The 1981 essay ‘In, Around, and Afterthoughts (on Documentary Photography)’ by Martha Rosler, is a typically self-indulgent and rather inaccessible academic essay with rambling sentences without a clear structure. However, it is suggested reading for part 1 of the context and narrative course.

The essay discusses the objectivity of seemingly altruistic documentary photography, in particular the projects that seem to have the underlay propose to great a better life for it subjects by drawing the reader’s attention to their plight.

The essay starts discussing work centred on “The Bowery”the famously impoverished neighbourhood in southern Manhattan which is, as Rosler so delicately describes it “is an archetypal skid row.” (1981). However, she then goes on a travelogue of the whole genre of documentary photography highlighting it position as a medium of representation of social conscience of liberal sensitivity.

Rosler suggests that the purpose of the early documentaries by social reformer Jacob Riis were merely an argument to preserve the existing class privileges.

 “Charity is an argument for the preservation of wealth […] an argument within a class about the need to give a little [charity] in order to mollify the dangerous classes below, an argument embedded in a matrix of Christian ethics” (Rosler, 1981)

And photography played into the hands of such reformists, was the power of the photography.

[..] the force of documentary surely derives in part from the fact that the images might be more decisively unsettling than the arguments enveloping them.

Essentially, Rosler is suggesting that the reformist and by extension documentary photographers were victimising their subjects for their own gain, no matter how altruist their intention seems on the surface.

Rosler draws the reader back to “The Bowery” and illustrates that the photographer is taking advantage of these victims while they are docile from drink and drugs, highlighting that should the photographer intrude on their lives whilst they are sober there would not be necessarily welcomed with open arms.

Rosler goes on that while photography has moved away from the reformist movement, documentary photography still exists and is playing to liberal society by laying out works on such themes as exoticism, tourism, voyeurism, psychologism and metaphysics, trophy hunting. In Rosler’s eyes it as a way of managing realty for the liberal elite.

“[…] documentary assuages any stirrings of conscience in its viewers the way scratching relieves an itch and simultaneously reassures them about their relative wealth and social position; especially the latter, now that even the veneer of social concern has dropped away from the upwardly mobile and comfortable social sectors.”

Rosler also discusses the idea that a documentary photograph has two moments:

1. the capturing of the actual moment, with its purpose to shine a spotlight on a particular issue, whether that be disaster, poverty or a disappearing way of life.
2. the longer term “aesthetic rightness, or well-formedness…. of the image”.

Is it attractive enough to stand the test of time as a piece of visual art, regardless of the story it tells? As time goes on, the initial reason for taking the photograph might have disappeared, but if it is a good image, it may stand the test of time, Afgan Girl by Steve McCurry example.

Once the essay is penetrated to pull out these ideas I lay with unease in my mind – do I as a photographer set out to victimise the people I see here on the street of Hong Kong to instil a degree of sympathy from the viewer there for gain more likes on Instagram and Facebook.

It true that at the time of writing of the essay (1981) there was a bit of a star quality to photographers, Don McCullin, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus and earlier Robert Capa were as much the story as their images. Rosler’s in the essay illustrates the exploitation of the “mud men of New Guinea” to sell (unrelated?) Canadian Club whisky and I have always personally felt as unease with the work of Diane Arbus as feels a like the trophy hunting of people who are different. Although, Arbus along with Winogrand, and Friedlander are cited as some of the photographers who have changed how documentary is perceived.

Is documentary a grim as some of the uncomfortable ideas in Rosler’s essays and designed just to mark the left-leaning Guardian readership feel better about themselves. I doubt it, no doubt there will be exploitation in the context and narrative – think of the shots on the envelopes and adverts of charities such as Oxfam and Christian Aid. However, I think how thing have progressed now is best summed up by John Szarkowsi, Director of Photography at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, this new generation of documentarist photographers:

“has directed the documentary approach toward more personal ends. Their aim has not been to reform life, but to know it”.

Bibliography

En.wikipedia.org. (n.d.). Bowery. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowery [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].

En.wikipedia.org. (n.d.). Martha Rosler. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Rosler [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].

YouTube. (2010). Aperture Foundation at The New School: Documentary Photography. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6nTXZKoggQ [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].

