Should Activism be Filmed?
On November 14, TVJ News published a video on Instagram of a reporter walking with 75-year-old Joseph Murdock as he told the story of his 5-mile journey in search of shelter. Amid every twenty or so comments, there was concern for the gentleman.
One comment said, “I understand the value in interviewing him and sharing his story so that people would understand at a deeper level the effects and impact of hurricane Melissa, but my heart and mind were concerned, wondering why they didn’t just allow him to hop in their vehicle and carry him to the location that he was walking to for lodging. 5 miles, limping, injured, fatigued, needing sustenance.”
Some felt the video would not be as effective–or entertaining–if they interviewed Mr Murdock in a vehicle. This begs the question of whether this was content creation or documentation.
This question, added to the now long-forming conversation on “When does documenting good become exploited?”, extends to the TikTok platform, where individuals have been exposed for deceiving their viewers into believing they are helping the homeless.
“We live in a spectacle society,” one Reddit user said. Some state that even amid the performers, it forces action among those who see it, resulting in greater good. Others, however, said they don’t need a camera to prove their good deeds.
“A good deed with an attachment becomes an exchange.”
If a vulnerable individual is being dangled food in their faces in exchange for a two-minute video, why would they say no?
So does this mean those who do it with bad intentions have spoiled it for the rest? Does it mean it shouldn’t be filmed at all?
Food for the Poor, Jamaica’s largest humanitarian organisation, recently showcased the surge of donations received for Melissa relief. Their content focused on packages being prepared and houses being rebuilt — not the individuals receiving support. Some argue this approach still motivates action without exposing anyone’s dignity.
Among those who agree is UCC’s Circle K International (CKI) president Brithny Hamilton, a contestant in the upcoming Mr and Ms UCC pageant.
Hamilton, a consistent visitor to the Home for Girls Shelter, understands the tension between documentation and self-promotion.
“It can feel so wrong to take pictures beautifying a community or helping somebody else, but it takes a particular skill,” she said.
She acknowledges there is power in letting people know that “it is possible,” however, she describes the idea of filming the actual persons as disgusting. Her club separates from that kind of content entirely. They often take a group picture, act and leave, often using those photos for reporting purposes more than anything else.
When asked the question, “Is there any circumstance where filming the vulnerable may be necessary?” she says the root lies within two concepts: intention and consent. Why are you filming, and do they know the true purpose of the content you will show to the world?
Karasi Rowe attested to this statement. She chairs an organisation, Vision 2050, a movement that aims to expose the lives of young individuals to greater opportunity in Jamaica. When Rowe initially considered the question, Should activism be filmed, her answer was no.
Tied to her Pentecostal faith, she referenced the scripture John 3:21, which states,
“But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God,” she believes there are certain things that don’t need to be showcased.
Her organisation, however, is filled with young children’s visual testimonies. The hope is that this organisation will speak for itself in the lives it changes rather than the followers it has on Instagram. She expressed that all showcased children are broadcast with the consent of their guardians.
In her opinion, among the contestants Brithny Hamilton and Maya Barnes’, activism is important, but in regards to filming, all agreed that there should be a limit.
Fellow Contestant Maya Barnes offers a middle ground.
“You can film the journey, the preparation, but the distribution and persons don’t need to be filmed.”
Verrona Lamoth, another contestant, believes “we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.” She, personally, isn’t in support of filming herself helping others, but with individuals like her, the assumption from the audience will always be that she doesn’t do it all because it isn’t shown.
Across interviews, one theme emerged: Activism matters — but so does how it is portrayed.
Most contestants agreed that filming can inspire action, foster awareness, and showcase solutions — but the dignity of the vulnerable must never be collateral damage.
In the era of Melissa, media, and mass sharing, intention has never mattered more.
Now the question turns to you:
Should activism be filmed?
