Link 1: https://nppa.org/news/reuters-denies-ethical-allegations-while-some-syria-photographs-still-questioned
Link 2: https://www.readingthepictures.org/2014/03/were-reuters-boy-in-a-syrian-bomb-factory-photos-staged/
Both links address the same of meaning within the picture. I first found Link 1 and then saw another article on it from Link 2.
MOLHEM BARAKAT, SEPT 7 2013
The above image is from a series of pictures taken by Barakat in Aleppo, Syria. The series of photos, published after the Assad government’s gas attack in Ghouta, depict the heroic story of a 10 year old boy named Issa who works ten hours a day with his father in the Free Syrian Army’s munitions factory. However, reports claim that this may not all be true. We may be being deceived. Looking carefully at the equipment the young boy is dealing with, its weight, extreme risk, his solidarity, the bombs’ arrangement, the make of the weapons, etc, it seems as if the images are actually staged, and not candid. The way is shown to be hard at work in different poses, as well his dirty clothes, changes the way the image is viewed. The content in the frame changes the meaning of the photo as a whole as viewers believe what they see to be true.
This photo manipulation does not seem like it was originally meant to be noticed, and thus, could be categorized as deceptive. It makes the viewers think that such acts of cruelty against children do indeed take place in the Syrian army’s factories. However, I think that they can also be viewed with a creative aspect. Even if this specific image may not be real, it still portrays the intense child labour and bad conditions of young children in other places around the world. It makes people look at the photo with sympathy and as a call for action. It makes one consciously think of what’s happening in a new way.
Example of: #1- content inside













