inclass #3

Jeremy Keen

In-class Essay #3

3/10/10

The effects of the internet and its fast pace information processing are causing the loss of some vital social and personal skills.

In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he explains his views on many facets of the internet’s effects on daily life. Carr opens his article with an ominous paragraph from the end of Stanley Kubrick’s movie 2001: A space Odyssey where HAL, a super computer, pleads for its life. As astronaut Dave Bowman disconnects the memory circuits that control HAL’s artificial brain “Dave, my mind is going.” HAL says, longingly “I can feel it. I can feel it.” Carr whole heartedly agrees with these words as he states “Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry…” Then he goes on to talk about his theory, that the internet is changing the way he thinks and processes information. Carr explains that he now he finds it harder to stay focused on books and long articles, finding that his mind begins to wander looking for additional stimuli. The kind found when “surfing the net,” quick clicks to hyperlinks, while scanning headlines and blog posts.

Learning new thoughts and new ways of thinking to find answers to questions faster is the goal of most people today. The brain is made to learn and adapt to any new stimuli that is continuously used. The more times we do any function the better we get at it. The neural pathways begin to wire together for faster retrieval and processing. So Carr’s assumption that something or someone is tinkering with his brain is correct, but that someone is himself. Always remember that anything done repetitively causes a change in the thought process. Good or bad our brain can be programmed to process anything in any way as long as it keeps being inputted the same. This is why vigilance on is the key to keeping any good habits that you have and want to keep. Every small seemingly insignificant nicety we do with and to each other can be learned or unlearned. When was the last time you saw a man open a door for a lady? The best of our habits can be lost with ease when they are not being repeated and reinforced.

It is not all loss when talking about mental capacities and functions, the brain has a great recovery rate of functions that were learned and not used. Just think about the habit you want to renew and do it the more times you do it, reading a long story or practicing good manners it makes no difference, it will get easier to remember and become second nature in no time. As for Mr. Carr if he really wants to change my suggestion is to take down time in life, relax and slow down the input stimuli and allow some deep time with his books.

Youngblood: Camera vs Gun

Elizabeth Barret’s documentary film, “Stranger with a Camera”, examines the responsibilities of the stranger behind the lens. This documentary is filmed in the depths of the Appalachian Mountains in a poverty stricken Kentucky coal mining town. It documents the events of 1967 which took place there and a story of two strangers who shared an unfortunate connection. One of the strangers held a camera, while the other held a gun. The confusion and chaos between the two strangers escalated to the death of the photographer, Hugh O’Connor, after being shot in the chest. This tragic story caught media attention from around the globe, but in Barret’s documentary we see the story from both perspectives and justice is given to where it is deserved. In the 60’s Conner had been hired to produce a film about poverty in America. They set off in search for the ideal “poster children” for the war on poverty. Connor was a good man and a great film director for the National Film Board of Canada. Their efforts to find the right photo lead Connor to a small town called Letcher County.

While in town they found many opportunities to document the people and the life of those affected by poverty. However, many people started to get sensitive about all the photos since a majority of them depicted the poverty of the town. People were worried that the worldwide media attention would bring upon a negative perspective of the town. However, on his way out of town he located a perfect photo opportunity alongside of the road. The shot was of a coal miner sitting on a porch with his daughter. The miner had just come home from work and was dusted in coal from head to toe. Conner asked the miner, permission, and then started taking shots. Meanwhile Hobart Ison, the owner of the house, drives by and spots Connor on his property. Ison, who is a local, has come to despise photographers and the media because of the recent coverage of the poverty in the town. Outraged he stops and pulls out his gun. From his perspective Connor is trespassing on his land and invading privacy by shooting photos. After warning them he pulls the trigger as they were heading to their vehicle. Connor is shot is the side of the chest, his injuries are fatal. Ison could have handled the situation differently, but was within his rights as the property owner.

