In response to the following article regarding photojournalist Jeff Mitchell’s image of refugees crossing from Croatia to Slovenia in October 2015, which was used controversially by the UK Independent Party during the 2016 referendum campaign to leave the European Union.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jun/22/jeff-mitchells-best-shot-the-column-of-marching-refugees-used-in-ukips-brexit-campaign (Links to an external site.)
“A picture is worth 1,000 words.” Herein lies the debate.
Photographer Jeff Mitchell on his images of the refugee migration:1
“Photographers are there to record stories, as they happen and when they happen, in the best way we can. But what happens after that, how our images are used, can be out of our control, especially in the digital age – which is unfortunate, particularly in this case.”
“I was busy on another job when I heard they’d used it, and carried on with my work as normal. My job – telling the story of the migrants – had been done. It’s just unfortunate how it’s been picked up. It’s difficult for any agency – Getty, Reuters, AP – that circulates photographers’ images. They’re out there. And it’s not just Ukip.”
“Newspapers also use shots in the wrong context. It depends on the political slant of any organisation. You have to remain impartial. I’m there to record what happens. I know it sounds simplistic, but you shoot what’s in front of you. Some of the migrant crisis made for beautiful pictures; it was in the summer, with morning light coming down the train tracks.”
Images such as Jeff Mitchell’s immigrant migration from Croatia & Turkish journalist Nilüfer Demir‘s photographs of Alan Kurdis’s body, serve to highlight the conflict of photographers intent v’s story. The viewer will bring to the fold their own interpretation as much as the headlines. It could also be said that picture researchers often select images with no background knowledge of the image other than it aligns with a brief. There can be positive outcomes with images used in this way as in the highly emotive Alan Kurdi image that highlighted, on the world stage, the enormity of the plight of the refugees.2
Equally negative outcomes can emerge as seen with the UKIP ‘Breaking Point’ campaign & no doubt also for the agency that produced it.3
This lends photographers to each consider their own personal moral stance to photograph in a way that feels ethical, respectful, and honest & to do what feels right. Being mindful that signing/giving away the usage rights to agencies for stock images & to other media outlets that use then may & probably will misrepresent the original intent. Understand that no matter how good your intentions are, there will always be comment.
1 Jeff Mitchell’s best photograph: ‘These people have been betrayed by Ukip’ https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jun/22/jeff-mitchells-best-shot-the-column-of-marching-refugees-used-in-ukips-brexit-campaign
2 These images changed public opinion. Has Alan Kurdi’s photo done the same?
https://globalnews.ca/news/2204006/these-images-changed-public-opinion-has-alan-kurdis-photo-done-the-same/
3 Edinburgh firm was behind UKIP’s notorious Breaking Point advert in Brexit referendum http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15369469.Edinburgh_firm_was_behind_UKIP_s_notorious_Breaking_Point_advert_in_Brexit_referendum/
