His main point was that children can evoke stronger emotions of innocence,
vulnerability and hope than adults. In photographs that show older people striving for peace there are always other symbols, like a white dove for example, that help to portray the same feelings. Children are a symbol of peace in themselves and were used in that way in photographs taken during the troubles. The sight of children placed in the middle of conflict is much stronger than any other image. It is much more effective to show people who are unable to care for or protect themselves as victims in conflict. Outsiders have much stronger negative feelings towards the “enemy” inflicting oppression onto the children pictured. A photo that Chris Gilligan kept returning to was a photograph of a young boy
standing in front of a line of British army trucks and a British soldier. The child looks confused and scared of what is going on. This photo was used very effectively to show the British army intruding on the Nationalist community. However, Chris Gilligan then showed the same picture taken from a different angle. This time, the child, still looking bewildered, is looking at the camera with at least six photographers laying on the ground beside him. The menacing British army trucks are still in the background, but the feeling of the photo is completely changed. The photographers were purposefully finding the most expressive angle from which to take the picture. 
When I think about photographs I see them as one moment captured on film. For this scene though, there are at least two completely different meanings that can be attached to this one moment just by the angle from which the photo was taken. The situation is completely exaggerated and it is obvious that the scene was staged for the sole purpose of showing the British army as invaders of this child’s space. This use and manipulation of children was used on both sides. The photo of the child in front of British trucks is very much Catholic Republican but Chris Gilligan also used a photo of a young boy dressed in Orange Order apparel which is obviously Protestant Loyalist. It is unfortunate that adults must use their children in order to evoke reactions from outsiders. This puts the child in the middle of conflict when they have no control over their situations.
This made me think about all of the ways in which things can be manipulated by the way they are shown to the public. How many of the pictures that I see everyday represent reality? There really is no way to tell without being present at the time when the photo was taken. The responsibility of photojournalists is to find images that support the story they are working on, and sometimes that photo can be taken under a completely different situation. This also leads into propaganda images. There are so many images that support one side of a problem or event and it is quite possible that a large number of these photos are taken under completely different circumstances. If the public knew the setting of the original photograph it would not be so effective in promoting one side of an issue? So does that mean that media can simply create meanings out of irrelevant situations?
Throughout history there is evidence of media has altered information in order to present one specific side of an issue, for example in 2006 the media altered the number of civilian deaths in Iraq. The number was said to be much smaller than it actually was in order suppress the American knowledge of the severity of the war. I think that it is important for the public to be aware of the real side of the story, both with information and photographs, but, unfortunately, there is no way to promise the integrity of the media by any means. I don’t see this situation changing anytime in the near future and I also have no suggestions on how it could be accomplished.
Anyways, back to Northern Ireland, I hope that the children who were used for propaganda purposes are not affected by their misrepresentation in these photographs later in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment