AgilisLux on "The media and the war: seeing the human "

AgilisLux — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:48:23 +0000

As a photographer I was used to write my captions that included details of what, when, where & who. This times are over!

Its okay when keywords contribute to exact searches, but I find the language exactly streamlined to reach the widest possible audience is alarming. When we “google” with keywords, we are distancing ourselves from the victims in an overflow of information.

For some years I even did not picked up a free newspaper when entering a plane that got me to the destination of a assignment because I have had enough of all kind of information I downloaded and printed out to brief myself with before start working there. This habit was born out of my personal experience that a very personal story was often used to stir the pot.

Fact is on the example of the fate of one single person, a victim, a conflict can not be explained. In one case a NGO who was reading the story evacuated some children that would hardly survive. This NGO vehicle in which the children where transported was attacked and the children badly wounded.

I have become very reluctant to contribute to Human Rights organisations and think that it is professionally not right for a journalist to follow the “do good approach” of “Humanitarian Organisations”. We as journalists can not lift the finger and fulfil the position as a “headteacher” for a better world. We are also not a instance for common moral. After all, - what actually is moral?
I might be driven personally by injustice, or what I believe injustice is; the main question simply remains for me as a freelance journalist: does the story has the market value to cover the costs, “the hazards and expense of reporting”?

In the past also some editors told me straight: if I get this out, I can loose my job (it was about disgusting behaviours among German troops in A-Stan) . This what they published was sometimes totally the opposite of their personal views just to please their employers.

Iraq and A-Stan are for the Western Media what is Cechenia for Russia. And here we have again a similarity to the “Humanitarian Organisations” who refused to help the people in Iraq knowing the occupying army's are behind them. I was embedded and also spend time with insurgents. The photos that have been sold where those of our armies...

We don't move away from our “human views”, it is maybe just the tsunami of information.

The media and the war: seeing the human, Philip Bennett

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:42:52 +0000

In the days after 11 September 2001, the coverage of the attacks in the American press produced one notable innovation. The New York Times launched an effort to write individual profiles of each of the nearly 3,000 victims. By the end of 2001, the Times had reported and written 1,800 "portraits of grief". This was part of the coverage that went on to win a Pulitzer prize. It was striking, and deeply moving, as an attempt to transform a mass killing into a personalised, individualised event - to present the victims not as symbolic but as specific human lives destroyed in a specific crime. This seemed a noble and powerful role for journalism in the face of unprecedented facts.

Read the rest of this post...

open Democracy News Analysis - The media and the war: seeing the human, Philip Bennett - Comments

AgilisLux on "The media and the war: seeing the human "

The media and the war: seeing the human, Philip Bennett