The MSF Ad: Crossing the Line, or Showing the Reality of War?

The blogosphere's vocal contingent of armchair academics have their panties in a bunch over a hard-hitting ad by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), or Doctors Without Borders, which forgoes images of blood, guts, and gore for an unexpected and perhaps even more direct emotional hit: The cries of a child, which could be any child, in any war zone.

The visual presentation of conflict and its victims is a delicate matter, but critics often seem eager straightjacket relief agencies (and news media, for that matter) regarding what cannot be used to solicit support for their vital operations. (Very little discussion seems to take place on what can be considered appropriate.) Additionally, to argue that, "In the absence of detail, this ‘no place' becomes ‘every place' in Africa, the terrifying Dark Continent," is undeserved: The ad presents an act and a response -- the location is entirely nondescript, and could just as easily be Afghanistan as it could be Sudan.

If the ad could be accused of exaggeration, critics would have a more legitimate beef. But wherever the real or imagined location may be, the ad does not give an inaccurate portrayal of war. The story of the crying child has been repeated in conflict zones across the globe, where civilians increasingly find themselves to be direct targets of any number of warring parties. Children and their families fall victim to the moral depravity of men with guns everyday. This is the reality of war. The ad aims to expose more fortunate audiences, who find such atrocities completely out of their realms of experience, and has an incredibly short period of time to drive home its point. That pervasive stereotypes of Africa, or elsewhere, may be layered onto the ad by its viewers should not be a point of contention with the ad itself, as it does not portray anything that is fundamentally untrue or exaggerated about the places in which MSF works.

Furthermore, I take Transitionland's point: This is what MSF does. Their emergency medical teams move deep into the world's most dangerous and volatile places to provide life-saving assistance to war-affected civilians. And, the fact of the matter is: MSF needs to raise money to do its job, and this type of presentation effectively attracts the elusive attention of a desensitized viewing public.

The dignity of victims of conflict is demeaned when we ignore their suffering, not when a humanitarian agency produces an emotional fundraising appeal. This is certainly not to say that "anything goes," and Michael's question of when such appeals cross the line is important and difficult to answer. But I would also challenge the ad's critics to design an effective fundraising appeal on conflict and disaster relief that does not treat victims as "objects of pity." It is the situation itself that evokes pity - or to use a term with less negative connotations, sympathy, because to say that an ad treats people as "objects of pity" unfairly assumes an air of condescension from both the ads makers and its viewers.

That the ad makes us uncomfortable is precisely the point -- it should, and it should make us reach for our wallets.