Rosler, M. (1981). Rosler_photo.pdf. [online] Web.pdx.edu. Available at: http://web.pdx.edu/~vcc/Seminar/Rosler_photo.pdf [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].

(for images follow the link in bibliography to the Wikipedia over view of the case)

On the 1st April 2009, there were large demonstrations in London focussed on the start of the second G20 summit which was to take place the next day. Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor, collapsed and died within the cordon. Initially there were strong official denials that Mr Tomlinson had had contact with the police before he collapsed; with the the Evening Standard featuring a headline “Police [were] pelted with bricks as they help dying man” – a headline juxtaposed with a standard, wide, illustrative demo shot printed over two pages, taken from behind the police line. The picture shows police outnumbered by protesters seeming bracing for further attacks from protesters.

Given what we know about the case now this headline in the Evening Standard eerily echo the reports in The Sun following the tragedy at Hillsborough and is an example of mainstream media backing or following the lead of the establishment version of events. However, unlike the events of Hillsborough some 20 years previously eyewitness reports started to come through that the Evening Standards headline was inaccurate

The Guardian and Observer Newspapers published video and still images which started to come through from the public and other mainstream news agencies who were in the area at the time of Mr Tomlinson’s death. The combination of these images when sequenced together started to point the conclusion that Mr Tomlinson had been struck and pushed by a police officer.

As a result, the police who pushed Tomlinson was identified, tried for manslaughter. Although he was found not guilty, he was dismissed from the police force for gross misconduct.

The evening standard is by reputation is a right-wing/pro-establishment newspaper in a similar vein to the Daily Mail, therefore, its reporting of the incident fits with the general tonality of its editorial content. The Guardian and Observer are a more liberal anti-establishment newspaper and therefore the question of the polices version of events again fits within the totality of the paper.

As we have discussed in an earlier post there are problems with citizen journalism is how unbiased and objective it content is – and given who was publishing these images with are potentially incriminating the police – the Guardian / Observer it would be appropriate to question them.

However, this is what makes this case a little different to a viral blog post it comes from what the BBC’s describes as  – “User Generated Content”.  It hasn’t been written into a story by the creators just pasted directly to the news channels – in this case, The Guardian and observer for them to filter and process and verify in their normal way. Also, not all the material came from Citizens, while the initial video sent to the Guardian was taken by a US investment banker, in London on business, and the fourth video was taken by an anonymous bystander, the other two videos were taken by a Channel 4 news crew and a freelance journalist.

Although the images were eventually processed through mainstream media validation process they did initially come through alternative sources the US businessman realising he had a picture of injured Mt Tomlinson on his phone as forwarding that on and without these additional user generated images “the truth” surrounding the circumstances would perhaps never come to light.

Barthes said that all photographs unless the manipulated are a record of a moment in time and these pictures appear to completely objective records of the day, as not of the creators had a point of view or prejudice nor the time to pose the photographs. However, there can never be pure objectivity, be in that they are the best image for the article from a series of images – not in this case, here it is prejudice. There is always prejudice any situation and here it is the hands of the newspapers. Is the question would these images had the same treatment had the landed on the desk of The Evening Standard or Daily Mail or The Sun with their projective for pro-establishment rhetoric? Or was because they landed on the desk and liberal left-leaning newspaper with suspicions about the establishment then eventually to the truth.

The truth is always told through a certain point to guide the reader or viewer and is illustrated by the advert from the Guardian in the 80’s while the advert illustrates very valid argument remember just because they have said it doesn’t mean they practice it.

Bibliography

Web.archive.org. (2009). Wayback Machine. [online] Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20110719071853/http://www.chickyog.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/esp67-02042009.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

Gibson, O. (2004). What the Sun said 15 years ago. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jul/07/pressandpublishing.football1 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018].

YouTube. (2012). The Guardian’s 1986 ‘Points of view’ advert. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsccRkLLzU&feature=youtu.be [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018].

Exercise

Find some examples of news stories where ‘citizen journalism’ has exposed or highlighted abuses of power.

How do these pictures affect the story, if at all? Are these pictures objective? Can pictures ever be objective?

