The spectacle of poverty
Following the Miss SA gloves brouhaha, Terence Pillay weighs in on the photographing of children to market a cause.
LISTEN to the full interview below or read the blog:
Someone posted a picture on Twitter of Miss SA holding a child in an orphanage wearing a pair of latex gloves. And there was outrage at this from the Twitterverse. Apparently she was photographed a couple of times at the same venue with and without gloves on.
She posted a video explaining the whole saga and the story goes that while she was preparing the food a deaf girl from the orphanage was brought over to meet and in her excitement she rushed off from the place where she was preparing the food and hugged the child and they took the photograph while she was still wearing the gloves.
The woman who runs the orphanage said that they have a policy that anyone who prepares food there has to wear gloves. There are pictures of this to prove that this happens – you don’t get to prepare the food and feed the children without wearing gloves. That’s their policy.
So that’s the context. If you ask me, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, and it’s ridiculous. But there’s a bigger issue at play here, which really is a parallel issue which has to do with photographing children. I don’t really care what they photograph Miss SA in, but the question that needs to be asked of the orphanage is: as the legal guardian of those children, if they are in fact the legal guardian, did they sign consent?
For example, in the work that I do on television, whenever we film or photograph children and post those on any platform, the parent or guardians have to sign a model release. Or a release of some kind that says we are allowed to use their image for promotional purposes or in broadcast or whatever the case may be.
It’s a little more sensitive with orphanages because those children are without parents – so who’s their guardian? They might be in the care of that orphanage but are they the legal guardian or is it the Department of Social Welfare? The thing is: there are some guidelines like the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, or UNICEF, and I presume that the South African law is quite explicit about how and where you can use the images of children. The fact is, according to UNICEF, reporting on children and young people have its special challenges. In some instances the act of reporting on children places them or other children at risk of retribution or stigmatisation.
UNICEF says that:
She posted a video explaining the whole saga and the story goes that while she was preparing the food a deaf girl from the orphanage was brought over to meet and in her excitement she rushed off from the place where she was preparing the food and hugged the child and they took the photograph while she was still wearing the gloves.
The woman who runs the orphanage said that they have a policy that anyone who prepares food there has to wear gloves. There are pictures of this to prove that this happens – you don’t get to prepare the food and feed the children without wearing gloves. That’s their policy.
So that’s the context. If you ask me, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, and it’s ridiculous. But there’s a bigger issue at play here, which really is a parallel issue which has to do with photographing children. I don’t really care what they photograph Miss SA in, but the question that needs to be asked of the orphanage is: as the legal guardian of those children, if they are in fact the legal guardian, did they sign consent?
For example, in the work that I do on television, whenever we film or photograph children and post those on any platform, the parent or guardians have to sign a model release. Or a release of some kind that says we are allowed to use their image for promotional purposes or in broadcast or whatever the case may be.
It’s a little more sensitive with orphanages because those children are without parents – so who’s their guardian? They might be in the care of that orphanage but are they the legal guardian or is it the Department of Social Welfare? The thing is: there are some guidelines like the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, or UNICEF, and I presume that the South African law is quite explicit about how and where you can use the images of children. The fact is, according to UNICEF, reporting on children and young people have its special challenges. In some instances the act of reporting on children places them or other children at risk of retribution or stigmatisation.
UNICEF says that:
- The dignity and rights of every child are to be respected in every circumstance.
- In interviewing and reporting on children, special attention is to be paid to each child's right to privacy and confidentiality, to have their opinions heard, to participate in decisions affecting them and to be protected from harm and retribution, including the potential of harm and retribution.
- The best interests of each child are to be protected over any other consideration, including over advocacy for children's issues and the promotion of child rights.
- When trying to determine the best interests of a child, the child's right to have their views taken into account are to be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity.
- Those closest to the child's situation and best able to assess it are to be consulted about the political, social and cultural ramifications of any reportage.
- Do not publish a story or an image which might put the child, siblings or peers at risk even when identities are changed, obscured or not used.
These children are often in desperate situations and yes, you are taking food and aid to them, but taking a picture with them (without permission or consent) is self-serving. So what it becomes is an act of marketing more than goodwill, and we appear to live in a world that is driven by this kind of thing.
But the opposite view has been argue, saying that we live in a world where the medium is visual, A picture speaks a thousand words.
And what those people are in fact saying is: this child, through whatever circumstances, is in a situation where there is desperation and poverty, it’s now okay to use the picture of the child to promote yourself though an act of goodwill. We all understand that orphanages need support and many argue how better to show the good work that they’re doing than through a picture that can get broadcast through various mediums, and perhaps that would urge people to contribute.
It’s such a fine line and one that non-profits have to tread quite carefully. When does it become the pornography of poverty? When does it become the spectacle of poverty, where you are showcasing a situation in a way that doesn’t respect the dignity of the beneficiary?
At the end of the day, this picture had quite a negative impact given that people homed in on the glove story – so an unanticipated negative consequence. If permission was granted to capture those images and broadcast them, then I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with it, but we need to ascertain whether this permission was actually granted or not.
The repercussion, if permission was not granted is that, that image could be used anywhere. Strangers could lift it off the net, stick it on to a form and claim to be raising money for the kid when in fact they’re simply duping unsuspecting people. There can absolutely be some nefarious use of those images.
