‘Ayuda’ for content

A young actress recently drew heavy criticism after videos of her relief efforts circulated online. In one clip, she was filmed distributing aid while standing in floodwater, despite what appeared to be a dry road nearby. Many accused her of staging the scene and unnecessarily exposing the aid recipients to the risk of getting leptospirosis. The backlash was amplified by the fact that the actress was also criticized just a few weeks back for promoting online gaming by giving away free iPhones. Some commenters speculated that her Pampanga relief effort was simply a PR stunt to rehabilitate her image.

The actress later explained that their truck had broken down in the flooded area and that residents began lining up before they could move. Whatever one makes of the incident, the controversy does raise a larger question about the ethical concerns that come with documenting charitable work and turning someone else’s hardship into a content opportunity.

The term “poverty porn” was largely used to criticize humanitarian campaigns that feature distressing pictures of malnourished children. While the shocking impact of these photos could be quite effective for eliciting reactions and getting donations, this approach is considered unethical in the development sector because it commodifies a person’s suffering by using exploitative images of their most vulnerable moments.

In the social media age, poverty porn has also been used to describe the way some politicians, content creators, and even ordinary individuals use the images and narratives of impoverished and disadvantaged individuals as a backdrop for online posts aimed at generating engagement and strengthening their personal brand.

Is it really so bad, though? If people are getting help in the process, shouldn’t we just see it as a win-win situation?

First, it is important to clarify that filming and documenting charitable work is not inherently wrong. Storytelling is not just valuable for fundraising; it is also important for transparency and accountability. Having well-documented impact reports can ensure donors know where their assistance went, raise awareness about the cause, and encourage more people to give.

The problem with poverty porn is that the beneficiaries’ suffering becomes part of the product. These posts often employ narratives that reduce beneficiaries to passive, helpless, or “kawawa” recipients. Their circumstances are sensationalized while the person providing the assistance becomes the protagonist and is portrayed as a compassionate, heroic savior.

Research suggests that poverty porn can also negatively influence how we perceive people experiencing poverty. An experimental study first published in 2023 found that exposure to negatively framed posts and images led to the perception that people from an impoverished background had less agency. The authors also highlighted previous research suggesting that this could trigger a cognitive shift in which the perceived lack of agency translates into dehumanization.

In simpler terms, showing people in disempowering ways may attract sympathy in the short term, but it could also reinforce perceptions of them as helpless and less capable. In the long run, this could potentially lead to less concern, less respect, and less support for policies aimed at more sustainable poverty alleviation. It also becomes easier for the public to overlook the structural inequalities that reinforce poverty and reduce a disadvantaged person’s circumstances to something that they’re solely responsible for.

There is also the issue of consent. Giving aid inevitably involves a power imbalance because the donor possesses something that the beneficiary urgently needs. Can a person really say no to being filmed if they think it could mean losing access to food, money, or other assistance?

During these moments, it is important to examine not just whether help was given, but whether the dignity of the person receiving it was preserved in the process. This is where a few reflective questions can help. (1) Is showing their face really necessary to tell the story? (2) Before filming, did I give them the chance to opt out by explaining to them that maintaining their privacy would not compromise their access to the assistance being offered? (3) Am I portraying them as a helpless beneficiary, or am I also highlighting their voice and agency? And perhaps the most important (and most uncomfortable) question: Is this post primarily helping people understand their situation, or am I just doing this so that more people will admire me?

Good intentions can go a long way, and helping others in times of crisis is important and much-needed work. The challenge now is to keep the spotlight on the issue rather than on ourselves and to ensure that the stories we tell never come at the expense of another person’s dignity, well-being, or right to be treated with respect.

—————-

eleanor@shetalksasia.com

******

Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber