The image that has quickly become synonymous with the Trump administration’s controversial border policy which saw children separated from their families has, the girl’s father suggests, been used to feed a media agenda after it was confirmed the girl was not taken away from her family.
In a new interview with the Washington Post, the girl’s father Denis Javier Varela Hernandez clarified that his daughter was at no point separated from her parents. The revelation raises a number of questions, and has sparked debate across online forums. Is this one of the grandest media manipulations in recent history?
https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1009965421791936513?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetapixel.com%2F2018%2F06%2F22%2Fcrying-toddler-in-iconic-photo-never-separated-from-mother%2F
That TIME Magazine could run a cover depicting the child crying whilst stood alone opposite Trump — seemingly in sync with controversy surrounding the President’s hard-line on immigration control — is concerning in that a photograph entirely unrelated to the situation has been taken out of context and has been used to sensationalize the issue. It’s a clear manipulation, and a stark reminder of the importance of context in documentary photography.
In giving interviews, John Moore, the photographer who took the image, only fueled the fire by stating he “knew” what was “coming next” for the girl and her family. Speaking to NPR, he said “These people really had no idea about this news. And it was hard to take these pictures, knowing what was coming next.” Naturally, news outlets have latched on to his words, only leading to heightened tensions from the public. The real kicker comes from Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz, who photographer Moore was riding with that night. Ruiz has since admitted the toddler was crying only briefly, during the “two minutes” it took to search the girl’s mother. By his own admission, he concluded “[the media] are using it to symbolize a policy and that was not the case in this picture.”
Regardless of one’s personal or political feelings in regards to the Trump administration and its border policies, it’s apparent that in this case, things have escalated out of control. The internet has run wild with outrage, circulating the image at a rapid pace before any real context had been provided. The media ran with it, too, in what has been a stark reminder of how easily reputations can be damaged. Although clearly a photo composite, TIME’s depiction of Trump towering over the crying child has only caused heightened tensions towards him. It only reinforces that photography can be used to shape the way in which world events are depicted to the rest of the globe.
While Obama was in office over 80,000 kids were separated from their parents at the border.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGuSdXiFtLk
Here is a border patrol agent telling it how it really is. Actually surprised CNN even allowed this to be aired since it goes against what they seem to be saying.
David, cant fix stupid. snowflakes will keep hating Trump just because he won the election. when you focus on the person and not on what he has done and is doing for the country i guess your missing a lot. Obama sucked so bad its crazy. even the blacks dislike obama for not doing fuck all for them or for the country, he single handed doubled the national debt. he borrowed more then all presidents before him combined. but then again what did you expect. Obama and his husband didnt do much.
Am I the only one who thought that was Tom Hanks while scrolling down?
What the photographer believed to be coming next and what came next aren't the same thing. Whether the image is symbolic or not is irrelevant because the implication is that the little girl featured was separated from her family, and she wasn't. This was a poor call on the part of the photographer and TIME. You'd think with all the crap about fake new flying around, a company like TIME would do their due diligence to avoid disasters like this.
The exploitation of children for political gains is about as low as you can get.
It does make my blood boil when people ride on the least powerful and most vulnerable to further their own political ends. I don't care which part of the political spectrum the perpetrator comes from, it sucks. The self righteous misuse of this innocent little girl to push someone's political barrow is sick. Unfortunately it happens all too often, in many ways, by people on every part of the political spectrum.
I would seriously rather listen to a nickelback album on repeat than talk politics today.
Trump is doing an amazing job. the whole separating children from their parents. that has been going on at least since Obama. he just fixed it. but no positive news on North korea, that issue that Trump solved. nope,. nothing. if Trump solves world hunger and finds a cure for cancer even then the snowflakes will find something to bitch about. Trump is doing an amazing job.
Trump solved the North Korea issue....
Haha
OK then...
Hey! Admins. I have an idea. How about disabling comments under politically charged content?
But you can't help but read them. ;-)
That's exactly why. I'm too weak. ;)
Fstoppers.... getting political? The only reason I say that is there has never been a time in the history of photojournalism where images are used for something one way or another in order to enhance a story.
I'm not saying this particular use was proper, it just seems like the author has never done their research as to what photography in general is; or fstoppers has completely gone political.
My only question is why didn't the author find other examples of media manipulation, if for no other reason than to say "yup, it happened here, it was wrong... but it's been going on forever. Here are other examples....."
I would like to hear from an immigration expert or current/former official on why children are being separated in the first place. As far as I know, this policy may have been in place for decades (not sure when it started). There has to be an "expert" reason why the policy was initiated. I do get if we are talking about diseases, criminal records, etc..however, that is a small amount of people. Just curious the original intent and reasoning
I don't know the details but, originally, the kids were kept in detention with their parents until their case was finalized. A judge decided they couldn't be held so long and set the length of time at 20 days. I have no idea what the reasoning was and have some doubt there was any.
from what i have read and seen online (so it must be true ), only a small percentage of kids are separated. yes criminals and that type of things. they say that 80% of these kids are crossing without parents at all. they are being taken by mules or trafficers. it's just a bad situation that has been happening for a decade and only now it's a issue. makes you wonder why now, politics only. there are millions of kids in this country that could use the help first.
