What I’m Reading
September 12, 2023
This week’s What I’m Reading features two articles that attracted my attention because of their subject matter. But the photographic questions they gave me are as fascinating and valuable to consider.
The articles in question are a The New York Times story on youth mental health. And National Geographic reported on a peculiar space photograph.
Covering Youth Mental Health
Ellen Barry (writing) and Brittainy Newman (photography) cover an important and — at times — heavy topic, mental illness in children and teenagers.
In Summer Camp: Sun, Swimming, Archery. And Therapy, they show us what a day in the life of a staffer at a summer camp who is “focused full time on mental health” looks and feels like.
You’ll find essential information about the issue that the surgeon general in the U.S. calls “the defining public health crisis of our time.”
Seeing the struggles of youngsters (and the adults tasked with supervising them) through the eyes of a mental health coordinator at a summer camp is a strong perspective. And I highly recommend you give it a read. It’s important, well-reported, and a valuable read on a factual and emotional level.
The photography emphasizes and humanizes the work and the issue, and I love the images.
There’s one picture, however, that I struggle with. It’s the lead picture.
I struggle with it because I need the caption to read it accurately and without being left with uncertainty about what I’m looking at.
We see the mental health coordinator sitting on a bed in a slightly messy room of a young girl. The girl faces the woman. We don’t see their faces. We see the back of the girl, who is clearly frightened, not well, and insecure. We also see the woman’s bare legs and arms. And she’s holding onto the girl’s arms while the minor stands between the woman’s legs. I only noticed the girl is holding onto the woman’s elbows after a very close inspection.
The caption says the woman is counseling a homesick camper.
Some people in the article’s comments judge the touching as inappropriate. While I don’t jump to conclusions easily, the grip and the way the girl is positioned, open the door to reading the picture in a negative way. But that would not align with the rest of the story.
I feel confused because the photograph doesn’t give me the context to know what to do with it. Is the scene showing appropriate, positive, and necessary counseling? Or the opposite? I just don’t have the information to read this scene accurately and with confidence.
I wonder what happened before and after this exact moment, or what other pictures of that scene were made, and why this specific one was chosen.
I’m missing the counselor’s face. It would add the necessary information for me. A slight move to the side (if physically possible) could have achieved that. Maybe even a black-and-white edit would help guide my eyes toward the picture’s message.
It’s an emotional photograph, but I don’t think it helps the story, especially because the photography throughout the story is so wonderful.
But that’s just my two cents. You’re welcome to disagree.
The Impact of Ai
I discovered National Geographic’s NASA just found a question mark in space. What exactly is it? through one of the magazine’s Tweets (if that’s still the term we are supposed to use…).
The article is interesting. It’s about a fascinating image from the James Webb Space Telescope showing an object shaped like a question mark. They explain why it’s not uncommon and what could be behind it — truly fascinating. The picture is a thing of beauty and imagination. The wording of the Tweet, however, struck me.
It’s not edited and it’s not AI. promises the short blurb. And I find it simply sad they found it necessary to mention it (and so prominently).
I immediately remembered a different National Geographic article I read a few days earlier that showed “real” photographs of cheetahs and an Ai-generated example. I remember being a bit disappointed that their tips for detecting such “fakes” weren’t all that helpful.
Ai-generated content is a serious matter — whether for artistic purposes, work aids, or for dis- and misinformation.
Is a “promise” like that sentence that opens the linked Tweet convincing anyone? Is it necessary to even go there? If so, is it good enough? Does it help to publish an article that compares a “real” photograph of an animal with a generated one (especially if the detection tips require a serious interest in photography and even then a close-up study)?
How can and should we work to ensure Ai-generated images stay out of journalism and don’t erode the public’s trust?
One of the Ai lessons (for journalism) I hope we learn early enough is that we develop the tools and mindset to not throw away the documentary qualities of photography (and writing) in favor of technological advancements.
Those are all the reading recommendations for this week. On Thursday, I’ll return to A Journalist’s Diary. On Saturday, I’ll share a cycling update. Until then, enjoy your readings.
