UNICEF, the UN children’s agency, is naturally very keen that journalists should produce stories that promote children’s welfare. It matters for basic areas such as pre-school care, primary education, health care, internet access and the like. But it’s also important for the more headline-grabbing areas of child protection, such as physical and sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation. Publicity is the oxygen that breathes funds, activism and official action into its programmes.
Lurid stories on newspages and websites, and breathless radio reports, have an impact. But nothing beats television. Film of a cringing child “domestic slave”, a doe-eyed camel jockey, a bruised and beaten victim of family brutality, a swollen-bellied malnourished infant – these are the messages that strike home. There is no better way to get the general public reaching for its wallet, angry activists launching campaigns or politicians drafting legislation.
And, as everyone knows, television is about images and individual examples. You don’t have to show a thousand children to make the point, graphic shots of just one will do. The on-camera suffering of little Mary, Natasha or Mohammed represents the sufferings of dozens, thousands, even millions of their peers. The detailed example illustrates the general.
And here’s the rub. Before you can say “Action”, UNICEF and its partner organisations are crying “Cut! – No clear images of suffering children, children as victims, or children committing crimes can be shown”. Not only might it expose the depicted child to ridicule, prejudice or even danger, but it perpetuates a negative image of children, we are told.
In a globalised world increasingly linked by social media, there is no way the anonymity of a child can be preserved, except perhaps in the very poorest of remote areas. Someone will recognise the child and post his or her identity online. Such at least is the danger.
It’s the same for radio, the press and all the rest of the news media. Nothing must be published or broadcast which might conceivably identify a boy or girl under the age of 16, no name, no home address, not even a school. So no graphic photos to light up the writing media’s prose either. And that goes for the parents and other relations, even when they are guilty of abusing the child.
The same restriction applies to so-called child soldiers. You cannot publish a straightforward photo of one, however powerful the image. These unfortunate children are being re-integrated into their societies by UNICEF and others and to identify them might certainly expose them to retaliation.
Only stories which show children in a positive light can be properly illustrated – smiling pupils in a new school, a prize-winner in a competition, sporting champions or a child charity fund-raiser. Even then, there are those who think this should be discouraged as it might attract paedophiles and somehow endanger the child.
It’s hard to show an effective image of a person – the emotions, the personality, all the elements which make powerful viewing – if you cannot show the face. So what is the solution?
I wish I had one. However frustrating it is, UNICEF’s concerns have to be taken seriously. Television journalists have to be as creative as they can with one hand tied behind their backs. Pixellated images, back-of-head shots, words spoken by actors – these and other devices go some way to compensating. And print journalists can find ways round anonymity, using pseudonyms and leaving out detail.
Perhaps common sense is the best guide. UNICEF’s guidelines are absolute and all-embracing, as they must be. The careful journalist, cameraman or producer can usually tell where there is potential harm and know when to exercise restraint. A little flexibility can perhaps be allowed. A story which may strike outsiders as “negative” may be seen in the village as turning a local child into something of a movie star. The important thing is to be aware of the dangers and act in a considered and responsible manner. The child’s interests must always come first.
I have less sympathy about the wider concerns of the overall portrayal of children in a negative light. The public are too sensible to be overly swayed by what they see on The News, we all know it focuses on crises and drama, not on the humdrum. And most of us have children of our own, sooner or later. That all-embracing experience is far more likely to influence our general attitude towards children than anything we see on television.
Oliver Wates, MediaTrain
UNICEF seminar for Belizean Journalists