Strange Camera

A camera will show what the person behind it wants you to see. They portray their vision of the
picture or footage on to those who are willing to base a book on its cover. In a documentary film by
Elisabeth Barret, Barret shows how back in 1967 this misinterpretation got one film maker killed. In
Appalachia Kentucky some film makers were making a film on poverty in America. Appalachia was a
coal mining town with a smaller population. With the coal companies trying to make the most money
they could they may have monopolized the community. A lawyer by the name of Harry Caudill wrote
an article about how the town was dependent on the coal companies because they owned everything.
Some news agency got a hold of this and decided to visit this small town. They started making films on
the poor side of town. They showed how people in America were living in shacks with barely enough
to eat. They stayed away from the wealthier part of town to only show what they knew would make the
most headlines. Once these pictures of poverty in America got out the president at the time made a
point to go to Appalachia to help his fight against poverty. After the president was their Appalachia got
over whelmed by reporters. They were all there to show the world the poor parts. Local companies and
people felt threatened by all the people coming to “change” the area. One man by the name of Ison
who's family worked hard for the land they owned. He lost his job as the Post Master and had to sell
right of way through his land to the railroad. He lost many of his businesses when some of the coal
companies closed. When some film makers started filming his tenants on his property he told them to
get off. Things escalated and Ison ended up shooting one of the film makers. Ison got thrown in jail.
Some of the community wanted to post his bail. They thought Ison was in the right and a local hero for
what he did. Women would bake him cakes. The courts had to try him in a different place because they
couldn't get a jury. He was sentenced to 10 years but was paroled after only 1. Some have said that this
would have never happened if they would have just asked Ison for permission to film on his property. Film makers just need to show the whole picture not just what helps their cause.

"Stranger with a Camera"

“Stranger with a Camera,” produced by Elizabeth Barrett, is a documentary that focuses on the “inside” and “outside” of this story. There were two main men that she chose to document in her video, one who was an insider to the poverty that was taking place in Appalachia, and one man who was an outsider. Hugh O’Connor was a very successful filmmaker who traveled all over the world to do documentaries. This guy was fearless. He would travel anywhere and everywhere to get a story. He went to a lot of third world countries because he thought it was important that people become aware of all of the hardships that take place around the world. O’Connor was asked to go to Appalachia and document some of the things he saw there because so many people were benefitting from all of the mining that was taking place there, but weren’t aware of all of the suffering that certain people of Appalachia were going through. So, Hugh O’Connor was the “outsider” of this documentary. There was another man named Hobart Ison who was a local in the Appalachian town. Ison was very respected among his peers and the people of his town. One thing about him was that he didn’t want anyone one his property without his permission. He wasn’t all about the public eye being able to see photographs and things like that of the way they lived. He believed that it was personal and he didn’t want to be judged by other people around the world because pictures can be portrayed in a negative manner. He didn’t want to be looked down upon. He was embarrassed. Hobart Ison was the “insider.”

The day that Hugh O’Connor and his crew stepped foot on Ison’s property, was not a good day. O’Connor and his crew walked out and started setting up their equipment when Hobart walked outside with his gun. He started shooting and right away all of the men started to run back to their car. Right as O’Connor turned around to say that they were leaving, Ison shot and killed him. It was the day after his son’s 10^th birthday, a very sad day for many people.

This was a very disputed event that took place. Some people of Kentucky liked the fact that their issues were being recognized, and some of the people didn’t think it was other peoples business. In my opinion, it was necessary for O’Connor to be out there and letting the world know that what brought disparity to some was necessary for others (like the Kentucky coal miners). Some of the coal miners would work 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift, and 16 dollars per week. The media can and did bring out powerful and conflicting ideas. A major question that was emphasized was, could filmmakers show poverty without shaming the people of the film? The photographer’s only intentions were only to show what decades of abuse to the land and abuse to the people could do. They only thought that people should be aware of what was going on. On the other hand, the insiders believed that they people were making fun of their values, their family, and their way of life.

