Boston University’s chapter of the online college news site The Tab posted what they called “A Must Read” piece on their Facebook page Monday morning. The piece, entitled “Fearless BU photographer shows harsh reality of homeless Boston,” was indeed a must-read, but certainly not in the way The Tab intended.
The piece, written by BU student Jacquelyn Schwartz, profiles the “fearless” Evan Jones, a photojournalism student in the College of Communication who, though he “hated photography” as a kid, Schwartz writes, now lives with “a passion for documenting everything.”
This photographic documentation includes a specific focus on the homeless people who settle at the railroad tracks at the base of the Boston University Bridge.
“At first I was afraid,” Jones told Schwartz in the article. “But then I was like f— it, I want to get the picture, what’s the worst that can happen?”
The piece goes on. “Evan approached the homeless with good intentions and a steady hand, as if he was nearing a wild animal,” Schwartz writes.
And if the opening paragraphs hadn’t already put a murky taste in our mouths as we read this piece in between our classes today, that line is certainly where the muddy water began pouring in.
While we can’t infer what Jones’ motives are when he shoots the homeless, we can certainly say that this attempt at photojournalism, to put it lightly, misses the mark. Quite honestly, many aspiring journalists may believe that photographing homeless people is the easiest way to capture something controversial. But the fact that these people are homeless isn’t a story. Calling someone a “high mess,” as Jones is quoted as doing, doesn’t bring light to the situation. We aren’t here to simply acknowledge other people’s plight and misfortune. These people are just existing. They are living. And rather than working to make a difference in these people’s lives, Jones’ and Schwartz’s words in this article perpetuate an image of the homeless that furthers no conversation worth having. No one should be called “fearless” for talking to people as people. Addiction doesn’t define a person. Jail doesn’t define a person. And the fact that homeless is “wild” to both the author and subject of this piece shows just how sheltered and privileged they, as well as those of us who admire them, truly are.
Note a particular example, in which Schwartz describes Jones’ encounter with his “favorite” subject: “His bad knees, severe arthritis, and heavy stature make him stationery (sic), which allows Evan to be mobile and active when photographing him. Evan first found Jimmy [Kerr] sitting alone on two milk crates with a cane. ‘This dude can’t hurt me, he has a f—ing cane,’ thought Evan as he approached the stranger.”
As journalists, we arguably have a responsibility to tell the stories of those who cannot tell their own. We should want to photograph or focus on those less fortunate than us to bring awareness to their situations. Photographing this man because he can’t potentially fight back is the direct opposite of the moral duty we have. The purpose of photojournalism is not to use people as objects, but rather use our privilege to make a difference in their lives and those of others like them.
All of this certainly isn’t to say that Jones is an untalented photographer — his photos are stunning and he has worked just as hard as others have to be a part of the journalism program here at BU.
But in reality, there is a huge difference between portraying difficult subject matter in order to get people to recognize certain hard truths about the world, and taking advantage of those truths in order to make yourself look edgy or, again, “fearless.” Doing the latter is dehumanizing, exploitative and unethical. These people aren’t our personal portfolio builders, and we have a responsibility to represent them in a truthful way. Our duty to the story is to change something. Our duty is to advocate.
This isn’t to say that our job as journalists is to provide a service in exchange for our story or our photos. Rather, our job is to take these negative stereotypes and stigmas and report truthfully about them, which could potentially bring change and hope to many lives. This example, however, calls into question Jones’ ability to do either: “Evan now only visits the tracks on cloudy days to stick with the consistency of the project,” Schwartz writes. “‘Every time I’ve gotten a really good picture it’s been overcast.’” By staging shots in gloominess to suit some idea of the homeless, the story Jones is trying to tell immediately becomes less truthful, and less helpful because of it.
We can see a better effort in an Aug. 13, 2014, profile from The New York Times, which focused on a Starbucks worker whose schedule was orchestrated by software that used sales patterns to create virtual work schedules. By profiling Janette, author Jodi Kantor and photographer Sam Hodgson gave way to social change, prompting Starbucks to do away with the software.
And photojournalist Brandon Stanton, who started a whole new journalism phenomenon with Humans of New York, is also good example of this. His “candid” portraits of people on the streets have become integral in bringing otherwise unrecognized stories of individuals to the forefront of our Facebook news feeds. While his work does not necessarily bring tangible change to people’s lives, he at least brings awareness to issues that are out of our comfort zones or out of our personal reach.
Perhaps Jones, Schwartz and others like them can learn from this, and focus on making stories like these educational opportunities for others. Instead of perpetuating stereotypes about others, as the “high mess” comment does, let us investigate and bring knowledge to those who wouldn’t know any better were it not for us. In essence, whether a writer or a photojournalist, it is our duty to responsibly report on and bring awareness to issues that may ordinarily be overlooked or cast aside, and not to use stories or images about these people for our own personal gain.
Editor’s Note: Evan Jones was a staff photographer for The Daily Free Press during the 2014-2015 academic year.
The editor here seems to have a chip on his shoulder……
Well that was a terrible editorial. Missed the point of the original article completely and bent the author’s message.
I wouldn’t label calling someone out for referring to homeless people as “wild animals” as having a chip on one’s shoulder. I think the editorial board was very fair about calling attention to a publication’s gross underestimation of human beings in its description of Boston’s homeless population, rather than attacking Evan.
Knowing Mr. Jones as well as I do, I am assured the Editors have not only misquoted him but used his comments out of context. A basic entry tool for those who wish to negate a talent rather than promote a talent. Mr. Jones has gone out of his way to befriend and honor this very special group of gentleman. This is not his first time his work will be criticized by small minded people and nor will it be the last. Thankfully, Mr. Jones will continue his work. Sadly, so will narrow minded ill informed Editors.
