| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Cool new organization: PhotoPhilanthropy
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 8:47 PM on 08.02.10 |
->> Hello everyone. I wanted to pass along some information about a new organization / website that might help some of our members.
"PhotoPhilanthropy (http://www.photophilanthropy.org) promotes and connects photographers with non-profit organizations around the world to tell the stories that drive action for social change."
This site is a great resource for photographers to hook up with non-profits, grants, workshops, and other helpful tips to further their journey as a serious documentary photographer.
They also offer a new photo contest that is giving out some serious cash prizes.
for more info please check out http://www.photophilanthropy.org
I have nothing to do with this organization. I just think some of our members might benefit from the information on their site. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
 |
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 2:03 AM on 08.03.10 |
->> Also check out Creative Cares, an organization that will feature in PDN next month I am helping flesh out right now.
www.creativecares.org |
|
Tom Szczerbowski, Photographer
|
London | ON | Canada | Posted: 2:15 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> While seemingly a noble venture, I would take issue with this line : "...to tell the stories that drive action for social change."
Reporters should never be activists and editorial photographers should make capturing a story with photos their prime directive, rather than pushing for social change. News should be covered without trying to advance any kind of an agenda -- naturally, this applies to photographers and photo journalists covering all manner of newsworthy events. To cross that line would be a very serious violation of journalistic standards. Obviously, I'm not opposed to philanthropy, but willful participation by a photographer with any social cause du jour has the potential to seriously compromise his ability to impartially cover a story. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 3:26 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> Tom,
What about Dorothea Lange and her peers at FSA, the Photo League in NYC in the '30's, the Concerned Photographer, Sebastiao Salgado, Mary Ellen Mark or the initiatives by the staff at VII for example? The history of social activism in documentary/editorial photography is a rich one that has shaped social and governmental policy the world over. The choice of where and what to photograph is motivated by a photographer's interest in shining a lot on parts of the human condition that he/she feels should be witnessed by other people.
Sorry, but there has never been such thing as impartial documentary/editorial photography. That concept is just so much sophistry. |
|
Bryan Hulse, Photographer
|
Nashville | Tn | USA | Posted: 5:22 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> I guess I see a difference between ‘reporting’ a story (as Tom said) vs covering it with an editorial purpose, in which I would expect a bias to shine thru (as David said).
I bet this post will reach 50 strong by Wednesday at 3:00 pm. |
|
Tom Szczerbowski, Photographer
|
London | ON | Canada | Posted: 5:27 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> David,
Some editorial photography over the years has no doubt shaped social policy. Fair point, but don't confuse this with a reporter or photo journalist making it his/her stated goal to do so. Whether a writer or photo journalist, your job is NOT to make a statement; it's to relate your observations of an event fairly and without bias. That means putting your political sympathies aside. Your only obligation when doing your job is to the truth, whatever the social ramifications. If a reporter or photo journalist chooses to exempt themselves from tenaciously pursuing a lead on a story because it undermines their political beliefs, then these people have forfeited any pretense of objectivity and, in so doing, have outed themselves as bad journalists.
We've seen this with the recent 'Journolist' revelations, where a compliant press corps conspired to bury certain stories while trumping up others, all with the goal of advancing the interests of their preferred party/politician that would then, in turn, drive action in support of their desired cause. Sound familiar ? Any journalism that tries to "drive action for social change" should be disavowed because it does a disservice to the profession.
No one should be compliant to a social cause when setting out to cover a story. Therefore, if you're fair, your coverage should be just as likely to advance some social change as to undermine it, depending on the circumstances particular to that story. Photo journalists working in pursuit of "social change" will be motivated by their pre-conceived agendas and will also turn a blind eye to the story they DO NOT want to see covered. Instead, they will turn their attention to the story that helps propel a desired narrative that, in the process, will fuel support for their cause or agenda. This is an aberration of journalistic standards and that's why I find the line "to tell the stories that drive action for social change" more than a bit unsettling, as it relates to photo journalism. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 5:52 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> Tom,
You write:"Photo journalists working in pursuit of "social change" will be motivated by their pre-conceived agendas and will also turn a blind eye to the story they DO NOT want to see covered."
Two words - examples please.
" This is an aberration of journalistic standards " - Oxymoron alert! Just like there is no crying in baseball, there are no real standards in journalism. Sure maybe common practice from 40 years back is now verbotten but overall we see a wide gamut of practices that fall under the journalism umbrella and yes some of them are regrettable.
That said - what we're talking about in this thread is photographers finding stories that need to be told to aid their subjects by addressing and possibly correcting an injustice, social, economic or humane. You know that whole comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable thingy. As an editor I sure want to move readers to think about helping to not only be aware of what's going on in their world but have some tools to improve conditions where necessary.
Photographers often don't go into stories saying that it will help them change the world. They usually feel compelled by what they learn from their subjects to address/correct the situations unfolding before their lenses.
