember.

It was a predicament that was clearly aggravated by years of drought. But as with most humanitarian crises around the world today - Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Burma… such calamities are largely man-created. In this case, the repression perpetrated by the Addis Ababe government at the time – which was engaged in the forced resettlement of entire communities. And similar to Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, it was a regime that basically cared precious about its own people. Many of the aid agencies were reluctant to speak out for fear of getting kicked out, which is precisely what happened to MSF when it did speak out. Most of the other aid agencies, including lead organizations such as Save the Children and the UNHCR, remained quiet about this forced movements, which often happened at night.

Overall, it was a horrendous situation.

One morning – just before dawn – Salgado and I – accompanied by my French cameraman - ventured out into one of the camps. Lit by lanterns, we came across a large makeshift shelter where a group of men were washing the bodies for burial of those who had died during the night. There were already some 40 corpses neatly aligned on plastic sheets on the ground. A small child, no more than eight or nine months, lay motionless as its mother wept parched tears. Suddenly, it began to move. It was alive. The mother let out a cry and immediately swept it up into her arms before running off. The child had simply been rigid from the night’s bitter cold and been mistaken for dead. It was doubtful, however, that this precious little human being would survive another day, let alone a night.

Salgado - but also my cameraman - recorded this scene - and many others – all of which aptly portrayed the wretchedness of such humanitarian predicaments which are no different today. In 2008, however, no one remembers the film footage that we shot despite its being shown on various TV networks worldwide.

Yet, Salgado’s pictures of those people living, dying and surviving under such base conditions continue to haunt us today. (I was also struck by the number of photographs in Susan’s exhibition that I recognize) It is that well-chosen image that can assure that these extraordinary moments in history remain engrained in our minds. The picture that every child or adult who has seen it will remember for the rest of their lives.

Just think back - honestly - to the wars or political upheavals we have known, or heard about because we were not born or too young at the time. The Robert Capa photographs during the Spanish Civil War or D-Day. Nick Ut’s famous napalm-burned girl in Vietnam or the Eddy Adams’ shot of the Saigon police chief executing a Viet Cong prisoner. The Don McCullin photograph of young prisonsers about to be shot in the Belgian Congo. The Josef Koudelka shots of young Czechs protesting the Soviet invasion in 1968. The Steve McCurry portrait of the Afghan girl with the green eyes. The Leonard Freed shots of the Romanian uprising in 1989. The Kevin Carter photograph of the small Sudanese girl with a vulture looking on…I can go on…and, I am sure, so can you.

All these images represent the power – and above all the role - of good photojournalism. It is that single photograph that catches the moment that remains with us. Even if most people have no idea who shot the photograph. The ability to frame a moment in time that becomes a symbol of that period in history. These are images that not only tell a story but incite the imagination…leaving us to wonder what really happened. (Who is this human being – or these people - in the picture? We also wonder what the photographer was thinking or trying to show, which often is another story on its own.)

Of course, as a writer, I strongly believe that journalism and documentary films have their roles to play, and indeed do incite responses among those who need to be aware. Good TV footage can prompt public outrage. A well-reported newspaper series can serve as a critical document for policymakers to act. Now, all these wars, these crises, that I have just mentioned were covered by film or television. And yet, while many of us may have seen hours and hours of their footage, it is hard to recall one single image that symbolizes - purely and overwhelmingly - these global tragedies.

One of my dear friends, French cineaste Christophe de Ponfilly, spent years shooting documentaries about Afghanistan, Angola and other humanitarian or conflict zones around the world. (See “On Remembering Christophe” in The Essential Edge) And yet, despite all his dedicated efforts, they left him frustrated with the profound feeling that he had achieved nothing. That his films had had little or no impact.

Of course, they did have an impact but Christophe eventually took his own life because HE felt that he had failed. The only media that really have an impact, he maintained, are those singular photographs that capture the moment or – as this is really hard to say for me to say as a diehard journalist - those Hollywood features such as The Killing Fields or Blood Diamonds. Hollywood can serve as a superb vehicle for putting across the sort of imagery that can move and even inspire the ordinary public that a well-reported documentary often cannot.

MEDIA PLATFORMS & GLOBAL ISSUES

When we talk about global issues, we’re clearly looking at a world where the media is changing with a speed that confounds conventional media operators - newspaper editors, broadcasters… Quite clearly, we have to regard media of today as being a broad platform incorporating numerous different forms of outreach – radio, TV, print, the internet. The challenge is: how can we assure reliable content and good journalism. Who’s going to pay for it? How are the new photojournalists of today going to survive?

Photography has always been a difficult profession, but it is harder today, at least until we learn how to work more effectively with the new media at our disposal. Personally, I feel that whole new frontiers are opening, but no one – whether the New York Times or French TV - is quite sure how to do it.

It’s also a world where we need to consider the information sources of the new generation. I am thinking of my own children: eight years and 14 years old, and both the beneficiaries of a privileged international upbringing. Whether they like it or not, they’re confronted by global issues every day. My wife works for the UN; I’m a journalist. And most of their friends come from similar international backgrounds.

