Starvation Images

by Michael Bear · 2008-12-26 16:19:00 UTC

The U.S. Supreme Court isn't noted for its humor, to say the least, but every once in a while a Justice delivers a decent line.  For instance, in the 1960s Justice Potter Stewart once tried to differentiate between obscenity, which was arguably protected as free speech, and hard-core pornography, which was not.

A distinction that's far easier to draw in theory than in practice - leading to Justice Stewart's somewhat evasive "I know it when I see it" test.

Which brings us, in a rather roundabout way, to the question of NGO advertising, and particularly the use of starvation images.  At what point does showing pictures of suffering cease being justified as awareness raising, and become nothing more than exploitation?

Something on my mind ever since a friend pointed out a recent ad by Concern Worldwide, as part of their Cure Starvation Appeal.  The ad show video clips of starving children, while the song "Fields of Gold" plays softly in the background.

At first I included the video at the top of this blog, but then took it down - personally, I think it's rather sick. Or, using the Potter Stewart test, I know exploitation when I see it.  And by exploitation, I mean images that treat people as mere objects, suitable for our pity and nothing else.

It's no defense that the images are used for a good cause - according to the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief: "In our information, publicity and advertising activities, we shall recognise disaster victims as dignified human beings, not hopeless objects."

Now, I'm also something of a hypocrite - I've used images that tread close to the line, if not over, such as this photo of a woman fleeing her village, or this video that shows the wounded after a terror attack.  Like Potter Stewart, I make no pretense about being able to make a hard-and-fast distinction.

That said, there's something about using photos of starving children to raise money which strikes me as unacceptable, in any circumstance.

For a more in-depth view, see this 2004 article by Ruth Gidley - NGOs still fail standards on appeal images.

If you'd like to see the Concern ad, click here.


PREVIOUS STORY:
End of Year Giveaway: A Force More Powerful
NEXT STORY:
A letter from Bettina Siegel, "Pink Slime" petition creator

COMMENTS (3)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.