Split Screen: Visuals of Survivors and Predators
Evidence or persuasion?
In the coverage of Jeffrey Epstein’s decades-long predation of girls and young women, a pattern of visuals has emerged that cannot be ignored. I want to look closely at these images as tools of persuasion. I don’t have all the answers, but I have a lot of questions about why we see what we see.
We live in a patriarchal culture of victim blaming, especially when it comes to crimes of sexual abuse. This was evident from the beginning of the investigations into Epstein’s criminality.
The Miami Herald’s Julie K. Brown revealed that, in 2006, prosecutors Barry Krischer and Lanna Belohlavek interrogated girls in front of a Palm Beach, Fla., grand jury with accusatory questions such as “You’re aware that you committed a crime?”
A member of the grand jury asked, “Did you have any idea that deep inside of you that you — what you’re doing is wrong?” Another remarked, “[You] should give it a little further thought.”
Images of Survivors
In solidarity with survivors, for their bravery despite years of being disbelieved, their courage in the face of unfathomable forces fighting the truth, and their defiance against apathy and injustice, we must interrogate not just the words but also the images used to convey these stories. We must understand how these visuals impact us, the viewers, emotionally and psychologically, and how we interpret the world of abuse through visual coverage.
Survivors are commonly shown in one of three ways. First, and most common, the images used of them in articles are archival photos from the time frame in which they were abused. Second, they are pictured in the present day but holding up an image of themselves from when they were younger. Third, they are depicted outside courtrooms or at press conferences or advocacy events, surrounded by supporters and/or standing in front of microphones. Which images do you find to be the most empowering? The most effective? For what goal?
Of course, I know that to cover such stories, showing survivors with abusers at the time of abuse illustrates the abusers’ guilt by proving their association and showing the survivors’ youth and vulnerability. But I wonder if these images seep into viewers’ consciousness and create unconscious biases: If she’s scantily clad, looking sexy or seductive, then maybe she was the kind of girl this would happen to; what did she expect? Maybe she asked for it. If she’s smiling, could it have been that bad? His hand around her waist? Maybe it was consensual. Maybe it proves her guilt — per the Epstein grand jury, maybe she knew that what she was doing was wrong and wanted to do it anyway. When we only see survivors as abused children or as adult survivors, do we strip them of their identity outside of their trauma?
In this powerful photograph, we see survivors holding up images of their younger selves. It demands our attention, our sympathy, our rage at seeing their youth. They were children, and they were abused.
When we see survivors speak out at microphones and in front of courthouses, does this tell the viewer that this person’s only identity is her trauma? Why do the accused get to be shown “doing their jobs” while the survivors are only shown in the context of the investigation or trial?
Images of Epstein and Associates
On the other hand, Epstein and his associates are portrayed differently. In archival photos they tend to be well-dressed, friendly, and having a good time. In present-day photos they are portrayed solemnly, stepping onto Air Force One, riding horses, or wearing flag pins. The photos are high-quality and well-framed and do not visually tie them to the trial, abuse, or victims. Is this “neutral” reporting? When an article about abuse is accompanied by a photo of a man looking “official,” does it create a psychological barrier that makes the allegations feel out of place?
Jeffrey Epstein
One of the most used images of Epstein is this 2005 photo of him and Ghislaine Maxwell at a party, dressed up and smiling. It’s been used by the Guardian, PBS, BBC, and NPR. Are editors choosing this photo to prove they were “partners in crime” and inseparable? By showing them as wealthy, well-dressed, smiling, partying, does the image make it easier or harder for us to visualize the actual crimes? Does the “glamour” of the photo act as an indictment or a PR campaign? What “intent” do we project onto a man’s smile versus a girl’s?
To be fair, after he was arrested, Epstein’s 2017 mugshot became commonly used, including in coverage by NPR, AP, CNN, PBS — although still not nearly as common as the photos of him at parties.
Donald Trump
The below photo is the one most commonly used in articles about the connection between Epstein and Donald Trump, longtime friends until their falling out in the early 2000s. It has been featured by PBS, CNBC, and the New York Times: you can see them both clearly, head-on to camera, and both are dressed in suits.
Other archival photos of Trump include one of them at a party, used in the NYT; Trump, his now-wife, Melania Trump, Epstein, and Maxwell at another party, used by PBS; and with Maxwell at yet another event, used by PBS. Presumably, these are the few photos the media can access to show Trump’s social connections to Epstein and Maxwell. Trump claims he has committed no crimes, that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, and that his relationship with Epstein ended before Epstein’s arrest.
A PBS article about Trump’s connection to Epstein victim Virginia Guiffre led with photo, well-composed and well-lit, of Trump stepping onto Air Force One, looking presidential.
A recent NYT article about Trump’s appearance in the Epstein files features an image that borders on humorous — though it doesn’t frame him in the best way and seems a visual juxtaposition with the content of the piece, the image is well-lit, and Trump is well-dressed, looking presidential, flag pin and all.
Prince Andrew (Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor)
In mainstream media coverage, I found it was far less common for articles about Andrew to feature the archival photo of him and Guiffre than in articles about her. It is also less common for any archival photo to be used when articles are written about him — the images used are of him in the present day or when he served as a royal.
An oft-used image in articles — as in WSJ and NYT — about Mountbatten-Windsor getting kicked out of royal lodging or from when he was arrested portrays him horseback riding. Or he is depicted in high society and as a powerful person. Or he is depicted smiling, well-dressed, and in royal uniform, as in this PBS article.
Even when his facial expression is forlorn or angry, he remains well-dressed and royal, as in this New Yorker article. Does portraying him in his full regalia, status, wealth, and power make it his crimes easier or harder to believe, to excuse, to indict?
Conclusion
I’m struggling with where the line is between evidence and propaganda. We need these photos to prove the connections, to show the scope and context of the circles Epstein and his associates moved in, to show how young and vulnerable these women were, and to broadcast their bravery. But I want to see Epstein, a predator, depicted as such — and his associates, some of whom at least knew of his criminality, not shown exclusively as the powerful people they are. And I want to see the survivors’ courage, their bravery, and their full identities. I want to see them speaking truth to power, and I want to see them get justice. Because if they can fight for decades against some of the most powerful people in the world and hold them accountable, every image of them shown in their full power can give us hope, and power, too.
Until next time, keep your eyes sharp and your lenses sharper.
Azza Cohen (she/her) is an award-winning documentary filmmaker who served as Vice President Kamala Harris’s official videographer in the White House. She recently founded a production company with her wife, Kathleen, and is writing a book about visual sexism from a cinematographer’s perspective. Uncover and address visual sexism alongside Azza every other week here on The Contrarian and on Instagram and Bluesky. The New Yorker distributed her film “FLOAT!” in 2023.
 | A guest post by
|
Thank you, Azza, for this terrific article. You are trying to set the records straight, but basically fighting against windmills, just like the victims of Epstein/Maxwell and so many others, who have yet to be named.
Until the male perpetrators in this almost never-ending mess get outed and publicly shamed - and until more women get more actual power, I'm afraid nothing is going to change.
I find these Azza Cohen articles fascinating. It's stunning how much I've missed over the years, but this is helping me think about framing.