I’ve accidentally seen a picture taken at the flooded area in Mindanao (due to typhoon ‘Sendong‘) yesterday. The image was that of a father cuddling his young child who perished in that catastrophic event. The image broke my heart, and even if I’ve only seen the photograph in passing, I just can’t seem to take the image off my mind. Photographs taken on the aftermath of disastrous events really gets into me, that’s for sure.
The disturbing thing about the picture-in-question was to see it being linked repeatedly and re-tweeted for various purposes. In twitter, some ‘tweeples’ attached it for fundraising tweets to call for donations that will finance a relief operation to help the victims in flooded areas in the southern part of the Philippines. Others just re-tweeted the photo (perhaps) to express their emotional distress over the scenario.
Those reactions over the net could be nothing but normal for some people; but it bothered me a lot.
I asked a well-known journalist through a tweet if the father gave consent for that picture to be published online; and she responded, explaining that “in news reporting, you normally capture moments. No need to get permission.” I accepted the logic knowing that it came from a journalist’s perspective; but twitter is a social network, is it safe to assume then that journalistic rules are the legitimate rules to be applied in social media? I can’t help but ask –
Is there a difference between paparazzi going after movie stars & overly zealous ‘netizens‘ sharing sensitive pictures like that of a father w/ his dead child on his arms (him, captured with overwhelming grief) online?
Obviously, my concern about the photo linkage is more than the ‘legality’/acceptability” of the practice from the perspective of media and the law. Aside from the ‘paparazzi’ ‘similarity – the photograph, the circumstance that happened before that image was taken, the manner of which it was circulated over the internet, the purpose of why netizens would link the photograph to a tweet, a comment or a blog post — all these (among others) evoke so many questions in my mind involving coalescing and entangled spheres involved in social media – most especially the ethical implications of such.
It is understandable that people respond to disasters “emotionally’ — seldom that ethical considerations would take precedence over people’s desire to help others. What’s good about it is that it shows the capacity of people to do great, good things to help another human in dire need; the other side of it is the tendency of such reactions to have a ‘not-so-good’ consequence.
I’m not yet sure if there’s already an “Ethical Guideline for Social Media in the Philippines” (I’d appreciate any info that readers may want to share about it). I strongly recommend that an overall – “rule book” be made highlighting ethical manners of using photographs taken in disaster situations in lieu of any form of online fundraising/social activism effort
With this in mind, I initially raised this concern through a tweet; knowing that people may tend 2 get over zealous especially when one feels that need of wanting to help, that I very much understand — but a little ethical consideration on how to use the social media in our efforts to help raise awareness, or as we try to spearhead a humanitarian initiative to help victims of disasters is also important.
Fundraising efforts for any kind of relief operation is a noble and a laudable act, no question about that. But I also wish that each of us may remember to not simply ‘emotionally respond’ to such unfortunate events. Rational and ethical response is a must, so as to avoid unwittingly and unnecessarily exploiting (further) the unfortunate victims/casualties of disasters and calamities - – this could happen without us knowing it.
May we not forget that the ones who’d perished in disasters STILL deserve dignified treatment from all of us – and there should be no excuse for us not do give that to them. We have to be careful as well that our over zealousness will not violate fundamental rights (i.e. privacy, issues re: informed consent, etc.) of individuals. It would be best to ensure that our good intentions will still be within the bounds of acceptable, ethical grounds, and that we’d do nothing that can be construed as intrusive and invasive to people’s and families’ very personal spaces and predicaments.
.
©2011leofinajanegalleta
18 December 2011
Related articles
- Twitter Journalism: limit shortfalls and master best practices (ajmstudents.wordpress.com)
- Think Before You Tweet: Top 5 Social Media Pet Peeves (stylecaster.com)
- The @sweden guide to social media (adigaskell.org)
- 5 Noteworthy Examples of Corporate Social Media Policies (hubspot.com)
- Social media: avoiding the sinkholes and enjoying the benefits (worthingtonlevy.wordpress.com)
- How To Adopt A Social Media Lifestyle (adrsocialmedia.wordpress.com)
- Social Media in Disasters (thielst.typepad.com)
- Disaster Update: Typhoon Washi (newsroom.redcross.org)
- The Ethics of Social Media Influence (globalcompliance.com)
- Fundraising Goes Social (katsloan1258.wordpress.com)
Thanks for the mention
cheers!:-)
In “Ethics, Disasters, Fundraising and the Social Media”
LJ asked:
“Is there a difference between paparazzi going after movie stars & overly zealous ‘netizens‘ sharing sensitive pictures like that of a father w/ his dead child on his arms (him, captured with overwhelming grief) online?”
Metta replies:
Depends on the phototaker’s motivation. Sadly, the Internet is rife with sensationalism and vultures that host mental states akin to those of paparazzi. If that is the motivation, answer is “there is no essential difference”. Also eliciting an emotional response *for its own sake*, sadly all too common in photos that circulate online social networks. It doesn’t engage the intellect, the mind, which is the source of human creativity. So, again, eliciting an emotional response – para que? What for?
As for the mainstream media, the very skillful photographers who take photos of *immagini strazianti* (such as “that of a father with his dead child on his arms, captured with overwhelming grief”) are on a corporate payroll. They say a picture tells a thousand words, also a picture sells a million copies of their mainstream corporate broadsheet newspaper (millilons). Storm hits MIndanao – hundreds dead – thousands homeless. Let’s cover the story. Business as usual.
Here i share with you a useful piece by @tedeschini on journalism, that puts forward the differences of traditional journalism vs journalism in the age of social media. Mario Tedeschini is one of my maestro(s):
http://mariotedeschini.blog.kataweb.it/giornalismodaltri/2011/12/13/aggregazione-giornalismo-e-social-media-i-giornali-al-tempo-di-storify/
(The article is in Italian. If you use Chrome, upon page loading a pop-up will appear below your address bar asking if you want to Translate the page. Click on the Translate button.)
That being said, reason why Metta is not an idealist. Practice the art of observing things as they are, not things as one would wish them to be, but as they are. Observe change, that which often is not obvious to the naked eye. Amidst disaster, poverty and squalor, change occurs mostly very slowly. But it’s there. One learns this from having taken vipassana meditation. Compassion, but always with equanimity.
I would like to conclude with a recent story. It was shared by a friend’s friend in a note. His family encountered hassles at LBC when trying to donate gallons of drinking water for their relatives in Mindanao. The company’s call center rep had told them their donation in kind would be accepted. But when they went to the courier, it was a different matter. Long story short, the donation didn’t reach its intended beneficiaries. Personally, Metta is not going to move money to the relief effort through LBC, Globe, ABS-CBN Foundation, and other untrustworthy agents. There are plans to go the disaster site, talks with contacts already there, but here is not the place to discuss those plans.
@mettanewsagency on twitter