lets think of the whole story

In the documentery Stranger With a Camera it goes over many of the differences, similaritys and focuses that are strongly felt and put out into the community. Feelings that almost seem like they shouldn feel something completly different, but the oppions and comments that are said go a completly different direction then what seems like it should be implied.
This story starts with a top producer, Hugh O' Conner, he was on the Film board of Canada and he was working on a documentry. He was working on an IMAx documentry and he elived that soncia change would result from the camera. He felt that by choosing the Kentucky Application region it would say what is wrong with the American dream, but to many of the folk that lived around there they did like what this idea presented, espeally Horbert Ison. Ison felt that O' Conner was an outsider and that by taking these pictures and shots that would "make fun of their family and of their history."(stranger with a camera; Richard Black). Hugh O' Conner was filiming one of the workers and his child, when Horbert popped out and shot O' Conner in the chest killing him. This one picture, the last picture that he took before he died, inspired another thought from what O'conner and Horbert thought. Mason Eldrich, the minor that was in the picture with his daughter, thought that this picture could show something new intirely. He tells us that he thought, "it was not trying to portray nothing...I think it ws for a good cause. I thought they would get some factories i here you see, to where people could get differetn jobs besides working in the coal mines." Horbert did go to trail over this and he ended up going to jail for it, but he got his time shortened and he got out after only a year. I dont know if this is something that i fully agree with because he still killed a man and its still considered murder. He really had no reason to kill him or a real motive then the reason that he didnt like what he was doing. But is this really a reason?
Even though what these pictures portray is huge many different people use it in different contxts. For example,the author of the paper "The mountain Eagle Weekly, Pat Gish, informed us that, " we did not use embaresssing situations in fron of their neighbors" in their paper. They wanted to respect them and they found that anyway they could to make themm feel better about them selves would be good. I very much agree with this because if they are able to pick up a paper that is in their community and see so much more than pictures that could feel embaressin to their neighbor or even to them themselves dosnt really help them but give them a deep troubling anger inside of them to think that this is really what the rest of the world sees them as, and its not the full truth and they will judge on what they see, which isnt the full story.
Overall, there are so many thoughts, feelings and words that can be and will be said in the fight for this story and its an interessting one, becasue of what it says and the meassage tht you can get outa it.
word coutn 567

"Stranger with a Camera"

In Elizabeth Barret’s documentary, “Stranger with a Camera”, she brings into her home, the depths of the Appalachian Mountains in a Kentucky coal mining town. Barret writes a fair representation of two people one from the outside and the other a hard working proud local. Hugh O’Connor was a successful Canadian filmmaker who traveled the world to do documentaries, was asked to go into Appalachia in order to capture the culture that resided. Hobart Ison a local in the Appalachian town stood on the other side of the camera. But Ison never wanted to be captured on film; he didn’t want to be embarrassed across the nation being branded living poor and miserable lives. "I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?” said Ison after shooting and killing O’Connor. O’Connor took his camera and his crew to a piece of Ison’s property being rented by Mason Eldridge. O’Connor stopped by the house after seeing Eldridge in a rocking chair with his baby girl. After kindly asking and getting permission from Eldridge whether he could film him or not, O’Connor began filming. Meanwhile a local woman called and informed Ison. Ison came and Fired to warning shots. While O’Connor was caring his camera to his car he was shot down. Elizabeth Barret as a child grew up in the town while the murder occurred. When filming it was Barret’s goal to provide a film of both sides. To provide the reasons why Ison did what he did, and whether it was necessary. She was attempting to create a film of understanding and closure to the incident. She asks the question, "As someone who lives here, I have an instinct to protect my community from those who would harm it. What are the responsibilities of any of us who take the images of other people and put them to our own uses?" By asking this question she searches for the right and wrong of both sides. Should O’Connor have never gone there to film because it was seen as demeaning by the locals? Should Ison not have killed an innocent man just ignorant of Ison’s property and feelings toward him? People should have the right to film and document but at what point is it enough? At what point is it violating privacy? I believe the situation was just extremely unlucky. People should always allow to document but they first must have approval from the people whom he is documenting. O’Connor being a gentleman went through these motions. However he assumed the property belonged to Eldridge and that’s where things fell through. I think an important lesson to filmmakers must be taken from this story, when filming someone culture they should not just ask for permission but they should also go further to ask what the people of the culture think of his filming. Ison was greatly mistaken to think he had the right to take anyone life however if O’Connor had known or have researched what the people of the town thought of the documentary before filming the result could have been easily avoidable.

