Why I'm not impressed with Komen (Despite changing their stance on PP)

Last night I was going to post about Komen and Planned Parenthood but today’s news changes that thought train but I still think it is worth commenting on.

For background see Rachel Maddow’s summary from last night.

Attacking Planned Parenthood is not new, so why is it so hugely different when The Susan G. Komen for the Cure removes support from Planned Parenthood than when Congress and State Legislators do?

I think it largely has to do with where expectations lie. With Congress – no matter when you look in the last few years and regardless of what side of almost any issue you have an opinion on – most Americans agree Congress is something we don’t approve of. Since 2009 the highest Congressional approval numbers were at 37%. So when congress does something I don’t approve of, like cutting support to Planned Parenthood, I can’t really do much to change that. My representatives in the House and Senate generally won’t be swayed by any one feedback mechanism and this is true of most representatives on hot button issues. I expect Republicans in congress to be anti-women’s health because they come in campaigning on it. They are “pro-life” until a child is born at which point they’re anti-healthcare, anti-women’s rights and autonomy of health decisions, anti-LGBT families, etc… I expect it from them to attack women’s rights. And on the left I expect Democrats to make non-binding resolutions and give lip service to those issues but that they will ultimately cave when push comes to shove. (See Obama’s record on parental notification or NDAA etc… if you want to know why my expectations are calibrated as such) Ultimately when it comes to the government while I think there is huge potential for good (I like clean air, roads without potholes, clean drinking water, schools, fire fighters etc…) the political process will not represent the best of that. So while individually Democrats and Republicans might support women in their lives, that support being embodied in programs extending to all is another issue.

Meanwhile over at The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation – my expectations are a bit different. While there have been many critiques of running the non-profit too much like a business and making partners with ill fitted groups, reducing information and packing itself in a corporate manner that doesn’t suit the cause (See Komen Watch) – fundamentally people believe in the brand. People believe that if they are aware of cancer risks, wear their pink ribbon to bring a dialog about cancer and talk about the need for early screenings – ultimately there will be less breast cancer. When people participate in the Race for the Cure events, while they know the events won’t be the cure, there is a general feeling that the money they raise, and the awareness they raise will help. So when Komen pulls support from a group who’s About Us page says, “Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.” – it shocks.

Komen describes themselves saying, “As the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists, we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures.” – so when they put politics ahead of that mission and pull back support from Planned Parenthood who’s mission so clearly overlaps there is a natural and justified anger.

Today when Komen reversed that decision they said,

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.  The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.  We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

To which I’d like to call out – B*LL$HIT. As already pointed out by Mother Jones, Komen has not withdrawn support from Penn State which is under criminal investigations that are not political… Furthermore the timing of their withdrawn support does not correlate with the investigations, but it does follow the hiring of prominent Republican Karen Handel, a former GOP candidate who ran on a pro-life platform, (though not pro-life enough for Georgia where she took flak for being okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest). While she may not be responsible – an anonymous source claims she is and speculation began before the reversal of this choice. However she was stupid enough to tweet this (and promptly delete it when the internet exploded…) :

“Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.”

Regardless if she is directly responsible, she should be fired for that. She is Susan G. Komen’s Vice President of Public Policy, and to publicly put forward an insult like that to supporters of Planned Parenthood is not appropriate. “Cry me a freaking river?” That’s the VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY’S reaction to low income women losing access to life saving preventative care and screenings? Ignoring the politics of I disagree with her perspective – from a pure business standpoint as  someone who should be a good public face of the organization – she had failed. And while Komen’s statement said, ”We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”  - the reality is it does.

And for a lot of advocates of women’s health Komen’s brand has lost a huge amount of trust, been mocked by Komen’s VP of Public Policy for reacting to that, and no reversal of policy will change that. Because a reversal of one politically motivated decision due to political outcry is in itself a political reaction. Once Komen pulled support it put itself in a position where by not giving support it was playing to one political agenda, and by renewing support in the wake of activists, senators and supports reactions – it played to the damage control of another political stance. Trustworthy non-profits operating to provide care do not do such abrupt about-faces- and the damage to the brand will not be repaired overnight.

As the Economist  posted:

“It’s a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood.”

I agree.

If they were going to cut funding they should have also done so to Penn State. By not doing so they suggested that abortion is a worse crime than child rape. By cutting funding and doing a rapid about face they showed they’re operating in a political arena, and brought attention to their public policy, which is headed by someone who’s stance on the issue raises uncomfortable questions. And by allowing the news cycle to continue a full week – Planned Parenthood suddenly gained huge numbers of supporters, and people began to delve into what those pink ribbons actually mean. Which given the way they run their non-profit like a corporation is not a good thing to raise attention to. Things like the CEO making $481,704 in an annual salary… (I don’t believe non-profit workers should be paid so little they can’t lead a good life – but if one person’s salary is 70% the amount of grants you make to the largest provider of women’s health care in the country… HOW ARE YOU ALLOCATING YOUR RESOURCES? Seriously – that’s ridiculous.)

My mother is a breast cancer survivor. When I discussed this issue with her she said if it wasn’t reversed she wouldn’t participate in Race for the Cure. This is from someone who did 8 of the 3 day walks to raise funs for breast cancer research. Who has the keychain, a stuffed animal and lord knows how many pink products…  She is as much of Komen’s target market as you can get and an active part of their fundraising events- and this week she was disappointed and had lost interest in working with them.

I am glad to see they reversed their decision. But until they fire Karen Handle, reduce executive compensation in favor of allocating a greater chunk of their funds to actual preventative care and treatment – I’m done with the pink ribbon industry. For more reasons why you might want to do so too, further reading.

