Development Pornography

There's a "lively discussion" on the blogosphere these days on "development pornography".

You can read the salient points of the ongoing debate on BoingBoing.

Much of the discussion focuses on "undignified images" that are being created and used by relief organizations in order to increase donations. You've doubtlessly seen the images: skeletal toddlers covered with flies and festering, oozing scabs, etc.

(Many of these images are being created by First-World photographers with little knowledge or experience of local customs, but that's a complicated discussion involving "fair trade photography" that deserves its own post...)

When it comes to publishing emotionally manipulative images, how far is too far? One organization criticized an African relief appeal that that showed a naked, emaciated child in her mother's arms... "because it was a stereotype and an Irish child would not be portrayed naked in the same way." Is this a fair comparison?

Viewing the Third-World poor through Western eyes is nothing new. And as a former art director, I understand the value of selecting and using the image that will move the greatest number of people to action. However, there needs to be a certain level of honesty and integrity in the selection process. It's important to do good, to make a difference in the world. However, its equally important to do good ***in the right way***.

But where will you draw the line? What if using a less-"offensive" photo means that vital donations decrease by 40% and hundreds (or thousands... or tens of thousands) of people die as a result? When do the ends justify the means?