As visual journalists, we know intimately what it’s like to be behind a camera in the pursuit of news. We know what settings to use to achieve which effects, what angles and framing choices will result in the most powerful visuals, the media law surrounding our ability to document life in public, and our roles and functions as journalists.
I’d wager we know less, however, about the experience on the other side of the lens. What do our subjects know about journalism’s role and function, whether it’s legal to record in public, or even less lofty concerns like which outlet we’re with and how the visuals will be used? In this age of proliferating cameras, people have become more used to being documented but also more savvy about their representation and how they want to be depicted. There’s a potential tension here that is relevant considering the public’s sinking trust in journalism and a definite benefit in better understanding how visual journalism is made, by whom, in which circumstances and with what results.
My latest book, “To See and Be Seen: The Environments, Interactions, and Identities Behind News Images,” examines these issues by observing visual journalists in the field as they do their work and by talking with the people whom journalists documented and trying to understand their experiences and how they react to the visuals made of them.
The results are surprising.
People expect, for example, journalists to be unobtrusive, respectful, accurate and engaged in a dialogue with those they document. For a smaller subset, they also expected to be asked for permission while being documented in public. In contrast, only one person had the expectation that journalists would create visually interesting media. For us as masters of a craft and for our employers who rely on our visuals to get clicks and boost engagement, aesthetics may very well matter. But for subjects, our behavior while documenting the news matters more.
Another surprising finding was that only about half of the interactions I observed included some meaningful dialogue between camera-wielding journalists and their featured subject. The other half included no interaction at all or very minimal interaction, such as asking only for one’s name and nothing else. This has the risk of producing stereotypical, shallow coverage in which we rely on existing tropes to tell someone’s story rather than finding the nuance and subtlety that differentiate it from others and unpacks why they’re at a particular event and what it means for them.
As one of my participants put it:
I think it would have been better if the photographer had gotten a little more background instead of just my name. I think an extended interaction between the photographer and subject helps the captions, and then the people who are featured in it get a better representation. For me, it’s like, ‘I’m there, but I’m not there.’ My picture’s there, but anything besides my name doesn’t really attach me to the group. To establish the history would be better than just a name.
—Anonymous research participant
When we only interact minimally with our subjects, it also increases the chance that we are picking people to feature in the news based on characteristics that are more important to us than they are to the audiences we serve. As one of my participants notes:
The only thing negative was who she chose to interview. Just because my team is set up where we have more seasoned teammates and then we have the new kids, the new people. Some of the people who were being interviewed were totally new to the team, and it was kind of like, ‘Maybe they don’t know as much about the team as someone who’s been there for three or four years.’
—Anonymous research participant
In this example, maybe the journalists approached the subject they did for a pragmatic reason, such as their cloth- ing complemented the background or they seemed friendly and willing to be interviewed. But because of the relatively shallow interaction, the journalist had little idea that this person was brand-new to the group and that its members would have preferred a more veteran member to be spotlighted.
I offer in the book a number of recommendations for journalists, journalism educators and members of the public. I also balance these expectations with the understanding that journalists need to operate in an environment where they are supported by news organizations with adequate time and resources to provide the kind of coverage that not only is visually stunning but also nuanced and comprehensive. When we incentivize only the end product and not the interactions— ideally interactive, trustworthy and respectful — that shape the end product, we produce shallow content that can, at least in part, account for the public’s sinking trust in journalism. ■
Editor’s note: News Photographer readers can access a 30% discount off all editions of “To See and Be Seen” through December 2020 by using code RLINEW19 at this link. This column was initially published by the National Press Photographers Association in its March/April 2020 edition of News Photographer. View the full issue here.