A response from Save the Children

Ian Woolverton

This article was published in Living Ethics: issue 85 spring 2011

As a child rights charity, we constantly ask ourselves the hard questions about what is and what is not appropriate imagery to help us raise awareness of crises around the world. We want people to be impacted by our campaigns. We want to move people to donate and support us, but the bottom line is this: the rights of the child come first and if that means pulling back on showing graphic images, then so be it.

That said, our experience tells us that while graphic and disturbing footage might provoke a strong reaction to start, over time the public becomes desensitised to awful images of suffering: they tune out and turn off, unable to process or cope with what they’re seeing. The best and most effective marketing campaigns show the extent of a problem like, say, hunger, but crucially and importantly communicate hope like, for example, a doctor administering life-saving drugs to a child.

The very best campaigns in our sector might focus on a child who is, say, weakened and at a risk of death due to hunger, who receives medical attention and then is later shown healthy and full of life. This is not some marketing gimmick: the reality is that lives can be saved in places like the Horn of Africa with very simple
interventions. The idea is to take the public on a journey with us and to tell a dramatic story without having to resort to the use of disturbing imagery.

As a signatory to the ACFID Code of Conduct, Save the Children is compelled to use images of children that respect their dignity. The original footage used in the campaign was, we felt, degrading to the two boys being filmed as they crawled in the dirt, a camera thrust in each of their faces. Even in the absence of the ACFID
Code of Conduct, we would never use images like the ones originally used in the TwoDegreesForAfrica campaign because, as a charity that stands up for the rights of children and protects their interests, we could not condone the use of imagery that, from our perspective, exploited children’s suffering.

There were other issues with the footage used in this campaign. Firstly, it was impossible to know when and where the footage was shot; was it really the Horn of Africa? Had the parents or guardians given consent for their children to be filmed in this way? Even if they had, did the parents or guardians know how the footage would be used by the film-makers?

The children were also naked from the waist down. We never use images of naked children. It is a violation of their rights to privacy and a violation of their dignity. Think for a second how the parents of Australian children might feel if all of a sudden and without their permission images of their children were broadcast on the internet showing them suffering. It is likely the parents would be extremely upset and dismayed.

And then there’s the impact on the children themselves. It is worth considering how they would feel if, years later as teenagers or adults, the footage surfaced. What impact could this have on them, and on their families and friends?

What guides our work always is the rights of the child. They have a voice too, and it is crucial to our work that we listen to children and respect their opinions on, say, whether they want to filmed, photographed or interviewed.

There are no easy answers and no quick fixes to move people to help others facing starvation. Instead we aid agencies must constantly invent new ways to engage the public to help vulnerable children and their families in places like the Horn of Africa. The impulse, however, to resort to graphic and disturbing imagery must be resisted.