I have been thinking lots lately about how media should really serve to unite humanity by serving as a channel for us to learn about one another, yet it has evolved into a channel that dehumanizes people and paints those different from ourselves as “the other”.
What went wrong, and what can be done to make it better?
Example 1: Amplification of "The Other"
Take a look at this first example of a beautiful photo series that popped up on my Facebook feed a month ago on nomadic Reindeer herders in Mongolia. I was first mesmerized by the photos and the culture of the people, but in later reflection over a month later I realized that there’s actually several nuances which underpin why this piece takes humanity further part:
The implication with the way this is presented is that anybody with a prestigious Western education is suddenly a superior authority on matters relative to locals who are immersed in their environments, and if this person goes far enough in the field, all of the sudden they are immensely rewarded for their ability to capture those who can only be seen through a looking glass.
Example 2: The World as the Western Playground
Let's take a look at this second example profiling the work of National Geographic photographers around the world. The video shows stunning images captured by NatGeo and the photographers behind them.
When it was founded in 1888, the world was a much different place: a playground for Western colonial influences across the globe. People cherished exotic spices from India, animal hides from South America, tusks from Africa and silk from China. And human curiosity drove NatGeo's founding and growth: what are people who live across the world truly like?
Fast forward to today where anyone could drop down anywhere in the world within 24 hours, and digital media can reach people instantaneously in real time. NatGeo's survival depends on ignoring these advances and continuing to highlight the "exoticness" of the nature and people captured by its illustrious photographers.
As highlighted in the video above, the world isn't much different than in 1888 where the west saw the rest as a playground for its own exploration and the rest are just humans who serve to provide a momentary glimpse that can be consumed and discarded.
Example 3: The Invisible Human
Lastly, this third example highlighting the impact of climate change shows how humans can be peripheral to a narrative on a broader issue.
The woman in this photo is center focused and takes up 50% of the frame, yet her existence isn't even acknowledged until 3/4 of the way down the narrative. She receives no name, and again is shown as "the other" with no descriptor but that she is a "local Urohobo people".
In Conclusion
My criticism isn't specifically towards National Geographic or other institutions which thrive on setting forward journalistic excellence in documenting humanity, and I do believe NatGeo inspires people to more closely examine the world around them. At the end of the day, these institutions are driven by photographers who are genuinely passionate about showing the world what the world is like and these photographers individually are truly connected to the world around them.
In aggregate when it all comes together, media has turned to putting human beings behind the looking glass much like an antique is placed inside a glass cage in a museum. These humans are to be awed and bespectacled, and when the viewer is done consuming these individuals for their own intellectual curiosity, they are cast aside for the next one.
It's no wonder there is more media attention on the new royal princess than the 7,000 who perished in the Nepalese earthquake, or how the lost lives of 12 Parisians drawing controversial cartoons created way more buzz than the 2,000 who died in Boko Haram atrocities in North Nigeria. After all, they are "the other".
These perceptions and lack of empathy should be a thing of the past given how hyper-connected our modern world is, yet chronic barriers to our interconnectedness lead to real world implications. These barriers make it that much easier for the pilot of a military drone to carry out his mission, or for a corporate executive to choose economic gains over the livelihoods of the people being displaced by the company's factory.
There's several things which I feel need to be done about this... the solutions are far from easy but I believe the below guiding principles serve as a starting point:
1) Bring forward commonalities, not divides, between people
We're all born the same with the same red blood, yet media starts with the differences between people not what brings them in common. How are we supposed to become empathetic to those from a different religious, sexual, cultural, etc. orientation from us if the starting point is that these people are not like us?
2) Dignify people with their own name
A dog without a name is a stray, while a dog with a name is the cherished companion of a lucky person. When people are highlighted in media without a name, they instantly become harder to empathize with. Sure, sometimes names are hard to pronounce and therefore not publicized, but regardless this is important in dignifying the humanity of an individual.
3) Let locals tell their own stories
There is a notion in journalism of giving people a voice, as though marginalized individuals around the world can’t speak for themselves until a foreign educated journalist comes their way.
This is why I love initiatives such as the Aspen New Voices program which empowers and trains talented individuals in the developing world to share their experiences with the rest of the world. My good friend James Kassaga Arinaitwe is an alumni of this program and I can see how his passion for sharing stories from Uganda has inspired conversations across the globe on what his country truly needs to advance. You can follow his Twitter to get a sense of the local perspective.
4) Give them an audience
However, arming locals to tell their stories doesn't matter if it falls on deaf ears. When was the last time the average person opened up an article by a Ugandan on education in Uganda, or a Pakistani on why Pakistan has a much deeper and beautiful culture than the world currently comes to believe?
That's where I am really curious about how we tell stories. If these locals start telling stories using guiding principles #1 and #2 above, will that provide a fresh perspective and narrative the world is dying to hear?
What do you think?
What went wrong, and what can be done to make it better?
Example 1: Amplification of "The Other"
Take a look at this first example of a beautiful photo series that popped up on my Facebook feed a month ago on nomadic Reindeer herders in Mongolia. I was first mesmerized by the photos and the culture of the people, but in later reflection over a month later I realized that there’s actually several nuances which underpin why this piece takes humanity further part:
- A need to make some humans "exotic" and different: "This richly unique, aboriginal people is one of the smallest, most obscure in Asia"
- Recognition of the photographer as the only human being: Nobody from this "richly unique" group of people gets a name or words to speak. They are seen through the looking glass of the photographer's camera.
