Working within the shining golden towers that is “the media”, it’s quite easy to forget how much influence (or rather ironically “influenza” in Italian) it has over how people feel on a day to day basis.  I see my self as quite toughened to the scaremongering of certain news outlets and can usually laugh it all off but last week’s coverage of our impending H1N1 doom left me feeling edgy.

As usual, there were a number of media sources that kept their heads and reported fact alone with the BBC actually going as far as saying that deaths on a serious scale were highly unlikely and we shouldn’t be too worried.  Two clicks on my remote would take me to Sky where the bluescreen behind the presenter was filled with a giant evil virus, pulsating and threatening to mug you if you change channel.  I happened to catch the moment when California declared a state of emergency so being able to switch between the two stations to see in real-time how they handled it was fascinating.  While Sky broke out the “Breaking News!” ticker and the newsreader declared that California was a virtual disaster zone as the virus hurtled towards golbal pandemic, the BBC pointed out that it was simply a formality to ensure that if medical supplies were needed, the fact that they had officially declared a State emergency would mean the equipment wouldn’t have to go through all the usual bureaucracy.

As was expected, the newspapers were full of images of Mexicans wearing surgical masks in the street and soon photographers were drafted to Heathrow to wait for the walking wounded to stagger from the arrivals corridor, clutching at their throats and coughing up infected blood.  Those dispatched found a rather unhelpful flow of people who weren’t quite as frantic as the picture desks were hoping for.

The panic-mongering media really should be very wary of how they handle these things as we were all told that Avian flu, SARS and BSE would be the death of us all and in the end it hasn’t been.  How many more times can they report medical issues in this style before they it has no effect?  I’m sure some day it will be a serious issue and when it is, who’ll believe the boy who cried wolf?

NB: Having published this blog, I am acutely aware that I have now automatically triggered the countdown until my early death due to a unique superstrain of all three recent scares.  You may think the odds of all three becoming one is as likely as pigs flying but what do you expect from avian swine, eh?

This morning I received an email from a person who had seen my site and the image of a girl who has scarred herself through self-harm.

Not receiving mail on this image very often, I was interested to hear what the person had to say but found that I was being involved in part of their harming process. The mail contained a request to make the person “famous” and included two images of their fresh injuries and a photo of the sender. Aside from sending a link to a support group, it’s hard to think what else I should say. In a way, this is a similar situation to the dead horse comments as it is being assumed that I can offer some answers/help/support to a stranger just because I shot the image. However, when safety and injury are involved, it’s hard to just dismiss it.

When a photographer shares an image, does that make them responsible in any way to justify it or is their job completed purely by displaying it? It’s easy to assume the latter is correct but can this just lead to people shooting images with no message or intention other than to shock? I know this happens all the time in the art world but for press photography, are the rules any different?

Despite my questions, I know where I stand on this subject as I believe that each story needs it’s own consideration and thought. Sometimes, you just have to trust in the strength of the viewer.