The New York Times looking like this this morning:
Here is the cover photo, I would credit it but…
So this is my thinking: what is more interesting, the photo, or the stated fact of it’s production, the anonymous tourist photographer who somehow caught the eye of the editors at the New York Times, (ie; transmitted, emailed however) got a call back and approved the use of the picture with the caveat that their identity not be revealed?
I don’t believe it is the first time an amateur has carried the front cover of the “paper of record,” although I cannot remember a recent example. Perhaps 9-11. That in itself might make for an interesting comparison. But the fact of this somewhat unremarkable topographic-style view carrying the front cover when a cursory survey of other agencies reveals many other choices makes me ask the question, what is this doing?
Theory one: encourage citizen journalists.
The turn is actually much better, but lacks the drama of the fire:
There is a certain incongruity between the Tibetan woman and the toilet paper flying in way usually reserved for Tibetan prayer flags, at least the way they seem to appear in all pictures of Tibet.
I think it is likely that the thinking was along these lines, encourage citizen journalists plus, it does play into a whole romantic notion similar to “A Year of Living Dangerously” where people are caught up in events beyond their control yet something extraordinary happens. A triumph of courage and commitment to art, something like that.
Certainly it does capture the idea that for 24 hours, no one was minding the store.
When you read the story the lede does begin from the point of view of foreigners and Lhasa residents, and we get the “reliable” accounting from an unnamed American woman who spent hours navigating the riot scene. Seems it was safe enough for her yet all the P-J’s were in lockdown?
However, in a country packed with journalists in anticipation of the summer games, and the fact that the pot had been boiling for a week prior, this is who they chose to go with?
Theory two: tourist is journalist? This one is a far stretch, because I don’t believe the atmosphere is so dangerous for journalists that they cannot work, but perhaps publishing these pictures somehow undermines an existing trust that had been built for someone working over there so they decided not to chance it. Again, this is more speculation than anything. But as a precedent it is worrisome since it bodes poorly for tourists-message is-authorities need to crack down on tourists now since they might be potential “journalists”. Regardless if this theory is true or not, it does put tourists in harms-way. And that is a much larger lesson. Do we really want to encourage citizen journalism? Do bystanders understand the risks they are taking, and for what, the thrill of publication? On the one hand, I am sure the media does want to encourage this kind of participatory approach, I think it plays to the audience in a way like American Idol. Use your cell phone to simultaneously vote for your fav act and photograph Chinese unrest…On the other hand, a whole glut of ethical issues just waiting to crack open. Who wants to be the first citizen journalist confined in a Chinese prison?
Anyway you look at it, the significance goes well beyond the stated caption.
I think this is less about citizen-journalist v. pro journalist than it is about the importance of the image. I don’t know what the editor had in front of him when it came time to chose images for the story, but I know that the importance of recording a photographic record precedes things like aesthetics and source when it really comes down to it.
Thomas Dworzak made a really interesting statement on his part of the ‘Wars’ essay series on Magnum In Motion. He essentially said that, in spite of the current proliferation of photojournalists, probably the most important images of the decade are the abu ghraib prison photos.
Obviously there’s a kind of animosity on the part of the photo practitioner in that, despite the fact that they’ve devoted a piece of their life (or even most of it in some cases) to honing the craft of photography, they are not always the ones creating important images. But, again, the fact that the images are being created and being put out their for people to see so that they know what’s going on in the world (without the abu ghraib prison photos there would probably be little or no outrage over torture tactics).
The flip side is the ubiquity of digital image capture and the resultant watering down of the value of photography as an art form. The citizen-journalist is equally an artifact of this phenomenon. And I think it is very important to capture images that evoke things and tell stories over and above just presenting raw data. This, I think, will be the continuing role of real, talented photojournalists: to capture a photographic history that will have longevity passed the top fold of the Sunday Times.
For example: there were a whole lot of photos of Vietnam, but there are a few iconic ones that have become synonymous with that part of our history.
Sorry for the long winded comment, but I find this a fascinating topic of discussion!
-Justin