Write a list of the arguments for and against. For example, you might argue that these pictures do have a degree of objectivity because the photographer (presumably) didn’t have time to ‘pose’ the subjects, or perhaps even to think about which viewpoint to adopt. On the other hand, the images we see in newspapers may be selected from a series of images and how can we know the factors that determined the choice of final image?

Think about objectivity in documentary photography and make some notes in your learning log before reading further.

Bloggers around the world have been posting their content in every increasing volume over the last 20 or more years. A great deal of this content is news based and is the basis for what has become known as Citizen Journalism.

A definition of citizen journalism is “When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another, that’s citizen journalism.” (Rosen, 2009).

To the casual observer the extent of citizen journalism may not be immediately apparent, however, you may be surprised to know that this type of news gathering was instrumental in the images we saw of the following recent incidents:

Iran’s Green Movement (2009)

The Occupy movement (2011)

The Umberella Protests in Hong Kong (2014)

The Arab Spring (2011)

UK Riots (2011)

Norways Attacks (2011)

9/11 World Trade Centre attacks (2001)

South East Asia Tsunami (2006)

London Terror attacks (2006)

Buncefield Oil Depot Fire (2006)

And not forgetting what can be called the “grandfather of Citizen Journalism” the Zepruder footage of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

And prior to 2016 and the sale of its parent company Corbis images to China Visual Group citizen photojournalist had a dedicated agency to publish their work on Demotix – which I was a member and supplier of content to. Unfortunately, its website no longer available but a read of is Wikipedia page highlight the stories that citizen journalists broke and help to bring to the mainstream.

Back in 2006 writing on the BBC news website Torin Douglas highlighted how that “[in] 2006 the year of the Buncefield oil depot fire, Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami and the London bombings, thousands of images and eyewitness accounts poured into the BBC and other newsrooms. Many were broadcast.”.  Douglas states that in an internal meeting “One editor said that before the bombings they’d never have believed such coverage possible.” and relating to Buncefield Oil Depot disaster that “On the morning of the fire at the Buncefield oil depot, the first picture reached the BBC within 13 minutes of the explosion. The first video was a few minutes later. By lunchtime, there were 5,000 images, by the end of the day more than 10,000.”  One senior editor was quoted as saying “ We’re not gatekeepers anymore, controlling the flow of information” he said. “We should use the new technology to engage better with our audience. They can help improve the quality of our journalism.”

Now this is not to say that citizen journalism is perfect, there are concerns over the ethics or editorial control of these stories – for example traditional investigative journalists are expected to have definable/traceable sources  for that information that they write about to ensure credibility and stories a are subject to rigorous scrutiny of their editor before publication. The blogger does not have that be can publish as and when so desires. In the same article, Douglas refers to  BBC an internal meeting about the context the BBC receives from citizen journalists: “Some just want the story to be told, others are seeking a fat cheque. Some want to keep their local community informed, with a website or local TV station. Others – and this includes many of the bloggers – want to change the world.”

The Pro’s of Citizen Journalism

• Citizens can be at the right place at the right time to capture an event.
• It is democratic.
• Through independent outlets it can reveal stories the mainstream would not dare to publish.
• Established news outlets may be biased as they’re under editorial control from owners, shareholders or governments, while citizens have no such influences.
• Much of the citizen journalism is in the form of mobile phone video, there is little doubt about authenticity if it is coming from a current event as it’s not realistic to make any alterations, it is simply shot from the point of view of the bystander.  News organisations, on the other hand, employing professional stills photographers may be careful about what they include in or exclude from the frame, editors are likely to select and crop in order to meet with the story they wish to tell.

The Con’s of Citizen Journalism

• Views may not be balanced or corroborated.
• May lack credibility.
• Motives are various and perhaps suspect
• Ranking of pictures or text may be by popularity rather than importance.
• Stills pictures particularly could have been manipulated or scenes set-up and acted out.
• Safety – the citizen may not be aware of their rights and has no legal or colleague support when putting themselves in danger.
• The less well-established news outlets may not be as careful with the content they accept, and may even look out for outrageous stories just to boost their own readership; this could be exploited by anyone trying to get famous quickly or to distort the truth.
• Citizens may post anything on micro-blogging sites and it can be completely untrue and misleading, there is no control over this.