On the other hand people need to look at themselves and ask, “What drives me to give?” We live in a society where there is so much superficiality that this kind of marketing strategy might be necessary.
Will these people who are all moaning about the photograph, off their own bat, get off their backsides and go and find an orphanage and give something, without having some kind of trigger. And what is the trigger? Is it a necessary evil? It requires some reflection on the part of both the people using the image to promote their cause and the people who should be giving, just because.
The thing is, organisations can use 140 characters and say something like: “We have a hundred and fifty children that need feeding, please will you donate” but will it have the same impact as a picture? We know that the most popular and most viewed material on social media are videos and pictures. These are the things that attract attention. If we were to compare a text tweet with an image tweet, one is going to get more attention than the other – the picture is going to get more attention.
So there are three issues that need consideration here. One is the gloves issue, which is separate and probably blown out of proportion and do we need another example of social media getting it wrong with a very superficial analysis of what’s happening in a situation. You can take something completely out of its context and there is no effort to explore it beyond the surface.
The media is also to blame here. I’ve been reading the IOL articles and one of the headlines said something like: Miss South Africa in racial drama, and the article goes on to say that Twitter lambasted her for this but they only focused on that. They didn’t focus on the other view.
Secondly, there is the issue of the portrayal of children potentially without permission for the purposes of promoting a cause – is it right or wrong? And thirdly, we need to ask what the impact of these issues on charitable giving is? How does it influence people’s generosity? There are two sides to this, how do NPOs promote the good work that they’re doing in an age of superficial social media? And the other side is that people’s reactions are: “What’s the point of doing good because no matter what you do there’s a negative reaction to it!”
If you just happen to be looking the wrong way or you get caught unaware by a photographer and you happen to have a grimace on your face or whatever, it will be interpreted in the wrong way. So the potential fallout is that people will say, “Why bother? Why help when there is potential for this kind of fall out?” So people become risk-adverse; they don’t want to say or do anything because of the potential risks. It’s a catch 22. Perhaps in the end the answer is: just go and do good no matter who gets to know about it!
You can email Terence Pillay at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @terencepillay1 and tweet him your thoughts .
But the opposite view has been argue, saying that we live in a world where the medium is visual, A picture speaks a thousand words.
And what those people are in fact saying is: this child, through whatever circumstances, is in a situation where there is desperation and poverty, it’s now okay to use the picture of the child to promote yourself though an act of goodwill. We all understand that orphanages need support and many argue how better to show the good work that they’re doing than through a picture that can get broadcast through various mediums, and perhaps that would urge people to contribute.
It’s such a fine line and one that non-profits have to tread quite carefully. When does it become the pornography of poverty? When does it become the spectacle of poverty, where you are showcasing a situation in a way that doesn’t respect the dignity of the beneficiary?
At the end of the day, this picture had quite a negative impact given that people homed in on the glove story – so an unanticipated negative consequence. If permission was granted to capture those images and broadcast them, then I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with it, but we need to ascertain whether this permission was actually granted or not.
The repercussion, if permission was not granted is that, that image could be used anywhere. Strangers could lift it off the net, stick it on to a form and claim to be raising money for the kid when in fact they’re simply duping unsuspecting people. There can absolutely be some nefarious use of those images.
On the other hand people need to look at themselves and ask, “What drives me to give?” We live in a society where there is so much superficiality that this kind of marketing strategy might be necessary.
Will these people who are all moaning about the photograph, off their own bat, get off their backsides and go and find an orphanage and give something, without having some kind of trigger. And what is the trigger? Is it a necessary evil? It requires some reflection on the part of both the people using the image to promote their cause and the people who should be giving, just because.
The thing is, organisations can use 140 characters and say something like: “We have a hundred and fifty children that need feeding, please will you donate” but will it have the same impact as a picture? We know that the most popular and most viewed material on social media are videos and pictures. These are the things that attract attention. If we were to compare a text tweet with an image tweet, one is going to get more attention than the other – the picture is going to get more attention.
So there are three issues that need consideration here. One is the gloves issue, which is separate and probably blown out of proportion and do we need another example of social media getting it wrong with a very superficial analysis of what’s happening in a situation. You can take something completely out of its context and there is no effort to explore it beyond the surface.
The media is also to blame here. I’ve been reading the IOL articles and one of the headlines said something like: Miss South Africa in racial drama, and the article goes on to say that Twitter lambasted her for this but they only focused on that. They didn’t focus on the other view.
Secondly, there is the issue of the portrayal of children potentially without permission for the purposes of promoting a cause – is it right or wrong? And thirdly, we need to ask what the impact of these issues on charitable giving is? How does it influence people’s generosity? There are two sides to this, how do NPOs promote the good work that they’re doing in an age of superficial social media? And the other side is that people’s reactions are: “What’s the point of doing good because no matter what you do there’s a negative reaction to it!”
If you just happen to be looking the wrong way or you get caught unaware by a photographer and you happen to have a grimace on your face or whatever, it will be interpreted in the wrong way. So the potential fallout is that people will say, “Why bother? Why help when there is potential for this kind of fall out?” So people become risk-adverse; they don’t want to say or do anything because of the potential risks. It’s a catch 22. Perhaps in the end the answer is: just go and do good no matter who gets to know about it!
You can email Terence Pillay at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @terencepillay1 and tweet him your thoughts .