It is rare to have a photographer speak back to you. I can’t say how thrilled I was to receive a carefully written email from the Argentinian Portuguese (thank you Ziyah Gafic!) photographer Joao Pina some months ago in response to my criticism of a The New York Times Lens Blog piece about his project CONDOR. The original piece, titled Exposing The Legacy Of Operation Condor, which appeared on June 24, 2014, in fact very obviously elided the deep American collaboration and support (financial, intelligence, political and possibly even in weaponry), for the operations that shattered the political and civic resistance landscape in a number of Latin American countries.
An important photo project, but if you are going to speak about Operation Condor, you cannot, and must not, remain silent about the American collaboration and acquiescence in the campaign. It is important to remember that six nations were involved in this campaign, and they were American allies, not the least of which was Pinochet’s Chile. The US was well aware of the mass disappearances and killings that were taking place, and it did not merely stand aside, but also provided technical and other assistance to our allies while it was all taking place.
adding further that:
Photojournalists have to confront history and speak honestly. It is not enough to simply make strong photographs. It is not enough to compartmentalise history into conveniently acceptable and polite packages. I don’t know if Pina will say more in his own words and in his own pages, but I hope that he will see that the New York Times is not the place to offer the complete story of Operation Condor.
And in fact, Joao Pina has said a lot more, and very explicitly too. I learned this through an email I received from Joao Pina some weeks after I wrote my criticism, where he very carefully and with great civility, set me straight on the matter. Details »
I suppose people will say I am harping on this. And I hope they do.
Time Magazine – a publication that Glenn Greenwald recently referred to as a ‘…click-hungry gossip website’ gleefully highlighted how the comedian John Oliver told Edward Snowden that nobody knows who he is or even cares.
This segment – discussing one of the most egregious violations of American constitutional protections and the continued blasé manner in which these protections have been summarily dismissed since 9/11, to say nothing about the flood of lies by our political leaders, including Obama, our military and our intelligence administrators about these programs, is a classic example of how comedy and jokes denude the issue of meaning, gravity and concern. Details »
People are discussing this drivel as if we were not talking about two career comedians meek and polite enough for mainstream media to give them prime time multi-million dollar shows, but political radicals behind whom millions galvanised to over throw society and build a new political order!
Please forgive me not confusing a good joke for political and social dissent. I apologise for not seeing The Daily Show to be an important manifesto. Details »
A big congratulations to the New York Times Lens blog for yet another obfuscatory, confusing, and overtly misleading piece about Libya, ISIS and the chaos that reigns there. Oh, but you will argue, this is not about that, but about the suffering of the families of the Christians who were killed by ISIS. Its an emotional story. A human interest story. Indeed. It is anything but that. It is in fact very much about the fact that the deaths of the these men occurred at the hands of a militancy that only exists because of the near decade long series of idiotic, immoral, criminal and illegitimate military actions we have been gleefully conducting in the region. That is, there is a history, and it is one that we as Americans have written with mendacity, illegality, brutality and simple stupidity. But of course, in the finest traditions of propaganda journalism, all this is simply jettisoned. Details »
The photography workshop needs a serious re-think and re-design. The traditional workshop formats that focus on linear story telling – with their now rather anachronistic conventions of ‘opening image’, ‘sense of place’ images, predictable first-this-one-then-that-one sequencing, basic narrative flow etc. just seems irrelevant and rather out-dated given the possibilities, flexibility, and imaginative capabilities presented by online media. Details »
These are the discussions the photojournalism industry – from editors, to award winning photographers – refuse to engage in. I have already written about the many ways in which manipulated and doctored photography has been for the last some decades been a core part of photojournalism. I have argued that the competitions assiduously avoid speaking about this, and continue to waste time and energy on trivial issues of ‘digital image manipulation’. Somewhere along the line, photo editors, and photojournalists, have convinced themselves that their only, and exclusive, purview is what lies within the frame – the aesthetic of the image. So they endlessly discuss the style, the grammar, the technical facets of frame / image only, but nothing more. Nothing can touch on the lies, manipulations, and doctoring that goes on beyond the frame. Details »
What ails World Press Photo? Well, if you were to read the online comments, and the public statements being made by representatives and spokespersons of WPP, you would think that the only issue that matters is the now seriously tiresome, circular and self-righteous arguments around ‘image manipulation’. Here is a system (which also includes other competitions like POYI for example), that remains silent, and in fact in collusion with, the image manipulations of state-sanctioned, military enforced, ’embedded’ photojournalism, and yet wails endlessly about ‘digital’ manipulation.
When compared to the fact that corporate and embedded photo/journalism has been one of the ugly handmaidens to our recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Chad, Mali, Somalia, Pakistan’s Waziristan regions and more, I find it egregiously silly, if not entirely infantile, that manipulations that led to the deaths, destruction, occupation, torture, and more, are quietly ignored, but digital manipulations that are largely irrelevant and silly, garner all the outrage. We get so upset that Paul Hansen edited his image, while remain silent about the structural reasons for the deaths of the children that his image actually showed! Details »
I question (a) its (Western liberal discourse’s) assumption that ‘religion’ is the major threat to the principles of tolerance and democracy; (b) its part in constructing “an Islamic enemy”; (c) its privileging of the fate of literary authors (and media persons) as against other victims of cruelty; (d) its sacralization of the principles of Freedom of Speech. In brief, I question the assumption that the people who attack these literary authors (and media persons) are part of the larger forces that threaten Modernity itself.
Talal Asad, Europe Against Islam: Islam In Europe 1997
Few are still willing to provide a context, so here is some.”Je Suis Charlie” could just as well be “Je Suis Charles” – here I am referring to the bigoted French interior minister from 1986-1988 Charles Pasqua whose immigration policies were so harsh – as he himself argued, waxing beautifully racist and stupid at the same time: “we will terrorize the terrorists”, that even the UN had to speak up and issue a severe reprimand.
An image from Northern Iraq that I made back in 2005 while working on a story about the struggle of Iraq’s Assyrian Christian community, appears this week on the poster of a new film by Daniel Lombroso about the region’s oldest Christian community. Back in 2005 I had argued that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had bought no respite to a community that had been targeted under the Saddam Hussein regime, and that all pretense to the contrary, the so-called ‘liberation’ of Iraq was about to create even more miseries and difficulties for the very people we claimed we were there to ‘liberate’.