I noticed a trend among some of the photographers that we discussed this semester, such as viewing photography of a means, rather than an end, for social change. Often, these photographers have goals besides simply taking and displaying their photos. For them, in varying degrees, photography is just a tool is used to uncover injustices, tell untold stories, and/or make changes in the world.

This is apparent in the work of Ron Haviv, who saw the terrible conditions that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the former Yugoslavia endured. He chose to stay in the area despite receiving littler media coverage of his photos. Now, more than 20 years later, some of his photos have been part of the effort to punish Serbian war criminals. Probably the most prominent example of this type of thinking is Marcus Bleasdale, who corrects people when they refer to him as a photojournalist. Rather, he sees himself as an activist, and uses photos to spread his message against conflict minerals in the Congo. He sends his photos to politicians as a way to pressure them into changing policy, and has over time seen good progress.

In the end, this idea is wrapped up in what seems to be one of, if not the, central debate of photojournalism: what is more important, art or content? Are the Magnum and VII photographers artists, journalists who tell visual stories, or something deeper and more humanitarian—something more Bleasdale-esque? Do the photos matter for their own value, or for what they can do? The answer seems to be slightly different for all journalist/documentary photographers.