But I still wonder how journalism can play a role in this world where young people rely primarily on the internet – Utube, the Daily Show and so on - for their awareness of what goes on. They speak and interpret in an entirely different manner. How can the intersection between photography and journalism become part of their lives? And what are WE doing to develop a new generation that knows how to discern reliable information from the internet? All these aspects raise questions, including the coverage of global issues today.

CONFLICTS: REPORTING IT AS IT IS

Earlier this month, the French weekly Paris Match published a series of photographs from Afghanistan showing a group of gloating Taliban said to have been involved in the ambush – and killing – of ten French soldiers. It showed the Afghan rebels holding the personal effects of some of these soldiers. The journalist and photographer had obviously made a particular effort – at the risk of their lives – to meet up with these insurgents in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. The French government complained saying that the photos had only played into the propaganda hands of the Taliban.

And yet, during the 1980s, when I reported the war in Afghanistan, no one complained when western photographers and journalists covered the mujahideen as they attacked Red Army conveys and even executed hapless Afghans captured while working for the Kabul government.

We also remember the image of the dead American soldier in Somalia being dragged behind a vehicle – both in photograph and on film, I might add. This brought home a reality of the war in the Horn of Africa for which many Americans had not been prepared, particularly following the first Gulf War when everything had seemed like one big computer game far removed from dust and brutality on the ground.

I myself filmed in Somalia for The NewsHour (PBS), prior to the international intervention, but focused primarily on the consequences of war on the local population. I also remember removing scenes from this Somalia footage because I considered them too gory, too graphic. The American public television producers felt the same. We can’t show such blood and horror to the public.

In hindsight, I regret this. Today, I am of the mind that no one should hide the realities of war, no matter how distasteful, no matter how horrendous. People need to see that war is not just about surgical strikes managed out of Washington or London. It is an ugly business that affects people’s lives. It’s not something you muck around with. There was not much interest for Somalia in the United States at the time and it was a hard sell, but more of this reporting should have taken place before the internationals had got involved.

Western audiences should have been better informed about Somalia. And to know that one cannot simply walk into these situations in a gung-ho manner and then expect to succeed. Nothing is black and white; conflicts and the reasons behind them are all about lots of different shades of grey – and eventually red. Similarly, had there been more consistent reporting of Afghanistan during the 1990s prior to September 11, 2001, then the United States, Britain and other NATO countries might have been more careful about intervening in a manner that - ironically – has encouraged what has basically become another military – but also international aid - occupation, a complete déjà vu from the Soviet period.

I am also shocked at how poorly informed many American (but also British) decision-makers, including the military, are about Afghanistan. They have failed to understand the history of the Afghans – the fact there will never be a military solution. Nor that you cannot mix a so-called ‘war against terrorism’ coupled with a war against narcotics with an on-the-ground insurgency that is really part of a civil war.

Clearly, there is a need for constant – and independent – critical reporting. Too many American journalists, however, particularly those parachuted in, covering Afghanistan today rely too heavily on reporting with the military rather than going out to see for themselves what is happening in the countryside and to discover how ordinary Afghans think.

Currently, the United States does not want to see pictures of dead Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan. And the TV networks, as well as many other media, are playing along with this. This is not what journalism is about. We have a responsibility to report. And we should not kowtow to what governments want, even in the so-called “public interest.” This is not something for politicians to decide. By pretending that our own people don’t die in wars or that global issues are not of our concern, we are doing an enormous dis-favour to our own audiences. We are allowing ourselves to be manipulated for the sake of politics.

Taking a deep breath, I believe that the photographer, the journalist, the documentary film-maker all have obligations to report such events. Society needs to be aware of what is happening in the world. We need to know what these global issues are about. The consequences are simply too great if we fail. Only by being aware – in other words – informed – can we make demands regarding transparency and accountability from our politicians, our governments, private corporations, the United Nations, international aid agencies, the military…but, above all, ourselves as human beings.

CONCLUSION

I just wish to close with a suggestion about informing the new generation. When I was at school in Britain, all pupils in the upper grades took part in a weekly two hour current affairs session. I also took part in a course called Two Cheers for Demoracy, where every week, two of us teamed up based on our languages, to see how the different European press were covering the same issue. The point was to show us that you had to go to varied sources and that you had to read. All information can be manipulated.

Many schools, whether in France, Switzerland or the United States, do not do this. We have the possibility to ensure that our children will become media-savvy with regard to content as they grow up – and more critical in the way they discern information.

I don’t think newspapers or good broadcasting are dead. But they have to adapt by offering different formats while recognizing that people will be increasingly interested interested – and prepared to pay for - quality information in order to make informed decisions about their businesses or lives.

Nevertheless, the communication’s platform at the disposal of this new generation is vast. If we are to assure that young people know how to assess and question what is being provided on the internet, TV or in newspapers, then this must start in schools. The newspaper associations, the broadcasters, radio editors, journalism departments and so on all need to encourage a culture of journalism that is automatically taught in schools. And not just in North America or Europe, but Africa, Asia and elsewhere. It has to become part of civic responsibility.

Finally, looking at this extraordinary exhibition, I also want to ensure that my kids will not only have access to the imagery produced by the likes of Susain Meiselas, but also the ability to ponder and think what these photographs mean and represent. Because while they may appear to be about conflicts or turmoil elsewhere in the world, these photographs are also about us.