There are moments when the use of a particular image triggers a debate. Readers question the appropriateness of the photograph. The world of journalism was in a state of dilemma when the images of the beheading of journalists appeared in social media last month. The Public Editor of The New York Times Margaret Sullivan in her column “Should The Times Have Observed a Complete Blackout on ISIS Video Images?” asked some pertinent questions: “Where does newsworthiness end and manipulation begin? How should news organisations handle a brutally violent video that is clearly intended as a terrorist propaganda and recruitment tool?”
There is no consensus over rules that govern the use of photographs in publications. Each publication has its own set of norms which reflect its ethos. Multiple elements determine the selection of a particular image. A photo editor or page editor chooses a picture that satisfies the following criteria: the design element, the power of the image, its topicality, its ability to place a story in context, its representational value, its inherent aesthetic value and above all, ethical cropping of an image.
The Hindu carried an image made from a video obtained on Wednesday, August 27, 2014, of Shirley Sotloff’s appeal to the captors of her son, freelance journalist Steven Sotloff. In other reports, it carried handout photos of the murdered journalist. The paper exhibited a sense of restraint in not playing into the hands of ruthless terrorists.
Use of generic photographsThe other area where page editors and photo editors find themselves defending their decision is the use of generic photographs to illustrate a policy decision. Almost all major publications around the world face this problem on a daily basis. Chris Elliot, Readers’ Editor of The Guardian , tried to address a peeved reader (http://bit.ly/1qv6q9R) whose question was: “How many stories can be illustrated by the same picture?”
The letter that triggered this column was not about repeating a picture but similar image content. Sharachchandra Lele, an environment scholar, took exception to The Hindu ’s use of an image of a jhum field to make a point about environmental degradation. He was referring to a ‘Comment’ page article “Clearance without compliance” (September 9, 2014). He pointed out that the last time this imagery was used to illustrate an article by R.K. Pachauri on green growth and not about forests in the Northeast. Dr. Lele’s argument against the particular image was that the projects referred in the article are roads, dams, mines, industries, resorts and real estate development and not jhum cultivation.
He wrote: “I am sure you did not consider jhum cultivation as one of the ‘projects’ whose clearance is being diluted by the MoEF. Then why did The Hindu publish a photograph of jhum cultivation (and a caption of ‘slash and burn’) along with this article? What relevance does this photograph have to what is being said in the article? Does it not in fact deliberately convey a wrong message, viz. , that the ‘slash and burn’ (evocative words) of jhum cultivation is causing the environmental degradation that the article is concerned about? That jhum cultivation causes ‘irreversible consequences’ (to use words from the caption)? This is neither factually correct, nor relevant to the article. The photograph should have depicted some dams, roads, or other development projects with irreversible impacts.”
According to him, the ecological consequences of jhum cultivation have long been a matter of debate and there is a general consensus that it is as ecologically sound a method of cultivation in the hills as settled agriculture may be in the plains; that the traditional long-cycle jhum is fully sustainable and creates a mosaic of agro-bio-diversity in a forested landscape; that a huge amount of biodiversity can coexist with jhum ; that jhum is less labour-intensive than settled/terraced agriculture and hence more suitable for sparsely populated hilly areas.
I shared this letter with the editorial team handling the ‘Comment’ page. They agreed that the writer may have a point but explained how the image was selected and how they intended to handle this issue in future. Their response: “ The Hindu has published articles on the ‘Comment’ page both in support of and against jhum cultivation, proving therefore that there is no ‘deliberate attempt’ to convey ‘a wrong message’ as the reader suggests. For example, in an article titled ‘Mizoram: Bamboozled by land use policy’ (May 14, 2014), senior scientist T.R. Shankar Raman wrote of the debate over jhum , arguing that this type of cultivation causes only ‘temporary loss of small forest patches followed by forest recovery.’ We carried a picture of jhum cultivation then too with a caption that said ‘it’s a better form of land use than monoculture plantations.’
In this case, we were looking for a picture that depicted degradation in a general sense and its selection wasn’t done with a motive. Using pictures of infrastructural projects, of dams, bridges, etc., and linking them to environmental degradation (as the writer suggests) has also seen the desk being at the receiving end of some biting criticism, as many readers residing at places where these projects are located are quick to take offence. It is a tightrope walk. In picture selection hereafter, on such topics, we will keep in mind what the writer has said.”
Dr. Lele can rest assured that there was no design or intent in the use of the particular image. However, his interpretation that The Hindu too has fallen prey to the colonial bias against jhum is not fair.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
