What you are about to read is an abbreviated version of the discussion that took place on December 16th at the National Museum in Kampala, on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition #Updates, six investigations into the use of photographs in Ugandan news media. The event was part of the monthlong programme put together on the occasion of the Uganda Press Photo Award 2016. Present were four of the participants in the #Updates exhibition and a range of interested people. The conversation was moderated by David Tumusiime.
The full recording of the event can heard on the HIPUganda Soundcloud. The quotes below have been edited for readability and do not appear in their original order, but have been restructured into a couple of central topics. The recording has much more details and personal stories that add both depth and scope to these written words.
On the place of Ugandan media in society
From David Tumusiime’s introduction: For those who follow the Ugandan Media, you are aware that the press has been an important part of national life for Ugandans. It is what confirms what is happening in Uganda. For example, in Uganda, if you don’t take over the national broadcaster during a violent take over, which we have had, then you can’t say you have become the president. Because the new president is always announced from the Uganda broadcasters offices. So the media has always been part and parcel of what happens in Uganda and where we get most of our information from.
On journalism and professionalism
David: I don’t think there is a difference anymore between media producers and consumers. With citizen journalism anybody can be a journalist now, as long as you see an event happening.
On the use of photographic images in tragedy
Irene (documentary film maker and photographer): When I looked at how different bombings were covered, I particularly looked at how Uganda covered the bombings at the rugby ground [during 2010 world-cup finals]. And I was concerned that the kind of coverage that was done, with people dead in their seats and their faces out. In these photographs there is no hope, there is no life, there is no-one trying to help. I think that broke my heart. I don’t think these people should be remembered like that. As a person who lost their dad in one of those blasts [the bombing of the Nairobi embassy in 1996] I don’t want to have my father’s face out there.
Lydia (picture editor with New vision): We have certain rules when it comes to publishing pictures. But I think it depends on the media house. For example if a child is molested, we don’t show the face. Als images of dead people, should not be showing in New Vision as a rule, or if they do they blur the faces. But at the end of the day you have to be able to show a story the way it is. If there is a bomb blast and people died, you have to have a picture of people who actually died, otherwise who died? Though there is also the element of respect.
Joel (blogger, critic, poet): I remember the 9-11 bomb blasts in the USA [2001]. I did not see too many causality pictures in the media then. But when it came back to the bombings in Nairobi, Kampala, Dar es Salam there was a lot of gore and a lot of blood in the media. I wonder why that is. Is there any concern about how we are seen as a country, compared to people in the US? For them you don’t see too many of their dead bodies, even though you know that there is tragedy. But here you do see the dead bodies and it compounds the whole tragedy.
Anonymous: I think that the people in the US are legally alert, so that the media houses also have to be alert to avoid any form of liability that could pop up in the form of, maybe, psychiatric injury when I’m looking at the picture, but I’m related to the guy on the picture who is injured. But here in Uganda most of us are ignorant about our legal rights and the like, so I think the media house is reluctant to control what to place there and what not to place there.
Irene: I don’t think we need to chase death even in the worst situation. If I look at other pictures I can see other people in a very gruesome situation but then still pictures are chosen of people transcending gender, transcending race. People looking out for each other. That little hope in a very devastating situation. That speaks more to me.
Max (photographer): Some people will be drawn to very gory images, others to very subtle images. They will want to know more and read the stories.
Isaac (Lawyer with Barefoot Law): I think that is true. And with our current system of the law that brings up the question how you guard yourself. If the New Vision, or the Daily Monitor came up with very horrible pictures, then some very strong legal action needs to be taken. With Red Pepper, you might let it go, because, you know, it’s a tabloid, and you know that the information they share is not what necessarily appeals to you.
On what is depicted and what it represents
Wabwire (Lawyer, also working with CACE and Writivism): It all goes back to the experiences we have as individuals on the one hand, and how we have been brought up, the society we live in, on the other. I have no problem with taking nude photographs. I have a friend who makes them. But then he is fearing to put them to the public because of our responsiveness. We look at them as… something… I don’t know… But we have to get back to reality. Call a spade a spade and not a spoon.
