Ideology in My Controversy

Those involved in the controversy are the people working in the World Press Photo organization (particularly the judges of the contest and who awards the winning photographer), the person who was awarded and then had the award revoked, other photographers in the photojournalism community, and people who are interested in photography and are informed about who are the big players in the field.

The major writers are those who work within the WPP and professional, award-winning photographers, as well as advanced students of photojournalism who publish their work through the university press.

The WPP is a well-respected organization and its awards are much sought after for their prestige and the potential these awards have for significantly boosting a photojournalism career, both in influence and financial power. The photographer whose award was revoked obviously has some influence (his position was supported and defended by others during this controversy), but clearly not enough to sway the awards committee to continue their initial support of him as the award's recipient. The other photojournalists have power depending on their own status and credibility, which varies from individual to individual. The continued existence of the discipline does depend, of course on the interest and support of the audience.

The WPP has the resources of combined experience, expert knowledge, professional credentials, and financial support. Those within the organization have access to these resources, and most probably have sizable networks social resources.  The photography enthusiasts, while holding the least resources individually, have the resource of numbers on their side; there are many more enthusiasts than there are WPP executives and pro photojournalists.

The groups value ethics in photojournalism, honesty, skill, dedication to the craft, and the reputation they each hold. To a lesser extent, some parts of the group as a whole value freedom and flexibility in their work, originality, and an attitude of openness and non-conventional thinking.

The fact that the award exists at all supports the values of knowledge and skill. The fact that once the award was revoked, there was an outcry on the photographer's behalf, is evidence for the values of individuality and new ideas and ways of looking a things.

There is a power differential within the group which I believe is, on the whole, balanced well. The WPP is a prestigious organization, but without the individuals within it or the enthusiasts from outside the organization, their importance would dwindle to insignificance and irrelevance.

The support of photojournalism as a discipline, skill, and dedication are acknowledged common ground among the group. The perceived integrity and value of the WPP award is also common ground.

Honesty and ethics seem to be the unacknowledged common ground, most likely because of the different subtleties held by each group in relation to these values. There is a lot of gray area within these ideas for the people involved.

The various groups seem to listen to their own sub-groups more than integrating with others who may hold different opinions about the controversy. Opportunity and access are two main factors in this, but to a lesser extent, so are attitudes and personal feelings about other people in the field.