draft 1

Halie Cousineau 2/14/11
Photojournalism/Envir. Essay
?Title?
Photojournalism is a visual ways to show a story without words, letting the viewers see something, usually that wouldn’t normally be seen. Instead of telling a person about an issue it is a way of showing them and letting them create their own reaction and opinions without being told. As a photojournalist I have come to realize my profession is not defined by the name but by the photographer. Some photojournalists like to take pictures of people, others photograph sports, then there are some prefer to tell stories or the local news through photos. I may do all of the above however I choice photojournalism as a way for me to document issues around the world, or document things that may never be seen or needs to be preserved in someway. I suppose I could be called a documentary photographer or what the National Press Photographers Association said photojournalism is “A desire to be “out in the world”.
A very large part of photojournalism is environmental and conservation photography, dealing with environmental issues. Not only does this have a large affect on photojournalistic topics; what we do and where we go, but the photos that come out of a story can also affect the environmental issues. Photojournalism is a very board topic when dealing with the environment. However there is one story that interest me, the photo coverage of the killing of seven mountain gorillas in the Virunga National park, that can show how the environment can effect a story and the photojournalist but also how the story can effect the environment.
The Mountain Gorillas of Virunga are the largest of all gorillas but they are also the most endangered; there are only about 720 gorillas left in the wild. These animals can only be found in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The main threats of theses animals besides the illegal animal trading are the destruction of their habitat, poaching, humans diseases and civil and guerilla war far in the area. (http://mountaingorillas.gorillacd.org/) These animals have been photographed for many year, sometimes for their shear cuteness or beauty, other times for scientific or educational purposes but lately it has been because of horrible events like the 2007 killing of seven gorillas, which was largely covered by National Geographic in a feature article in the 2008 July magazine. This event is a great example of photojournalism interacting with the environment.
This story however was not planned like many stories aren't. Brent Stirton, a photojournalist, was in on an assignment to photograph the conflict between two rebel army sanctions in the Virunga National park and how it creates, what he thought, the most dangerous conservation job for rangers in the park. Yet during his assignment this story changed because of the killing of the gorillas. Many times for photojournalist or journalist the story will chance due to events or outside forces in that environment. Stirton went from photographing Congo rebel conflict endangering rangers to the killing and conservation of an endangered species.
This story, once published, was then covered in countless medias. It was aired on a CNN news short multimedia clip using Stirton's photos to being blogged on in Critter News An Animal blog. Because sight is by far the most dominant of the sense in humans it makes photo a very powerful source of information. (http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/teachers/pdf/pictures.pdf) This story received a lot of media attention; not only was this covered during the time of the killing but it was also a feature story a year later in the National Geographic magazine in the article Who murdered the Virunga Gorillas? National Geographic has a world wide circulation of 6,685,684 and in the United Stated the circulation is 5,200,055. National Geographic not only reaches a lot o people but if Stirton was not there in the Congo at the time of the murders there is a strong possibility that the story of the gorillas may have never been told. Or if it was told the photos of executed gorillas would have never been taken to show what really happened to the gorillas. The media response to this issue and the large audience it was shown to shows how photojournalism can affect the environment sustainable issues. Weather it is educating people, discovering, voicing, or solving the issue photojournalism has can affects the environment sustainable issues. Photojournalism and media in general have effects on the environment just by telling the story but the environment is what forms the stories, changes it and changes the photographer.
The Virunga National Park in the Democratic of Congo contains "the greatest diversity of habitable of any park in Africa"(eoearth.com). During Stirton's interview with NPR Stirton explains that the forest in this area are old-growth forest making them very important to the sustainability of the area. But these trees are being cut down and burned to make charcoal. "Follow the trail of charcoal," de Merode had said at the WildlifeDirect office. "Charcoal is the biggest threat to the park." (nat geo.). It is said that 25% of the old-growth, hardwood forest in the southern part of the Virunga National Park has been devastated by the charcoal production (natgeo). Stirton tells how these trees are important to the sustainability of the environment and once the wood and land has been burned "it is gone forever". Due to this distraction by the charcoal production not only is it taking way the gorilla’s and other animal’s habitat, Stirton also believes charcoal is the reason why the seven gorillas were killed.
Stirton continued to research into the charcoal production and who was behind the illegal business. In doing so Stirton was lead to former chief park warden, Honoré Mashagiro, has been arrested for the killing of the gorillas: “Within a week of the July killings Brent's pictures of the murdered gorillas were splashed across the globe. Mashagiro was removed as provincial director of North Kivu.”(nat geo.) This shows that not only the interconnection of charcoal production has a direct effect on the sustainability of the gorillas’ habitat and lives but the story done by Stirton had a direct effect on the reactions to the deaths or the gorillas. It created a source of education on the issues in the Virunga National park.
During Stirton’s research on who killed the gorillas he personally changed due to the story affecting him. He said seeing how the rangers reacted so somberly to the killing of the gorillas gave him enlightenment and gave him a “dawning of my own awakening as to the relationship between conservation and conflict and the spaces we are in regards to some of our resources.” ( NPR interview) Through the course of the story changing and Stirton learning about the local environment and how it made him realize the issues he went to the Congo to photograph didn’t just involve humans”. (NPR)
Another direct effect to Stirton was the danger he was put in for the story. Many photojournalists involve themselves in life threatening situation in order to show the story. Stirton was give permission by the Nkunda…