- Rewards for capturing "the other": Tremendous credit is given to the photographer for his ability to seek and capture these photos of such a remote people
- Emphasis on Western superiority: "And with a Ph. D. in Sanskrit and Tibetan Studies from Harvard, Sardar-Afkhami was the perfect person to chronicle their lives."
- It may be a little known secret that Tibet is not Mongolia, Harvard is based the US not Asia, and Mongolian is based on 6 languages outside of Sanskrit. So what makes this individual the best person to chronicle their lives?
The implication with the way this is presented is that anybody with a prestigious Western education is suddenly a superior authority on matters relative to locals who are immersed in their environments, and if this person goes far enough in the field, all of the sudden they are immensely rewarded for their ability to capture those who can only be seen through a looking glass.
Example 2: The World as the Western Playground
Let's take a look at this second example profiling the work of National Geographic photographers around the world. The video shows stunning images captured by NatGeo and the photographers behind them.
- 100% of the photographers profiled are white. 100%. Not a single one from an ethnic minority, for an institution that prides itself on immersing in the world.
- Yet, their pictures are incredibly exotic. Exotic places juxtaposed with exotic animals and... exotic people.
When it was founded in 1888, the world was a much different place: a playground for Western colonial influences across the globe. People cherished exotic spices from India, animal hides from South America, tusks from Africa and silk from China. And human curiosity drove NatGeo's founding and growth: what are people who live across the world truly like?
Fast forward to today where anyone could drop down anywhere in the world within 24 hours, and digital media can reach people instantaneously in real time. NatGeo's survival depends on ignoring these advances and continuing to highlight the "exoticness" of the nature and people captured by its illustrious photographers.
As highlighted in the video above, the world isn't much different than in 1888 where the west saw the rest as a playground for its own exploration and the rest are just humans who serve to provide a momentary glimpse that can be consumed and discarded.
Example 3: The Invisible Human
Lastly, this third example highlighting the impact of climate change shows how humans can be peripheral to a narrative on a broader issue.
The woman in this photo is center focused and takes up 50% of the frame, yet her existence isn't even acknowledged until 3/4 of the way down the narrative. She receives no name, and again is shown as "the other" with no descriptor but that she is a "local Urohobo people".
In Conclusion
My criticism isn't specifically towards National Geographic or other institutions which thrive on setting forward journalistic excellence in documenting humanity, and I do believe NatGeo inspires people to more closely examine the world around them. At the end of the day, these institutions are driven by photographers who are genuinely passionate about showing the world what the world is like and these photographers individually are truly connected to the world around them.
In aggregate when it all comes together, media has turned to putting human beings behind the looking glass much like an antique is placed inside a glass cage in a museum. These humans are to be awed and bespectacled, and when the viewer is done consuming these individuals for their own intellectual curiosity, they are cast aside for the next one.
It's no wonder there is more media attention on the new royal princess than the 7,000 who perished in the Nepalese earthquake, or how the lost lives of 12 Parisians drawing controversial cartoons created way more buzz than the 2,000 who died in Boko Haram atrocities in North Nigeria. After all, they are "the other".
These perceptions and lack of empathy should be a thing of the past given how hyper-connected our modern world is, yet chronic barriers to our interconnectedness lead to real world implications. These barriers make it that much easier for the pilot of a military drone to carry out his mission, or for a corporate executive to choose economic gains over the livelihoods of the people being displaced by the company's factory.
There's several things which I feel need to be done about this... the solutions are far from easy but I believe the below guiding principles serve as a starting point:
1) Bring forward commonalities, not divides, between people
We're all born the same with the same red blood, yet media starts with the differences between people not what brings them in common. How are we supposed to become empathetic to those from a different religious, sexual, cultural, etc. orientation from us if the starting point is that these people are not like us?
2) Dignify people with their own name
A dog without a name is a stray, while a dog with a name is the cherished companion of a lucky person. When people are highlighted in media without a name, they instantly become harder to empathize with. Sure, sometimes names are hard to pronounce and therefore not publicized, but regardless this is important in dignifying the humanity of an individual.
3) Let locals tell their own stories
There is a notion in journalism of giving people a voice, as though marginalized individuals around the world can’t speak for themselves until a foreign educated journalist comes their way.
This is why I love initiatives such as the Aspen New Voices program which empowers and trains talented individuals in the developing world to share their experiences with the rest of the world. My good friend James Kassaga Arinaitwe is an alumni of this program and I can see how his passion for sharing stories from Uganda has inspired conversations across the globe on what his country truly needs to advance. You can follow his Twitter to get a sense of the local perspective.
4) Give them an audience
However, arming locals to tell their stories doesn't matter if it falls on deaf ears. When was the last time the average person opened up an article by a Ugandan on education in Uganda, or a Pakistani on why Pakistan has a much deeper and beautiful culture than the world currently comes to believe?
That's where I am really curious about how we tell stories. If these locals start telling stories using guiding principles #1 and #2 above, will that provide a fresh perspective and narrative the world is dying to hear?
What do you think?