Max: My issue with it is how and what is represented. I don’t have issues with nude pictures and do them. I recently did a project on breast cancer. I photographed bare chested girls and put the work up online. To me it was art. So there is nothing wrong with images in themselves, but with how they are used and what they represent.
On Censorship
David: For those who have not been following what has been happening in the media space in Uganda; the government has been very keen on setting rules for journalists. Who can be a journalist. What can they report about? Thinks like that. It is a very passionate debate that is going on right now.
Isaac: I think it is a way to put nails on the freedom of the press. I personally do not agree with it. There have to be guidelines, but you can’t dictate. A journalist who sees an event happen as it is, what a lawyer would call an eyewitness, first hand information, why shouldn’t you write about it?
Lydia: I think politicians should not be making any rules regarding media. If there should be any guidelines, they should come up among journalists and editors, the people who actually know how the media works. If you do not know how the media works you have no business reporting on it. Also. This whole story sprang up at a time that members of parliament were traveling to the US and spending obscene amounts of money while here university lecturers and teachers were not paid, doctors were complaining. The media reported about it, and they of course did not like that. But it is our job to put out these things.
Wabwire: A decent amount of censorship should be put in place and I think the government should play a part in that. If you put everything out in the public domain you could incite violence. The longer term effect should be considered.
Anonymous: But then whose standards are we using to censor. We need to have a common agreement on what to sensor. It cannot be an issue of not wanting to hear about something that is going on.
Anna (UPPA): I think that self-censorship should be considered here. Do the photographers who work for news media here give everything they shoot out? Or is there some sort of self-censoring beforehand. And how does that work?
Irene: We should work at raising a level of consciousness at an individual basis. When grooming future journalists we should be asking ourselves questions like ‘I am taking this picture, what do I want to achieve from it?’
Sumi (photojournalist): Yes, but if you don’t show certain horrendous things then nobody will listen. So something you have to show what people have gone through or are going through to make an impact.
Irene: You have to look at the balances, think of the potential harm a photograph can do. When I look at those dead faces, then what am I telling their grand children and children? While we work at this, government clearly has no business censoring media.
Andrew (photojournalist): If you bring pictures to media houses and you bring up the issue of censorship things get tight. There seem te be two standards. There is the government not wanting things to be out there for the sake of their image. And then there is our normal ethical understanding. Why would I just show a dead body. There are better ways of portraying it, ethically and artistically without necessarily bringing out someone’s face. It might be right to me, but not to other people. So for me censorship comes in when something is right to the journalist, but the authorities are not right with it. That is where the friction comes in.
Isaac: In the case of censorship of pictures, we need to ask are we holding them back because some people are going to be scared, or because we think some people in government may not be happy. Once the government starts censorship there is no way you can control it or easily bring it down. The risk is that it is a prone to manipulation by the politician, the powerful. While you find that the vulnerable, the sub-members in the community are the victims. For me an ideal setting would be emphasis on individual-, or self-censorship where the individual and the media houses work towards getting the information out in a way that they think is appropriate, as opposed to government coming up with guidelines and rules on how media-houses and individuals should operate. The state only has to come in once every while to, for instance, point out when a media house went too far. They then should not reach conclusions out of nowhere, but look at different factors surrounding the story and the pictures that have been shared. It should not consider the interest of the politicians, but the interest of the nation.
?? is my name: We seem to agree on most what has been said. So my question is can we compare with how things are in other countries. We have some friends from other countries here. Maybe they can speak out. Is the press there given the chance to air out whatever they want? Do all images come out? Or do they also sensor?
David: In addition to that I would like to bring up that when social media came up and voices from all over the world could be heard, one of the complaints that came up was: How come media houses like CNN and BBC are always conscious to not show dead white people in their countries, but when they are covering other countries from other continents they splash all the faces and everything there, which led to trending hashtags from time to time. The late Prof. Ali Mazrui points out in the article in the flyer on your seats that as African countries try to achieve national cohesiveness they have the challenge whether to debate openly and freely or to sensor ourselves on certain things. So, do you think the media you read should have some sort of control on them, on what they publish? For example; is it a security threat to say a 120 people died in the blast in stead of saying we think about 50 died. If you say the former, does that mean that you are exposing the country’s weaknesses? Are you saying the country can’t actually look after its citizens, can’t protect life and property.