links dealing with my paper

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player#/?titleID=gorilla-massacre-embedded&catID=1

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91835032

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/07/virunga/jenkins-text.html

Gasland response

So last night I went to go see Gasland; I waited till today to respond to let it since in. Know I would consider myself well educated on environmental issues, especially dealing with forms energy. But usually the focus is on coal or oil, or how good solar and turbines are. This movie however is focused on something I feel like is in the background. This is probably because (like the movies said) not much is known because they do not publish the chemicals they use and when something bad happens to come one they pay them to shut up.
Right off the bat my first reaction was, this is not the worlds best cinematography and this guy has a funny voice. But then I thoughts turned to the thought of how the fracking that would effect Josh Fox's home could possible effect my home and the streams I played in as a child. Because I am from Connecticut the fracking effects in New York that spread down could possible miss my stream but the run off would run right into my playground: long island sound.
Okay now back to the movie. Where shall I start? Frozen rabbits? houses bowing up? 'water' lighting on fire? or the lobbyist who try avoid naming the tons of chemicals used...
So this documentary was about the effects around the country of what fracking for natural gas does to the local environment; WATER. Josh Fox went from his home in PA and drove across the country to places like Wyoming and Texas. To see the stories of people who have had drilling for gas near by their house and what it did to their water. I found this a very affective form of proving the point. Being able to listen to a personal account of the sicknesses that came from it or listening to someone tell how their house was blown up made a more emotional impact. Instead of just showing test facts and listing what happened I felt like I got a first account. Another thing that helped the accountability of this documentary was the interviews of scientists and the footage of congress (by far the best part). This gave a reassuring factor to the people's stores: they tell you the emotional part and the scientist tell you that it's true because of x, y and, z.
I like how this film was made from a personal experience and shown though Fox's own drive to research what could happen to his own home. It was amazing, yet sadly not surprising, that all across the country the same story was there yet, nothing was being done. I think when your water lights on fire, and your animals' hair falls out, is when something should be done and then stopped for being done again! Movies/ documentaries like this one have me hope that if everyone saw it then something would happen, but then the whole idea of power and how depend people are on it, I am not sure everything would be moved enough to change. I do hope so. If people would just be conscious of what they do when they do major things like building a house; strap solar panel, or it could be simple as what we have been talking about in class; buy local, use less energy. Buy things that did not make a lot of energy to produce. Maybe every documentary I see will make me have a similar response: empowerment to change what I saw, the hope that people will stand up. Like the cow farmer said in the film, he is not the only one and if people all stand up together things might change. Even if it is just the people who are being hurt by the gas companies; tell others! Warn them so when a gas company come to buy your mineral rights, you know to tell them no. And if another jerk like Cheney wants to take wild life land, ‘for everyone’ and tries to make money off of it by hurting people the maybe there will be enough to stand up and say no! The power is in the people but people with money are trying the hardest to not let anyone know that, or what they are doing.

Response on Food Inc.

