Can Photography Change the World?

When reading Module 3, I found interesting reference material in the article "100 Photographs that Changed the World", published by Life Magazine and written by The Digital Journalist, to support my idea that photographs can impact the world. I feel the picture is not the thing that changes the world, but after the world changes the image is what people remember. In "100 Photographs that Changed the World," they mentioned how many photos are influential and powerful but still not chosen as cover pictures. The article illustrated that while impactful images like the Hindenburg and Holocaust survivors all have impact and significance, they influence each viewer differently (Digital Journalist). Additionally, the article mentioned an e-mail from Gary and Anita Fender with an attached picture of their grandson where they explain, "He's changed our world, the Fenders wrote, implying a truth that underlies every picture in these pages. It is, in the end, a personal relationship between viewer and image. The power of a picture is in the mind of the beholder" (Digital Journalist). I could not agree more; I, too, believe images can physically and mentally alter a person's perspective, even changing the course of their lives. However, I feel it is not the image; it is the experience around the image impeded in our mind, which then, inturns has us remembering the picture. The Fender's life changed because their grandchild was born their life did not change by the picture of the child. One picture that was very impactful in my life was the photograph below of my Scottish grandparents. This may seem just like a family photo to others, but it led me down a path of discovery to my ancestry that has provided me with extended family, hobbies, and goals for the future. So, my history changed my life, knowing the events I was connected to and the journey my relative went on to come to the United States. It is the knowledge I gained that gives me an emotional connection to the image.

Photo by Daniel Fraher September 15, 2024 Still, I acknowledge that some pictures, like those mentioned in "Censorship of War Casualties in the US" by Ted Rall in this week's Module 3, can have a broader impact than just one person. Rall spoke about the history and altering public opinion when he quoted John G Morris explaining the implications of opinion with Eddie Adam's image of the "naked Cambodian girl running from napalm." John G. Morris stated, "If those pictures helped turned the world against continuation of the Vietnam War, I am glad" (Rall). So, did this image "change the world"? I believe the photograph's context is important; explaining what was happening is necessary to make an impact, and pairing that with the image changed opinions. Section B of our assignment asked for a photo that could “change the world,” I feel the picture posted by the New York Daily News of the tragedy of 9/11 meets this requirement. This particular photograph is not particularly famous on its own, but paired with the context of the story; this image is now seared into American memory.

Also, we read about "Ferguson's citizen journalists revealed the value of an undeniable video" by Dan Gillmo this week. In this article I thought he made some important reference to our discussion Censorship and Control of Information Content regarding transparency. Gillmo explained that video and pictures are "equalizers"; they are resources that can bring transparency to a situation. I agree it is hard to hide the truth when the evidence is on a video. Gillmo further explained that it has "titled in favor of those who interpret 'protect and serve' as a license to act with impunity," which is helping protect and give transparency to occurrences. Another article that we read for censorship and control of information, "Big Media Companies and Their Many Brands – In One Chart" by Alina Selyukh, brings to light some censorship issues, particularly mergers in the media industry that are buying smaller media organizations and lumping everything into larger conglomerates. Selyukh explains this is a big issue regarding transparency and control of information when these profit-based companies do not want to go against their money-making interests. I can understand why people are concerned with these mergers and why Selyukh wrote this article to get people to start seeing what is happening and dive further into the control these companies will have with these mergers. When these big organizations can control the media industry, they can censorship by reporting things that provide them advantages and leaving out relevant information that could cause them harm, which is the overall understanding I got from Selyukh's article (Selyukh).