a valid q to ask. i think about this a lot wrt images of migrants in the work that i do. and generally tend to avoid using pictures that intrude on people in pain, or show dead bodies/limbs – especially of marginalized people, who may not be able to consent. HOWEVER. (1/x) https://twitter.com/ashedryden/status/1386046352858169350

The context here is that the Indian government is trying to hide the scope and scale of a disaster that they have, in many ways, been instrumental in creating. That they are weaponizing cultural sensitivity to silence journalists, and others dedicated to the truth.

So, yes, the western media should be more cognizant of whether or not it creates a spectacle of pain. But, what Indian journalists are trying to do here is expose power, not exert it. Which means that many of these images are absolutely worth elevating.

It's telling, for example, that many of the people who're complaining about sensitivities don't actually care to excavate the reason for these mass funerals and conveyor belt last rites — i.e the sheer number of deaths. Avoidable deaths.

Could some of them do it better? Less intrusively? Sure! We should always be thinking of how we can do a better job as journalists - of being sensitive, not re-traumatizing people etc. But that's not what the loudest critics are saying. They're saying: Stop telling the truth.

TLDR: Yes, be mindful. But don't fall prey to spin.

Like, a lot of the pictures are long-view images of funeral pyres, of grieving relatives where you can't see faces, of moments/scenes from a respectful distance, of tired health workers in hazmat suits. I see no problem with those.

Also, I wanna be clear: This govt has inflicted, condoned a lot of violence, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities - muslim, caste-oppressed, poor, others. this "cultural sensitivity" was out of the window when ppl were hurling slurs at sikhs, dalits, muslims etc.