In the readings this week, the authors explored the history of international communication, and specifically the development of new technologies through which we communicate across space. As these technologies were developed, advanced and used for international communication, they gained significant power and influence on cultures, governments and global politics.
The readings talk in depth about major technological innovations such as the printing press, telegraph, radio and television, which are indisputably the dominant means of international communication. However, the readings only briefly mention photographic technology as a media of international communication. In my opinion, photography, and the subsequently developed field of photojournalism, is an equally important technology that has also had a powerful impact on global communication.
“The photograph has affected the way many cultures throughout the world understand and learn about their world.” – From A Brief History of Photojournalism by Dillon Westbrook
As the reading point out, one of the influencing factors for the development of communication technologies has been the need for the dissemination of news, domestically and especially internationally. In Armand Mattelart’s discussion of the development of innovative media for news distribution he mentioned briefly the use of photography, talking specifically about its use to communicate the news during times of war. Mattelart’s brief discussion of photography is interesting, as it contrasts two distinct scenarios:
1. “The British photographer Roger Fenton was authorized to take pictures on the condition that his lens carefully avoid capturing the horrors of the war. “So as not to frighten the families of soldiers” was the reason given by general staff. The result was 360 plates in which the war appeared as a picnic.”
2. “Less than ten years later, photographer Matthew Brady brought back from the Civil War thousands of daguerreotypes that were not subjected to advance censorship: scorched earth, burned-down houses, families in distress, corpses…”
This discussion caught my attention in particular. Another aspect of international communication that the readings touched upon and that was discussed in class was the use of different communication methods for propaganda. Mattelart’s contrast of these two distinct images of war via the same medium of communication is interesting and an illustration of how this technology can be used for propaganda. In one example, the photographer was censored in advance, thereby manipulating the technology, in order to depict the war in a certain light and to communicate a specific message, which was not necessarily a candid message. IN contrast, Matthew Brady communicated a different message, telling a frightening and more accurate, story of the war through his photography. In further researching Matthew Brady, I learned that he is known to some as the father of photojournalism. His great contribution was reporting the story of the American Civil War through his photographs. His main goal, as he has stated was to communicate the true story.
"My greatest aim has been to advance the art of photography and to make it what I think I have, a great and truthful medium of history."
- Mathew B. Brady
The idea of photojournalism as propaganda is important as well. As was the case with the technologies discussed in the readings and in class, once it was realized that this technology could be manipulated to serve an agenda, governing bodies reacted to photojournalism as a powerful means of communication. This reaction can be seen through censorship policies and limitations on freedom of journalism. The use of images as propaganda is not a new concept, but the use of photography to create messages and report stories is an innovation. When you look at a photograph, you are looking at a real image of something that really happened; are you therefore more likely to believe what you see? If you believe it, are you then buying into the opinion of the photographer, seeing what they want you to see? Then, is photojournalism a more effective means of propaganda? A photojournalist is a reporter, and reporters have angles. Maybe in some cases seeing shouldn’t necessarily equal believing.
I would argue that today, photojournalism is one of the most widely used methods of international communication. We can see the use of photojournalism everywhere; few printed news stories are not accompanied by a photograph to complete the relating of the story. With the advent of the internet and now digital photography, the messages contained within photographic images are spread faster than ever across any distance of space. Perhaps in later editions of their books Mattelart, Thussu and Hanson will include photojournalism in their analysis of the history of international communication.
Brittany, I think you bring up a very interesting point. Photojournalism -- like all means of communication -- has the ability to convey a message or meaning onto an action such as war. And as you so correctly pointed it, it even has multiple uses depending on the dynamics of the network in which it is involved (to borrow a little of Castells' terminology).
ReplyDeleteI feel another aspect of photojournalism and photography in general that we could include in your argument is that of photos as Art. Like literature and paintings and sculptures, photography too is an expression of some meaning the creator is trying to extend into the world. Sometimes these ends are political, sometimes they are just to be controversial. The point, however, is that even Art can be interpreted differently depending on what message the "sender" was intending to send out, and what the "receiver" actually interprets it as based on their own cultural contexts.
However, photos have the added dimension of actually being true snap-shots of real human action. For me, this is why photography -- whether it is being used as Art or as a journalistic tool or towards political ends -- is so powerful. The meaning of a photo is not left to the imagination completely; you cannot tap into your idealized version of the action. The action is placed before you, and the reality of a situation (such as Brady's Civil War pictures) cannot be escaped with just a lapse in thought or a change in plot.
So I heartily agree with you that photography should be considered a technological invention that has shaped how we communicate -- both artistically and politically. The saying goes that "a picture is worth a thousand words". Perhaps people will begin to see that it is indeed true, and that those thousand words embedded in a photograph have just as much, if not more, power over attitudes and political agendas than they care to admit.