Because...? I don't know he's telling the truth but what reason does he have to lie?
I guess I'm naïve. It never occurs to me to question the veracity of someone without compelling reasons to doubt them. Just like a photo, we can never know all the details not included in a presentation. I don't need someone to disclose every aspect of their life, to my satisfaction, in support of their word.
Maybe.
People expect to see a photo capturing the reality of the subject being reported on. In this case, it may be difficult to have photojournalists roaming the boarder, following boarder patrol agents in the hopes of capturing the photos they need. Can newspapers, news websites, news shows, etc, use stock photos of a subject if a current photo is not available. If a newspaper needs a certain photo is it unethical to use a stock photo from Getty? Is it misleading to use a photo of a crying child that was part of a board patrol stop that is a stock photo to convey the anguish and torment of a child who was actually torn away from their patents? Is it unethical to resort to using this Getty image because the photographer didn't capture one of the thousands of children who actually were separated?
Though the context of why the child is crying is left out of the photo, it doesn't lessen the suffering on the thousands of other children. It really shouldn't matter if the photo is a stock photo of a recent stop that resulted in a separation.
I suppose the question you'll have to ask yourself is what is more important, that a photo of a child who wasn't actually separated from her parents was used to tell the story or that this is actually happening? Is it more important for you to be upset with the media outlets for using this photo or should you be upset that this is happening to children?
Good points but, in this case I think it's important because, while we know some children are being separated from their parent(s) or guardian(s), while their case is being processed, we don't really know what it's like for them. This particular photo would lead you to believe they're crying all day long. Further, we don't know how long they're separated for. We really don't know anything.
Media Manipulation is thriving right now! It's a real thing, and it's shocking that in such a technology rich era, it's more difficult than ever to really get the truth. People listen to what the news reports and accept it as fact based on one thing only, if it fits their narrative. Regardless of if it is actually factual.
you know what we need ? another article about iPhone photography. we have not had one in a while.
Yeah. I sold all my "Pro" gear and switched to an iPhone 4 and haven't looked back. ;-)
sweet, and if you get bored you can play solitaire too. win win.
This site is far too good for this stuff. This subject is already being covered ad-nauseam by those profiting from people who have an inexplicable addiction to feeling outraged. Leave the hysterics to them please. In the past year I've personally given up 90% or more of my once substantial news consumption and it's been the best thing I've done for my personal health and overall productivity in a long time.
Not everyone on Fstoppers is in the photojournalism world. There is however a small audience that are. These topics are important for photojournalist now and those aspiring. If this is not something you wish to discuss because you lack the bandwidth than move on to the next article.
This is where I believe there should be a new class or standard of photojournalism. Something like using film only and having a verified "original" stamp/watermark on photos. Like we do with nutrition labels or product labels. Once a photojournalist or company is found using the altered images with the stamp, they can be revoked or fined.
This would lead to real, unaltered photos for large press/news. You don't need to change vignette or remove clouds or touch up a face for photojournalism. It's in the raw (no pun intended)
You can still manipulate perception of an image by staging or context, but at least you minimize the outright composite alteration.
Being the brilliant skeptic, I ask myself, what is this for when I read or see something. I assigned no blame to the photographer who took the shot, unless of course he knew the backstory. Now I have drilled to the core. I don’t really know. But what I did observe, how the photo was spinned. It seems the photo now is used as a metaphor for benefit of a few. My perception media companies have taken down all firewalls to keep photo journalism clean and believable. Trust is the main key to credibility in any personal and business venture.
When I look at my personal life and the distrust I fostered, the outcome was tragic. What I did in one moment, took 5 years to right the wrong. If I translated this into money, guess who went broke. I took the easier softer way.
I hate how we cant trust anything anymore. Everyone sees posts on FB or wherever and then shares if it fits their ideals but nobody knows the truth, you cant even trust pictures anymore. Even the news/agencies you used to always know reported the truth have blurred lines.
Let me ask this. Many are fine with the image saying the photo is symbolic of the border situation, even if the actual photo is a kid crying for a different reason than being separated. So technically, the videos/images of these refugees falling to the ground is just symbolic as well? Even if the camera crew person trips them to get a good shot? Watch the very end for a better view of the "tripping".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/sep/08/journalist-appears-t...
FS does its share of poorly reported and written articles but this one on John Moore, photojournalism and "the media" from a couple years ago is among the worst. Stick to pieces on retouching and composites.