This is yet another classic example of the Daily Free Press misinterpreting intentions and deliberately skewing facts in order to produce and perpetuate some premeditated, and falsely founded, mind you, conclusion
I believe the author should check their both bigoted and biased tone.. and rethink the criticism of others work, with out knowing the intentions of the creator. Just my personal opinion.
It seems to me it is not necessarily the responsibility of a journalist to foster social change. While the photographer may be young and inexperienced, he is making every effort to record the emotion he feels when he interacts with people whose world and lifestyle are foreign to him. Give him time to grow into his calling. As for the writer, she was writing about the photographer, not the subjects of his photography. It appears to me she did a good job telling his story and relaying his experience. Homelessness is a painful subject in our society and advocates like myself are trying to move public awareness away from stereotypical views and prejudice. I’m doing what I can, but it doesn’t negate Alex’s very real experience and emotion while learning about a few people whose lives are like nothing he has ever witnessed.
This is a message to the author of this article. Although I do appreciate your effort’s in maintaining political correctness and ethical responsibilities as journalists, I do believe the criticality of this response is highly tangential to the intended focus of the article.
Schwartz’s article is about Evan Jones, its not about photojournalism nor is it about his goals as a photojournalist. The intention behind the article I felt and have confirmed with both Jones and Schwartz was to illuminate the work of a possibly very important player in the world of Art and Photography.
Having shot with and discussed the mechanics of his work with him more than anyone, I personally most comfortable stating that Evans disposition toward his photos, and the care he puts into them belong less in the world of photojournalism and more within the art world. This isn’t to say that Evans images do not posses immense photojournalistic qualities, but to focus on Evan solely as an aspiring journalist is to miss the point of the article entirely. The picture painted here is not of an aspiring photojournalist, it is about the person Evan Jones. The article’s focus always regresses back to Evan and his dispositions toward his craft, they are unadulterated glimpses into his mental processes her goes through regarding his craft and the adventures that come with it. Evan is an artist, who happens to use a Canon as his paintbrush, artists take everyday life and process it into something that is more, we elevate all aspects of life from the most banal to the most impactful in a way that others cannot. We provide the lens for realities that we ourselves are not entirely most comfortable with. Evan’s photographs are not to driven by a need to document for the sake of journalism, but are out of a need that he himself and the article cannot seem to capture. It is that spark and nameless sense of ambition in which the article most tries to convey.
Obviously this is a personal matter for me as I am friends with both Schwartz and Jones, but I just don’t see how this editorial benefits anyone. This reading of the article is obviously warped in this response as it seems to ignore all the inspiring , dramatic and admirable qualities of his work, which are all very evident both in tone and tex. Even as a photojournalist, Evan’s work has many admirable qualities which were overlooked, like the “fearless”ness which was central to this editorial. To ignore the valiantly fearless disposition of journalist’s is to undermine the thrill of the chase and the contributions that keep the profession going, as well as the many journalists who have given their lives in the name of journalism as a product of fearlessness.
All this article seems to do is shed a negative light on a brand-new player in BU’s collegiate journalist scene. I believe that this editorial seeks to point on myopic flaws in an overall very well written piece on a very interesting person.
Whether or not the editorial was written as a stab to new competition or just a poor reading of the piece however is not very important. By taking the stance you have you have provided a very very inaccurate platform by which people can view Evan’s work. No matter how you look at it what Evan is doing is significant, because he’s doing something that others are not. The lack of narrative in Evan’s project shouldn’t been seen as a flaw or disadvantage, but instead a very authentic and often frequent struggle which many artists feel when trying to fit their work into a box. This reinforced this point made that Evan is still very much so in bloom and still very much so on the path of finding himself through his work. Schwartz tone of boundless ambition and directionless revolution when regarding Jones are highly indicative of his character the character of his work and should thus be viewed as so.
I don’t like the picture this paints of Jones and I don’t like the picture this paints of Schwartz or of the Tab. The opinions stated here can do no more than detour aspiring writers and photographers from voicing harmless opinions on stories of people who are doing the most interesting of things. I would advise the author and The Daily Free Press to not worry about what the Tabs is saying cause after all this is not CNBC vs Fox. In the future instead of taking the time to try and invalidate another work, maybe contribute to something of importance like the start of the new BU hockey season, Trump or any of the other billion important issues that contemporary society so graciously provide us. Bashing an opposing publishers work is embarrassing and only really gets the attention of those of whom is affects. Please understand the context of these publishers and what they are aiming to do. No need to be a dick
bad editorial, and bad you…
sorry for the typos above guys, sick in bed.
Jackie’s piece was beautiful journalism ……something we don’t see often anymore.
There are so many things wrong with this editorial; it’s painful. Whether the article or the photo project has ethical issues is completely beside the point to me.
This piece reads less like a professional editorial and more like an essay for some high school burn book. You editors are students, just like Schwartz and Jones. Before you consider criticising the ethics behind others’ work, where was your moral compass when you publically humiliated two young people?
Are you really so vain that you think you it is ethical to use a platform like a newspaper to publically chastize these people? The FreeP isn’t the New York Times, honey. I hate to tell you this, but we’re all small potatoes.
This is why so many Journalism majors are moving away from this publication. Your pretentious nature is utterly stifling. I hope to see a retraction statement. If not, you editors are even more self-riteous than I thought. A future employer of Schwartz or Evans could see this. Are you happy at thought of potentially ruining two young careers for in your eyes an unethical article? Newsflash editors: You’re not their professors! This is none of your business!
P.S. I don’t know Schwartz or Evans personally. I’m just another journalism student that’s tired of the FreeP staff walking around with their noses in the air. Save maybe three of you, you’re all the reason why COM gets a bad rap around campus.