Isaac: How a story is told also depends on the time, the circumstances it occurred. And how available were the press, or the journalists… the different people to cover it. Now we know that for 9-11 that when the planes hit the twin towers it brought down the whole building and it even consumed some neighbouring buildings. Certainly there were journalists to cover the story, but remember the smoke, the dust. No one could even come close. That is why in most of the images you only see the building collapsing and the plane going in. Now if you come to Uganda, for example the terrorist who blew himself up during the world cup finals, there are photographs and video coverage of his head which had separated from … [David, sure sure] I think we remember that. It’s gruesome no? It’s really hard. Then also in Nairobi we have seen all the bodies at the university killings. As a media house it depends on what is your level. If the New Vision would put a vision of someone whose head has been chopped I would be very very disappointed. So there has to be some kind of censorship. From a lawyers perspective, I think that the reason we don’t have limitations is that we know the supreme court makes its decision in respect of the relation to access of information. So the journalists need to be able to cover their stories. As longs as someone believes that the story is true, even if it turns out to be false the court says you have that right [to tell a story?]. But now, where do you draw the limits? Because, without prejudice to some of the tabloids, they will just put everything there. But in the US or the UK someone might sue you for mental distress and all the related things that come from seeing gruesome pictures.
David: Do you believe you would recall those stories if the pictures would have been tamer? The stories you recall all relate to the vividness of the image.
Isaac: That is a very interesting question. The shocking part of it stays in your head. But the reporting has been going on for a long time. There are stories that are going on, without gruesome pictures, but you’ll still remember them. The question is, how does the story that is covered appeal to the nation? How does it affect the people that are part of a certain society? If it does affect you then you are bound to remember it.
David: Prof. Mazrui also brings up something else. That not reporting on conflicts does not mean it is not there. It is just suppressed.
On Prominence, reflexivity of news media and preservation of knowledge
Isaac: It all comes down to who your audience is. How hot is this? Boda accidents happen all the time. Maybe, as media, you need to bring it up every once in a while and give it some attention.
David: Yes, this brings up something I think we should think about for a moment. Have you noticed that it is different when it is one of us, from the media, or connected to our class so to speak, that then the public reaction seems to be more animated, longer and more concerned than if it is, as they say, a nobody? Where does this leave the press? Where is its interest? Is the press then part of the system they are supposed to report on anyway, somehow in line with the government?
Anonymous: In addition I would like to add a question for those here who are in the press, do you see yourself as some sort of conscience for the country, and is there some sort of intentional action towards remaining aware of what matters. To get back to the example, if the boda accident kills someone we all know then…
Lydia: I think the media is guilty of being selective. As if some people are more equal than others. Indeed we saw that when a mp’s daughter had a boda crash. It actually opened our eyes to this mechanism.
Anonymous (foreign) photographer): I think it is just because the audience wants to see it. That is why you see things like this repeated over and over.
Anonymous: News is selected based on values, and prominence is one of those values that leads to appearance in the press.
Lydia: The media is a reflection of society. And it organises itself in such a way that they know ‘this is going to make us money because this is what people want to read about’.
David: I have a question for Jim in relation to this. Were you surprised when you were doing research that there was almost no report on the people through whose land the line was passing? most of the reporting seems to be official, politicians at the opening…
Jim: Yes, it looks like it was more reporting on how it was affecting the whites. When you go to Kasese, the governor in that area complained about the lions and the elephants eating his food from the gardens and the like. Yet in the pictures you could see the locals carrying the metals and the like. But you never hear their reaction, see things in the paper from their perspective. So that side is only passed on orally, without written document. And my fear is that our own story will be totally lost.
David: Yes, Mazrui says about that that in the African setting we have always relied on oral transmission of stories. He argues that we have to go beyond that if we have to have a dialogue with the future. That gives us something to think about. Are we preserving what we know? And an additional challenge in Uganda is access, and knowing where the information is.
If anyone feels misrepresented by the edited version of their words, or objects for whatever reason to being represented here, please contact us and we will adjust accordingly.
All photographs made on November 16th at the Uganda Museum.
