The camera is now a weapon. It’s scanning our souls

Photo by Derick McKinney, Unsplash.com

The camera has always been controversial, but it’s getting us into quagmires we never envisaged. Especially during times of conflict. A very brief History: President Nixon was annoyed when the ‘Napalm Photo’ was released in 1972 by the Associated Press photographer, Nick Ut. It’s been said that during the Civil war, “stripped away much of the Victorian-era romance around warfare.” Many of you will probably remember this 1993 image of the starving child in Sudan, because of the controversy surrounding why the photographer had not intervened.

The camera is so ubiquitous, we barely notice, or complain when it is misused. I’m not simply referring to surveillance cameras in cities (about which I have written), but those wanna-be citizen journalists who photograph or video an event just for the spectacle.

Since cameras have become cheaper, smaller and able to live-stream to media platforms, I’ve seen a growing number of incidents in which the camera has become the agent provocateur, precipitating (or exaggerating) a story that would otherwise have been quite banal. The trouble with raising a camera in a crowd is that it entices someone to play to it, knowing fully well that (a) the footage could be used in the media, or at the least (b) give a person in the frame that 15 seconds of fame. Few people care to ask young people why they feel compelled to turn every scene, every gathering, into a ‘story.’ Are they photographers, or is the phone-slash camera just a scanner? Is it possible that the camera is revealing something of our souls?

On an everyday level, you have probably seen the absence of compassion in situations like this and brushed it off.

• An accident at which bystanders raise their phones rather than rush to help.
• An argument in a store, and customers believe they’ve been hired by CNN to document the event for prime time, while no one intervenes.

Not everyone is an Abraham Zapruder, a clothing manufacture standing on Elm Street in Dallas on November 22, 1963 accidentally filmed the assassination of John. F. Kennedy. Today everyone seems to have the urge to ‘report’ events, if only just to look good on their media feeds.

To this end, I thought the WIRED piece on questioning the motivation of camera-toting protesters was fitting. It said:

Before you grab your camera and rush out the door, ask yourself why you want to take photos at this event. You should not take photos at a protest for likes, follows, or social media clout. Do not do attend a protest just to say you were there. Protests aren’t photoshoots, and the people in the streets venting their anger and frustration at systemic injustices aren’t there to pose for your Insta. Just think about your motivations, and be honest with yourself.

Would you still want to go protest if you left your phone and camera at home? Be a protester first, a photographer second.

“How to Take Photos at Protests Safely — and Responsibly.” — by Jess Grey

Unfortunately amateur photographers, empowered with great cameras on their phones are often recording events, selfies, stills and video, just to impress their followers, and grab a few hundred likes in the process. In case you’re wondering, yes, I’m a part-time photographer; yes I do post pictures on some websites. But there are ethics involved in what I shoot and whom I feature. They used to teach us those things. The ‘code of ethics’ in photography (yes, there is such a thing!) is hardly spoken of.

It’s time we did. To our children at home, first.

Why? Two reasons: They are very likely going to be accidental bystanders in an event, and have a device to record it with. Also, the camera is getting many young people into trouble and if we all remain quiet (or leave it up to us teachers to show them the guardrails) it may be too late. A dispassionate use of ‘footage’ just to make a point to one’s followers, will corrupt not just photography but dilute our humanity. Worse, irresponsible photographs, may — actually will! — haunt young people for the rest of their lives.

All because of a piece of hardware.