The promotional mechanisms of photojournalism, especially contests, do far more harm in my mind's eye than photographers motivated by circumstance helping to set up charities or other aid/awareness mechanisms for their subjects even if it could be construed as initiating "social change". |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 7:40 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> Tom:
I do not personally know of a photojournalist who doesn't want to see change because of their work. James Nacthwey's stated purpose for covering wars is to show how horrible they are and help stop them.
When I covered horrible accidents, suicides, car wrecks, fires and other traumatic events I did so because I wanted change. I wanted people to lock up their hand guns from their kids. I wanted people to wear their seat belts. I wanted people to not go to bed with a kerosene burner left on in their house at night.
When you care about the world in which you live you want to make a change.
When I am working for a news outlet I personally work very hard to know my own bias and be sure my photos are balanced in my reporting. I am able to do this, because I am aware of my bias. I am aware of the hat I wear in this moment.
However, when I work for a corporation or an organization my client isn't the same as it was for the news outlet. I am no longer wearing a journalist hat. I help my client tell their story. The common skill is knowing how to tell a story.
If you believe you should treat all assignments as tho you are working for a news outlet all the time--you better be on a staff of a news organization or you will starve.
I believe a person can easily work in the morning shooting an illustration that will be heavily photo-shopped for a corporate client and then that afternoon shoot an assignment for a news outlet where no manipulation is done for example.
I think it is great that Brad shared the link and let us know about how their are organizations realizing the power of visual story tellers. |
|
Tom Szczerbowski, Photographer
|
London | ON | Canada | Posted: 7:44 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> "Two words - examples please."
Sure. Take for instance the present-day fixation on photos of objectionable signs/placards disparaging the current president to diminish his protesters, when, for some strange reason, there was much less interest in similarly offensive messages at protests disparaging the previous president. Hmmm. I hope this has nothing to do with political biases, but I'm willing to be convinced.
"...that whole comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable thingy."
David, if you can't see how this approach could lead to slanted coverage, then we are truly at a crossroads. The photo journalist should not be driven to "correct an injustice", as you say, but to merely document various happenings with photos. After taking pictures, the photo journalist should then let others(be it politicians, social activists, etc.) take up the cause, whatever it may be. You obviously see "afflicting the comfortable" as a noble goal and that's your right, but it also smacks of ideologically driven journalism. Since you like baseball analogies, it'd be kind of like the home plate umpire giving a pass to the .330 hitter on a borderline pitch while consistently ringing up an unproven rookie on the same pitch. The rule book says nothing about dispensing special treatment to former batting champs over weak-hitting, bottom-of-the-order flunkies. The same treatment must apply to all, otherwise we don't have standards. "Afflicting the comfortable" might get you cheap applause from a political operative pushing class warfare, but it's hardly the stuff that good journalists are made of. It is not your place as a journalist to presume all rich people to be bad -- many rich people are poor people who worked hard and became rich. Many major media outlets have fallen into disrepute for precisely this very reason : their inability to discern the point of demarcation between honest reporting and editorializing.
The words "social change" and "journalism" should never appear in the same sentence, unless of course that sentence happens to be : "Journalism and driving social change should not mix !" |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 7:55 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> Tom, maybe you are confusing journalism with activism. I'm pretty sure people who sign up for these opportunities will clearly cross that line with eyes wide open. And I'm pretty sure they can cross back with their integrity intact.
If you want to shoot the Blue Jays as the team photographer for a few years, I doubt it's going to poison your mind and render you unable to shoot them for a newspaper afterwards. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 8:36 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> "it'd be kind of like the home plate umpire giving a pass to the .330 hitter on a borderline pitch while consistently ringing up an unproven rookie on the same pitch."
I saw that actually happen with BOS IF Mike Lowell on a rehab assignment with the PawSox last week and it happens all the time in AAA when a guy from the show is at the plate where the borderline calls always go his way.
"The same treatment must apply to all, otherwise we don't have standards."
And that's why the Globe and Mail reads and looks exactly like the Toronto Star......so much for standards, eh?
"After taking pictures, the photo journalist should then let others(be it politicians, social activists, etc.) take up the cause, whatever it may be."
Why exactly is the photographer taking the pictures in the first place? Because he sees a story that needs to be told. Why does it need to be told? Because the impact of his photos can help correct things that he is documenting that may be wrong and need to be addressed. So how can the "objective photographer" not be functioning with a heightened degree of social awareness? Your argument means he shouldn't give his photos to anyone because that could possibly be construed as promoting social change. Now I am calling sophistry and shenanigans!
"...that whole comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable thingy."
Please see here:
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=1&aid=2852
It's not a noble goal...it's common and historic newsroom characterization of the muckraking potential of journalism and btw one does not have to be rich to be comfortable and therefore complacent. It has nothing to do with anyone's perception of the wealthy, really.
I have to go now and throw out the numerous volumes in my library where journalism and social change appear in the same sentence. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 8:51 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> I wanted to respond, but David has expressed my opinions much more elegantly that I would have, so in this discussion I will let him be my proxy.
I do have one question Tom: did you look at the galleries on the site? |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|