Famine Africa stereotype porn shows no letup

Good article, but surely the publication of the photo negates the thrust of the article? Why give more publicity to that which you seek to critique?

Totally get your point but wonder why you feel compelled to use the word “porn”? Isn’t the use of that word, which is commonly know to be a “portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction” a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I wager you use the word porn in this regard for its effect – because you know it will get people to read what you have to say. How is that different from the agencies’ use of those pictures?

I think the use of the word porn is appropriate.

But rather than construct alternative narratives, you do the easy thing and simply critique what’s wrong (while doing similar).

As much flack as Trasitionland has taken here for personal and adolescent attacks, there’s much to be learned by what she’s doing on the ground.

Her blog offers great alternative narratives, snippets into the vibrancy and life of Afghanistan. A poignant alternate view that I would not be privy to without her writing. It’s given me a substance to the people’s lives that cuts through MSM stereotypes.

And if we look to our own recent history, we see that negative campaigns backfire, “Hope” sold overwhelmingly at the end of the proverbial day. So while your intentions to “help the poor” (a.k.a. the vulnerable, because I refuse static class labels), you only go half the way.

If you don’t like the narratives, write new ones instead of simply exploiting the exploiters.

It worked for Obama and most of us would rather see the kind of hope and small change that I think you’re getting at than the drone of snark …. be it Bono (oh, please say that sometime in the next month we won’t have a Bono birthday tribute) or the type of fare presented in this entry.

What are some stories you can tell us about how people are changing their lives, one project at a time.

Or do you only do “criticism?”

It is immoral and inconsiderate. People might disagree about the term used in this post. However it is voyeurism. We cannot deny the struggles and the need for help but the way it is publicized and marketed is not working toward helping. Smart donor movement is great but change must come from Africa. And I believe we can. It is insensitive to show a child dying. I cannot stand that it is Okay to see an African child dying on a magazine cover, or a documentary and see corpuses and horrifying scenes from developing countries. We rarely or barely see the same tactless images from developed countries.
I would love more decency and graciousness.

The identifiable victim effect assures that this type of marketing will continue. People are simply more likely to give when individual suffering is represented rather than accounts of poverty that trigger deliberative reasoning. I don’t know about these organizations in particular, but I see no moral problem for an NGO to take advantage of this effect as long as the suffering depicted relates to their mission.

Criticism does not need to offer an alternate view to make it legitimate, nor does politics require that politicians offer viable solutions when negative campaigns elect politicians to office.

False analogy, perhaps. But both negative campaigning and this blog blur the boundaries between theater (by way of comedy) and social good.

Offering alternative narratives is simply good public service, and why I appealed to Obama’s presidential campaign, the higher rhetoric, the “better angels,” something more than easy snark and exploiting the exploiters, which Bill Easterly seemed to think was humorous.

And I also asked “do you only do criticism.”

Apparently, many are okay if that’s a yes, and I find that odd to say the least. ….

I personally would like to see and hear some of the narratives that make Africa’s people so unique. Why the continent is rich in human resources and how we can change our perceptions so starving babies are trotted around in poverty porn. How many people in the U.S. know of Nikosi Johnson? Few that I know, even among the educated.

There are so many stories to put a different face on Africa, which is presumably much of what this blog is about, yet it rarely goes there.

And when I question that m.o., it’s snarkily written off as something trivial and and an “uh oh.”

This kind of discussion, in my opinion, is why I rarely visit any more.

As I previously wrote, the quibbling’s just bad PR.

My favorite story is one where the teenage mother in Latin America who was being featured for a report on poverty and early pregnancies put her hand up to the camera and said ‘Stop! No. I don’t want to be shown like that.’ and refused to continue. I give credit to local staff who worked with the girl to help her be prepared for the visit of the PR team and to the longer term youth development work that this girl was involved in in the years before this incident which helped build her self-esteem and confidence, and to this young girl herself for her strength in front of the group of Westerners.

This is awesome. Most credit goes to the Westerners who taught her this self-esteem, and some goes to the apt pupil who learned her lessons well. The world’s supply of confidence happens to be deposited in the Alps, so it’s very nice of the Europeans to distribute it with the misfortunate.

this approach to PR is sold on the argument that people (potential donors) respond to it – well, i haven’t seen much attempt to try, and evaluate the effectiveness of, different marketing approaches. instead, i think organizations have simply jumped on the bandwagon, without much thought to the implications, social and otherwise.

besides the obvious problems mentioned here, photographs like these entrench an underlying power structure by fixing all individuals from a continent in a static powerless position which requires “our” pity and help. in my experience in Africa (rather than the policy halls of DC), it has simply become a part of the NGO aesthetic – something that you just do to keep donors and HQ happy, which is not overtly malicious, although still insidious. these photos, along with overused nonsense words like “sensitization” have become an accepted part of the aid world”.

more interestingly, i’ve found that this africans working for international NGOs go along with this – i’ve heard talk of taking ‘nice’ photos of HIV+ children. how does this play into the power dynamic and what, i wonder, do they think of this debate?

William Easterly may know a thing or two about Aid but he seems to be lacking a bit in his understanding of journalism. Take this comment:

‘An equivalent procedure would represent New Yorkers by the most horrific images possible of the homeless. But we don’t do that because we don’t have the stereotype that typical New Yorkers are homeless.’

The history of photojournalism is in fact drowning in example of all the down and outs that you can find in New York. The difference is, as David Campbell points out, that those images are balanced by the many other views of New York that we see.

On another note I find the use if the word ‘porn’ both callous and inappropriate. There is no doubt that at some point the images we see of Africa can be offensive to those in them. However to label that ‘porn’ is to further heap offense on those in the images, as it further demeans them, and is in itself a tired and unhelpful use of language.

Don’t the people in the pictures deserve a higher level of debate?