The Value of Photography

I recently read a post on a fellow Shutterchancer’s blog ranting about “Free is Killing Me”

And I must say- I do agree with the majority of it.

One of the things about photography is it (like most arts) is very expensive and pays very little. And yes, I have succumbed to the pressures of the internet age and I went digital, so I no longer must pay for film every time I want to take the camera out- but it’s by no means a cheap hobby.

To give you a rough idea
My first entry level DSLR was a thousand with a kit lens, and no memory when I bought it in 2005. The 2 Gb I bought then was another two-fifty. The first external hard drive was another few hundred. The next hard drive which died was another six hundred, the two bought to replace it and be backups of each other so I could prevent data loss in the future were five hundred apiece. I now have over a dozen CF cards which depending on when they were bought were between forty and a hundred dollars. The first camera I had died and so I bought another used DSLR for another five hundred. My tripod was eighty. The zoom lens I bought used for two hundred. The camera bag was forty. And that’s all just for my digital stuff. I also still shoot film which averages four bucks a roll, the developing of a black an white roll with prints is another fifteen bucks with color it’s seven. If I want scanned copies of the film add on another 10. And of course there was the cost of those cameras and lens and so forth...

Back in 2005 I was looking at the cost of hosting a show, I went so far as to organize a series of photos, meet wine bar owners look at venues etc... And doing cost benefit analysis it was very easy to see there was no value in doing it. If was going to do film the cost of paper, printing various copies in the lab, the time investment etc... would be more costly than digital. But looking at digital each print would cost $4 initially per shot, add on about $8-20 per shot in test prints to make sure they were accurately color corrected to your monitor, $15 per shot for matt boards (assuming you want archival boards which most people want.), and assume you want to have about 2 dozen photos hanging in the show, plus some box prints to show off and make sales easier. Add in buying wine and snacks for a reception, the cost of sending out mass invites and promotional flyers and when you do get to the show... most people expect the prints to be popcorn buys if they don’t recognize your name. So you can sell them between $25 and $50 but more than that and no one will buy. By the time all the math was done (these are guesses based on what I remember- we actually worked it out properly at the time) it basically worked out that I’d be paying someone $10 per shot if they bought it, simply due to the materials cost going in. Assuming every shot was sold, I’d still not break even and I’d have put a lot of labor in to have mainly friends show up and nod at the walls before leaving. Obviously I didn’t bother doing such a show.

I enjoy shooting events. I take my camera and recreationally shoot them all the time. But I honestly am not a fan of shooting events for other people. Because generally people look at your shots say, we like what you do with candids etc... and then try to outline exactly what they want. Nothing wrong with knowing what you want, but if you’re hiring me because you like what I do on my own then don’t try to micro-manage me because the results will be pathetic.

The other thing which irks me is when I’m asked to volunteer my time and I find the project interesting so agree only to have them suddenly demand, “When can I see the pictures? When will you have CD for me? Why are they taking so long?” I have a huge backlog of photos. Huge. Literally thousands of shots. And if you’re paying me you have the right to ask for them sooner. But most wedding photographers takes weeks and months for a reason: it takes time to do good work. And I try- and going through the images takes time. But even if you don’t want them post processed, it takes generally and hour or two to upload. An hour to back up. If you want CDs each of those will take an hour. And in case you forgot- you’re not paying me for my time and I still have a full course load, my own projects and I’d really also like to have a life. Occasionally people also say they’d like to pay me for the service after having asked me to volunteer and they’ll propose a minute sum. At which point I must admit, I feel cheapened. While one part of me rejoices at the idea of more gas money and a cup of coffee- the other half says ‘Why are you selling yourself so cheaply?’ At least if I am not paid I’m going in with the expectation of volunteering purely out of my interest in the project and that is the value I gain for my labors. If I’m paid a small amount it feels like I’m not in it for the project I’m in it for the money, and if that’s the case I’d rather be paid fairly. Oh the other thing which irks me is when the same people who can’t wait to see the photos can wait to reimburse me for gas, film expenses etc...

And I know some days the quality of my photographs is not worth paying for. Some events I go to and my head is in the clouds and my mind and eye are just not connecting the way they should and the work is not really worth anything. But when left to my own devices I’d like to think I’ve got a half decent eye for photography. I’d like to think some of my shots are original and noteworthy. Obviously I still have a lot to learn, but I’d like to think that’s worth something to have my photos. And even if I’m not a professional, don’t act like one, don’t have a studio or proper portfolio to share, don’t own my own lighting equipment etc... I think there is a lot which goes into getting a good image which can get taken for granted.

I also believe in the perks of a creative commons copyright. If you like my photos and want to use them for your facebook photo, myspace, blog, computer background, print a low res copy to post on your dorm wall, use for class, send to your family, save to your hard drive so you can remember it, use for creative inspiration or a photo-montage - go for it! You have my full blessing. But if there’s a place to credit, then please credit me. I’ve seen my photos used without giving me credit and that somewhat irks me. And I hate seeing my photos somewhere and thinking, I don’t remember them ever even saying they liked that shot. There’s someone who used one of my photos on a myspace as I later discovered and got over 20 comments praising it and I appreciated the feedback of the comments, but I would have liked it if prior to the photo being used I would have at least known and been credited underneath the photo. Nothing fancy, just a comment on the photo “Hey, I like this and I’m making it my facebook pic.” or “this is on my wall” whatever... It might sound vain, but If you’re getting the positive feedback I’d like to hear it too. If I’m not being paid I’d at least like to know which shots are being appreciated. If you want to use an image as a desktop I’d rather you tell me and I can recrop from the original so anyone who sees it, sees it as I intended rather than disproportionately stretched.

I know this rant went long, but there have been a lot of days in the last quarter where I felt like what I was doing was being taken for granted and thus when I read the post it struck a nerve.