When you see them
On my mind
This week, the AP reported on the drowning of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, a migrant father from El Salvador, and Valeria, his 23-month-old daughter as they tried to cross the Rio Grande. I came across the news of this tragedy because of the discourse around the photo that accompanied the story.
Most people in my circle and other journalists criticized the publishing of that photo and refused to circulate it. I avoided seeing the picture for a nearly a day until it finally popped up on my newsfeed. I immediately scrolled away, a sharp pain flashing in my stomach, but it was too late. My eyes had already seen the bodies, one large and one small. Side by side. Face down in the muddy water. Backs exposed.
As journalists, we are supposed to follow a code of ethics which includes (among other things) to pursue truth but also to minimize harm. What kind of impact could the picture have on Ramírez’s family and friends to unexpectedly see the news and the public exposure of the dead bodies? Is it responsible to distribute photos like that when a simple story could relay the relevant information? Some argue that there’s pure news value and without shocking pictures, people will not find such stories compelling enough to pay attention to immigration issues. Others argue why does it have to be at expense of the bodies of black and brown folks?
Vox’s visual editor Kainaz Amaria and Marissa Martinez shared some great thoughts on the power of imagery, narrative control, and consequences of showing brutal pictures from marginalized communities. The New York Times editors explained their decision to their readers on why they chose to publish the images (warning: the image appears at the top of the story.)
About a month ago, I watched the Netflix series, When They See Us, about the five teens who were wrongly accused and incarcerated for a rape they did not commit. It was painful to watch, but I felt like it was my duty to be informed about such a huge case that took place a year before I was born. As much as I identify as a words person, I found the series to be more profound and gripping than the articles I read. I want everyone to watch it as well. Even though the series has been a hit for Netflix and already sparked change, there are many people who have said they can’t watch it because they find it too triggering and traumatic.
Why do I consider When They See Us differently than the drowning photo, though they both have the potential for social impact through visual storytelling? In short, it’s about consent. You can choose to watch the Netflix series if you want. The Exonerated Five willingly allowed their story to be depicted. They have agency and are still alive to influence the storytelling and continue the conversation.
Ramírez and his daughter had no say in their pictures being taken and shared all over the world. If their picture is used by a news outlet, you have no choice but to see it when it is published, unless it’s online and has a content warning. When making these editorial decisions, who are the publishers assuming is the intended audience that needs to see these images? Their picture may have generated a larger conversation and certainly moved a lot of people to focus on the plight of migrants, and yet I still wonder why it takes grief for people’s humanity to be recognized. I wonder when that grief will shift towards the accountability of those in power and the systems in place that are responsible for these tragic events.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, whether or not you agree with me.
What I’m noting this week:
The Democrats go head to head to head to…. // Did you watch the Democratic-primary debates? If you need to catch up, you can read full transcripts with annotations, sortable by topic from night one and night two. Check out some highlights and analysis of the winners and losers. And of course, some of my favorite meme-worthy moments including Cory Booker’s face when Beto O’Rourke started answering questions in Spanish:
Marianne Williamson’s random, spiritual responses to just about anything:
Marianne Williamson has already reached legendary also-ran status. Reparations. Spiritual Energy. Inexplicable 1940s Mid-Atlantic Accent. An icon.Pete Buttgieg glaring at Eric Swalwell for telling him he should have fired the police chief in response to the fatal shooting of a black man in his hometown of South Bend, Indiana.
Hour two opened with Rachel Maddow asking Pete Buttigieg about a police officer who killed a black man in his town. Eric Swalwell said Pete should fire the chief of police. https://t.co/f6ZFEEbWpLAnd so many more. If you’re totally lost and forgot all about the debates, use this calendar to help you prepare for the long road to 2020.
Wayfair Should Have Seen It Coming // Wayfair employees found out that the furniture-goods company was doing business with a government contractor which would use its beds at a detention center on the border. Cue outrage, a staff-led petition to cancel the contract and on Wednesday, a walkout. Wayfair’s co-founder was surprised that a company can’t just be politically neutral and tried explaining to staff that while he sympathized with the cause, that Wayfair couldn’t be a “discriminatory business.” The Atlantic obtained audio from that staff meeting where you can hear more of his thoughts on the need to fulfill orders for all. Then ahead of the walkout, Wayfair announced a $100,000 donation to the Red Cross, which putting aside that nonprofit’s issues, was completely ignoring what Wayfair employees requested, which was a donation to RAICES, a legal service organization for refugees and immigrants in Texas. In case it wasn’t clear already, the era of superficial corporate social responsibility may be coming to a close.
Inside Sudan’s viral revolution // Did you turn your profile picture blue in the last few weeks? The rapid spread of Sudan news over social media is a testament to the tireless efforts of grassroots Sudanese activists and organizations (with mainstream media slowly catching up). The downside of viral engagement is the risk of misinformation also spreading. This is a reminder to myself first to slow down and make sure to read up on the history of Sudanese politics before assuming I understand what’s happening in the current uprising. The virtual book club #BecauseWeveRead has a great emergency reading list to get you started if you’re interested.
The best book to read at every age // It feels like there’s never enough time to read all the books on your reading list or is it just me? P.S. Be my friend on GoodReads and start a reading challenge. Good thing the Washington Post is here to recommend more books for you no matter how old you get.
Living alone is a revolutionary act // I am living alone for the first time ever and still processing the experience, so I loved reading this piece by Jennifer Chowdhury, the daughter of Bangladeshi Muslim immigrant parents on what she learned from creating a place of her own. One quote that especially resonated: “Where did the women in my family go when they wanted a moment to reflect? How did they ever get to know themselves intimately without the so-necessary rite of passage of living on your own?”
30 Feet from Stardom // I’m a huge fan of Identity Politics, a podcast on race, gender and Muslims in America, so consider this my endorsement. This week’s episode on the costs and benefits of being a Muslim woman with a high profile really hit home, considering a heated Twitter discussion I participated in this week on the dangers of self-tokenization in the media.
That’s it for me this week. If you’ve got links to share, comments, or questions, please send them my way.
Have a good weekend!
— Nesima