"Stranger With a Camera" summary

In Elizabeth Barret's documentary, "Stranger with a Camera", she explores the diverse cultures and understandings of her local community in Kentucky, while giving a fair representation of Hobart Ison’s and Hugh O' Connor's stories. Ison and O' Connor are on opposite sides of the camera lens. Ison is a local, hard working and proud resident of Kentucky's Appalachian region whose biggest fear is being humiliated by his lifestyle; while O' Connor is a well acclaimed Canadian filmmaker who really values his work and was asked to do a segment on the breadth of American experience. "I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?" Hobart Ison says after shooting and killing Hugh O' Connor for trespassing on his property. When one of Ison's tenants-Mason Elbridge-allowed O' Connor and his crew to videotape him and his baby, after a day working at the coal mines, he thought it would benefit the town and bring more job opportunities to the area. Ison felt quite the opposite; he looked at it as an invasion of privacy, and a slap in the face. When Ison was contacted by a local woman that O' Connor was videotaping on his property, he went over and told him and his crew to, "get off my property". He fired two shots, hitting nobody and when O' Connor turned around to tell him they were leaving, Ison shot him. O' Connor's last words were, "Why did you have to do that?"
Elizabeth Barret takes into consideration both sides of the story and realizes that she's on the other side of the camera now and how careful she has to be while portraying the stories. "Can filmmakers show poverty without shaming the people we portray? I came to see that there was a complex relationship between social action and social embarrassment." She asks these important questions to further her search into filmmaker’s points of views and what their films are products of. She also states, "As someone who lives here, I have an instinct to protect my community from those who would harm it. What are the responsibilities of any of us who take the images of other people and put them to our own uses?" Barret questions if we should even be allowed to film such things as people living in poverty and if we should, how far do we take it and how should it be portrayed? I believe that people shouldn't have any right to film without permission from the people or letting them be very aware of what they’re filming for and why. It's a violation of privacy and makes people feel uncomfortable and unaware. Ison shot because he felt threatened and didn't want to face the embarrassment, he felt, of his lifestyle being broadcasted everywhere. What if it was the other way around; if the people in poverty were the ones filming the filmmakers, how would they feel? I believe that if we put ourselves in each other's shoes, we may gain more of a sense of reality as to what's really going on, and how our actions affect others. If, for in order for the truth to be told, it has to be caught on film, shouldn't there be some boundaries to follow in order to protect our rights as human beings? And if there are no boundaries, what will stop other incidents like the Ison and O' Connor one to re-occur?

Stranger With a Camera Review / Ben

In the documentary, "Stranger With A Camera," director and producer Elizabeth Barret is trying to give an equal representation of the poverty stricken area of Appalacia Kentucky. She is trying to make sure that all parts of society are represented equally, because all the previous reports and news crews had failed to do so. All of these attempts wanted to focus primarily on the families and parts of town that were far worse than anywhere or everybody else. Just because parts of town poverty stricken doesn't mean that everybody in the town was suffering according to Barret. During era of depression within the Appalacian Mountains so many horrific scenes were displayed and broadcasts, that anybody who had seen these images believed that this was what every square inch of this area looked like this. So many people think that photography can only depict the bad things, but Barret wanted to show the world that good things still exist during this time of depression. Examples of showing only the bad things would be all the footage created by other reporters that Barret used in her documentary, all the footage seemed to show families and kids with nothing. This footage never seemed to show the families that lived in the area and were still living well off.

I agree with Barret for the most part. I believe that reporters and anyone who is trying to capture the situation so that they can present to the world should capture the whole picture, not just the important parts. But I also disagree because focusing on the bad parts of the society, it was easier for people to realize that this small community was beginning to fail. Therefore, it was easier to get help for these people. I think that there is a fine line between showing the whole situation and just showing parts of it, and that it is critical for reporters and photographers to ride that line. This is a shady area, everybody has different morals that they abide by, so become very difficult to determine whether or not a fair depiction has been given. It isn't fair to the rest of the community to show only the bad parts of it, but then again if you show all the parts of the community equally, viewers will not realize the severity of the situation with the bad parts of society. Barret grew up right in the middle of this "mess", and even though her family was well off, people believed that just because she came from that area of that she was like the rest of the poverty stricken population. She believes that it was not only her duty to her community, but also to her family to show the world the whole picture, not just the bad parts of it.