So i think as we all know the movie was very disturbing, although it was not my first time watching it, it never losses it effects on me. As much as movies like that are upsetting i love them, maybe because I am a journalist and i love seeing what people uncover about things that others want no one to ever see, but I also like it because it is about something i am interested in. Although this movie motivates me it also makes me just sad. I am a vegetarian and a lot of people assume it is because of the horrible treatment of animals and that fact that they have to be killed ( if you knew how much i loved animals you would understand ;) but this movie makes the animal treatment soo horrible that I am glade that I don't eat those poor animals and maybe i will be use it as an extra reason why i don't eat meat, but pretty much that movie is why i don't eat meat.
Before watching this movie I never saw all the facts they presented in visuals, which was startling. Seeing the chickens, cows and the mass fields of vegetables just being a visual truth to the facts. For me the most influential part was the story of Kevin and having his mother tell it. It is horrible to think that things like that could happen and nothing be done about it. I always don't understand how health issues caused by industries' environmental pollution can not result in the industry being punished or paying for it. It actually is one of my biggest pet peeves. I am really unsure what to even say about the movie because there is so much and if i get started I feel like I wont stop. :(

Food

So these last reading of course made me look at everything i was eating this week, although i wont lie i normal pay very close attention. But I was calculating everything. And I thought I eat well, and I do but I have decided that I can make some easy improvements, although they seem easy until done.
Okay so I buy about 80 to 90 % of my food locally, and what I don't buy locally i buy organically but I need to get over my want to eat things like apples soon because they wont have them a the farmers market, that will be a hard battle, I say this as i chomp on an apple and peanut butter right now. I also feel like i need t make more home made food. Yes i am not someone who buys frozen or much precooked food but everyone in awhile I will get premixed falafel and all i have to do is add water or oil. It is just like the book said it is about time. We rush everything, food is something we enjoy but it is also something we can push into a a quick press on the microwave and shoving it into our mouths because we are late for class or late for work. I run this group called Conscious ohio and what I am talking about now is what we go by; we make our food with love and quality time. It take two hours to make but the food is wonderful and everything, and i mean everything is made from scratch.. and so far i have yet t eat better food. As the book said things just taste better fresh an home made, when time has been put into making it food and not just some microwavable box.