Stranger with a camera Summary

In the Poverty stricken region called Appalachia that spreads from southern New York to northern Mississippi a local from Kentucky and documentary filmmaker by the name of Elizabeth Barret wanted to take her skill with documentary filmmaking to the next level. To do this Barret took a camera to where she grew up in the Appalachia region of Kentucky. The film is called “Stranger with a Camera” which takes a good look into a murder that shocked the world. Where Barret starts her story is with the death of a film maker by the name of Hugh O’Connor. In the mid 1960 ‘s Hugh O’Connor was hired to produce a film about poverty in America and this brought him to a part of Kentucky called Letcher County where poverty was at a all time high. He was documenting on all of the family that were considered to be living in poverty. On his way out of town he saw a house that caught his eye. He drove up to the house where there was a man sitting on the porch with his daughter by the name of Mason Eldridge who at the time was renting that house from a man named Hobart Ison who was know around the county as a man not to be messed with and to be respected. Eldridge spoke with O’Connor and agreed to let him film him self and his daughter.Ison got word of this and thought that O’Connor was trying to make fun of poor people this is when ISon told O’Connor to leave his property O’Connor was on his way leaving when Ison shot O’Connor in the chest and killed him. Ison was only imprisoned for a year simply because a impartial jury could not be found.
I feel that Ison might have over reacted because O’Connor was leaving and he had agreed to leave but Ison Just shot him anyway. I don’t feel that Ison was out of line thought because it was his property and O’Connor did not ask the property owner for permission. This scenario in the end I think it was a big misunderstanding because Ison jumped to drastic conclusion before he ever really knew what was actually going down also O’Connor thought that Eldridge was the owner when in reality Ison owned the property in which O’Connor was photographing

Summary on " Stranger with a gun"

The video, " Stranger With a Camera" produced and directed by Elizabeth Barret is a documentary on why a person would commit murder on an innocent man who just carried a camera. This video explores what caused this man to go buserk and the culture of the town where the murder was commited. This video takes you into the lives of the people who live there.
Hobert Ison was a man who lived in the little town in Lecher County, Kentucky in the Appalachia Region. He was a very well known man in the town, who helped people out alot. He owned alot of land and didn't like people stepping on his land. As one woman expresses in the video, Hobert Ison was a caring, loving man who everyone liked.
The outsider was a man named Hugh O' Connor who was a highly skilled director of the National Film Board of Canada. O'Connor was a traveling man who wasn't at home very often, according to his daughter. The reason why he traveled so much was because he was, indeed, a photographer who captured rare seen footage, and looked for different cultures, unusual in big cities.
Appalachia was a region which caught peoples eyes in the 1970s. The lands were rich and the people different. The Appalachia people and culture became widely published in the media. This didn't go so well with some people, as they felt that they were being portrayed as being poor, showing only the bad things, not the good. This region was all about mining in the hills, where there was plenty of coal. Every man , if he wanted a job, had to find it in mining. Coal was partly why this area got so much publicity. They wanted to show Americans what miners did and how they lived. Asking the question "is this the American dream".
Hugh O'Connor and his crew of photographers were driving up one road, when they saw a man who just got done working in the mines, was on the porch holding his baby. O'Connor stopped to ask if they might take his picture. The man( Mason Elbridge) said yes you may, no big deal. The photographers found something else very close afterwards that interested them off the side of the road, I'm not sure exactly what it was but they were filming it, when a man(Hobert) drove up and started yelling at the men saying " get off my property", as the yelling continued, Hobert got excessively mad and shot Hugh O' Connor to death. Why? They explain in this video that it was because Ison was a very private man who didn't like people just doing whatever they wanted on his land. Hobert went to jail for this crime that he had commited, but was released after just one year behind bars. Unable to find an impartial jury to hear his trial, they declared a plea bargain. He declared it was self defense, saying" I had to do it. What would he have done to me picture wise and all?" Some say he did right in killing O'Connor, but nothing gives a man a right to kill.


I believe I could talk about how O'Connor went into Hobert's private life and somehow photographed something that he didn't want other people to see. The same is for athletes and actors, who want their lives to be private, but are unable to because we have this media today that looks to pry into anything and everything in one's life for a good story.

Summary and Response to “Strangers with Cameras”

In the documentary directed by Elizabeth Barret titled “Stranger with a Camera” Barret documents the story and events leading to the murder of Hugh O’Connor a Canadian filmmaker in 1967, which took place in Lecher County, Kentucky in the Appalachian Mountains. “Stranger with a Camera” not only shows the context for which the murder of Hugh O’Connor was killed, but shows how communities of the rural Appalachian were affected by the coal mining industry, and the subsequent media inundation of their communities

In 1964 President Johnson declared a “war on poverty” in America, and the rural Appalachian region became the poster with which was shown, the poverty in America. Most of the region and its inhabitants were there to mine the vast amount of coal in the mountains. As the mining become more industrialized, the “area went into disrepair and poverty [and] coal miners were replaced by machinery.” As most of the region’s economy was based on the coal mines, and coal being the main resource in the area, many of the workers became unemployed. Of the workers that still worked for the mining companies, many felt they were being exploited by the industry working in poor conditions and for little pay.