essay: True Value

Halie Cousineau English 308J
Writing About Reading 1/24/1

True Value
Aldo Leopold’s “Thinking Like a Mountain” from his awarding book the A Sand County Almanac and Douglas Adams’ “Sifting through the Embers” from his book Last Chance to See may seem like stories about two different subjects when first read. Aldo Leopold uses his character’s memory, of shooting and watching a wolf die, to show how the character came to his epiphany: some human actions can change an ecosystem completely, such as hunting wolves in areas have made the deer population inflate dramatically which can also change the plant life. While Douglas Adams uses his story, a woman trying to sell important books for a high price that no one will buy, then burns them and increases the price until someone pays an extraordinary price just to save the last one, to show how humans do not care for objects, like the environment, as much until it is almost gone. When I read the stories again I found that although the books’ ‘second meanings’ are not the exact same message, one is about how humans actions have nonlinear effects and the other shows the high price of not paying attention to something until it is gone, but I do feel that they both express issues dealing with human’s reactions on ecosystems and the idea of true value.
“Thinking Like a Mountain” was one of the more impactful sections I have read about human influence on the environment. Aldo Leopold uses a personal account of watching “a fierce green fire dying in her eyes”(Leopold 89); the story of watching a wolf die, to create a personal connection to nature dying. I also think the deeper message is the idea of humans purposely changing their surrounds can have unanticipated negative affect. “I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view” (Leopold 89). He uses the mountain, as a symbol of the Earth saying the Earth only listens, it does not act. However, humans don’t think like the mountain because they don’t ‘listen’: “We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness” (Leopold 89) and humans don’t think of what their actions will react into. I found this to be similar to Douglas Adams’ “Sifting through the Embers” because the people’s actions in the book have an unanticipated negative affect.
In “Sifting through the Embers” the books that contained all the knowledge and wisdom of the world represent the environment. Due to ignorance the humans let the books be destroyed until there is only one left, this not only shows that humans tend to only value something until it is rare or gone but also that the true value of something is not calculated until it is gone. Aldo Leopold also shows this in his piece “Thinking Like a Mountain” by showing what killing off most of the wolves did: "I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anemic desuetude, and then to death"(Leopold 89). Aldo Leopold did not realize the value of a balanced ecosystem until it was ruined and Douglas Adams did not consider the value of the books until all but one was gone.
The "strange old beggar woman" who sold the books in “Sifting through the Embers” and the mountain in “Thinking Like a Mountain” may be different charters but they symbolize a similar thing. As stated before the mountain can be interrupted as the Earth and although I do not think see the book seller to be Earth I do interrupt her as someone who understands the true value of the books as the mountain understood the true value of the wolves; " Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf"(Leopold 88). But I also feel that the book seller could represents human actions on the environment; she keeps burning the books until they are almost gone and the city people become aware of their reaction they have on her and that she will not stop until they change their mind and make an action to stop her. This shows that humans make choices that have effects but nothing will change until an action is made to stop reverse what has been done. I feel that these characters start to show the second meaning to the stories.
I find that the second meaning to both of these stories important to look at as well their shared message. “Thinking Like a Mountain” not only shows the value of a naturally balanced ecosystem but it also shows that humans may not think about the lasting effect of their choices. By killing the wolves off there was hope for more deer, not only did this result in an unhealthy ecosystem but it also had an unanticipated effect on the deer; "In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers"(Leopold 89). “Sifting through the Embers” did not have as strong of a second meaning but I do feel that it is an important part of the story. It is telling the reader to look at things and consider the importance before the chance is passed by and also to consider what is valuable to oneself. In the story the people of the city thought the woman selling the books of knowledge and wisdom was crazy because of what she thought the books were worth; " They said she obviously had no conception of the value of gold"(Adams 446). However in the end they pay more for one book than all twelve where first offered for, therefore the city people were the ones who mistook what they values and only realized the truth until it was almost gone.
I do think that both stories have different messages but they can still be related. One story shows how humans’ actions have a rippled effect and the other shows the high price of not paying attention to something until it is gone. But, they both show the need to consider the true value of things and until something is gone or almost gone we humans don’t see its value. Our ignorance lets us not care that we are changing the world and we will have to pay a price. I for one do not want to be the city people in “Sifting through the Embers” at the end of the story being told the old lady, or the mountain which ever you prefer, "and you should have seen the rest of it"(Adams 447).

so i forgot in even talk about my own consumption.. got a little carried away :) But i would say i like to conserve but as i said in my last blog that doesn't really account for a lot. I turn off my water when doing everything, brushing my teeth, washing my dishes.. i should probably do it more while showing too, but i also try to take the fastest shower ever and not one everyday. I also would like tot think i don't buy a ton of stuff, but i do i guess. I do try to buy already used things because the best thing to do is to reduce and reuse. I do simple things like using a metal bottle so i dont buy plastic bottles, i keep jars for glasses after getting stuff like salsa or i take those to refill them at places that i can, like i can get honey refills. Or i can bring back my egg cartons back to the farmer i buy them from so i don't keep throwing them away... i also try to buy as local as possible!! Let see all those things i find small but one thing that i have done that is a big change in my life is I became a vegetarian because of the environmental effects of producing meat and seafood. And i don't mean production as in the packing i mean everything.. that would be a very long list... okay so now that i made myself feel good about what i do lets look at what i do horribly!! I drive, not a ton but i do make a trip back home and then back to school two times a year.. thats a 12 hour drive of driving.. not to mention the driving i do to the stories i photograph. Oh and I also fly home about once a quarter or i go visit my brother where ever he is. I also travel a lot.. there's more flighting taking up on my list. To be honest there are a million things i do that is horrible but i like to think i try.. i don't try my hardest and i should but i have been slowly moving there. I do think it is something you have to do either i a slow process ( not too slow) or a wicked fast one; just rip off that band-add. When i move out of college im ripping it of lets say. Yes thats in a little over a year but i am going to live the life i believe in that is friendly to the environment.
Its a tough idea to consume less, it is in our nature to have our kids to have more or better than we do so it is a matter i suppose to change what we think is better or more.. more of what? more of healthy air, water and land.. have it so kids don't asthma have at the age of 9.
It may be because i grew up surround by woods but i love it and i plan to try to 'save' it but like my brother said like no one has looked at the sunset and said now that is ugly... nature is just something of beauty .. all of it because all of it added together makes thing like waterfalls with perfect flowers all around and pretty sunset