The area had “become a metaphor for all that was wrong with the American dream.” This depiction was seen by media as something that needed to be shown to America. Media began pouring into the area to document the social issues taking place in the area. People in the region mixed feelings about the attention that their communities were receiving. Some were glad that area was being shown, as it could help with social injustices that were taking place there. Others though, like Hobart Ison, were outraged by the depiction of their communities as people who needed saving, and saw reporters and documentarians as “outsiders and agitators.” Hobart Ison, a landlord in the area, did not care for presence of filmmakers on his land. As Hugh O’Connor was filming one of his tenants, (a local coal miner) Ison became enraged, and confronted O’Connor, and as his film crew was leaving, O’Connor was shot and killed by Ison. Ison later stated that he acted in self defense stating that “[I[ had to do it. What would he have done to me picture-wise and all?” Larry Daressa wrote in a review of “Stranger with a Camera”[Ison] clearly believed that he owned what was said about [his land] and about the people that lived on it.” Implying, that he didn’t want his life and those in the community to be portrayed in light that may not be accurate with what he thought of his own community.

Elizabeth Barret brings up very interesting ideas on the effect of media portrayal of that which they are documenting. Do cameras show the whole story of a community when they show people in a social standing. When media is trying to depict a society in a certain light of being different from other societies is the media portraying every part the community. A picture a supposed to show a thousand words, but what if that is not all the words of that community, is that what the people being portrayed would say? What about the pictures that are not being shown? I believe that media needs to be objective in their portrayals of people, media needs to try to see things for all aspects of which their showing. It can be hard thing to do when most of the media have an agenda, showing things in a certain light that best suits their story, makes it hard to be objectionable. That is why Barret has documented the story of this society, to bring into view media’s role in what happened in Lecher County in 1967. Barret as a member and having grown up in the area is able to look at the situation more objectionably, and let you look at all areas of the communities in Appalachia, not just the poverty issues there, but deeper into the actual lives of the people there. Barret does so in a way that makes you able to make your own thoughts on why Hugh O’Connor was killed.

During the sixties the Appalachian region was the image of poverty in America. Lyndon B Johnson had declared a “War on Poverty” there. Bobby Kennedy walked the streets of small eastern Kentucky towns for the cameras show the poverty little kids grew up in. Or at least that is what the documentary filmmakers showed and showing that cost one of them their life. Hobart Ison gunned down Hugh O’Conner an experienced director for the National Film Board of Canada out of fear of how he would represent his land and the area he had lived his life in. In “Stranger with a Camera” documentary filmmaker Elizabeth Barret explores the tension that led up to this murder and what the responsibilities are of the documentary filmmakers when they are representing a group. What had drove LBJ to declare a “War on Poverty” in southeastern Kentucky was the book “Night Comes to the Cumberlands” by Harry Caudill a lawyer that felt that it was necessary to tell about the poverty and how the region was being exploited for its coal. Once the war was declared the area was “inundated with picture takers” (Barret) wanting to capture the poverty to show the world. One of those picture takers was O’Conner a Canadian filmmaker that had been hired to film a piece on the Appalachians for a film called “US” that was going to show the achievements of the country and the underside of the country. O` Conner had spent sometime filming in Lecher County, Kentucky and was on his way out of town when he saw a coal miner sitting on his front porch holding his child still covered in coal dust. O` Conner and his crew stopped and got permission to film from Mason Elbridge to film him and his family. As they were filming Elbridge’s landlord, Hobart Ison, came driving up and jumped out of his car with a gun. He begin to yell, “Get off my property” but the film crew didn’t move fast enough for him so he shot O` Conner in the chest killing him. Mr. Islon’s reasoning for this was he feared character assassination by camera; he feared how he would be represented for renting out shanties and how the region would be represented when all the filmmakers filmed were the poorest people. This leads Barret to ask the question “[w]hat are the responsibilities of any of us who take images of other people and put them to our own uses” (Barret)? This is an interesting question to ask because you can do so much good and yet so much bad with a camera. You can alert the world to a crisis in some far off place or you can condemn a group to be known by a stereotype since that is all that the world ever sees. Colin Low a member of the National Film Board of Canada says it best when he says “a camera is like a gun… it’s threatening” (Low). And like a gun that threat can be equally used to bring about justice or condemnation.