We’ve been conducting a fair amount of research on imagery, and especially the photos that get shared most on social media to shape the views of an issue as part of Reframe. In that process, I came across some thoughtful debate dating back to the Horn of Africa famine in 2011. Smart people and talented photographers were reporting the crisis, and wrestling with the best way to have a positive impact.

The debate often comes down to immediacy: something horrible is happening and how can we move people to care and then act. The NGO community has in principle moved away from poverty porn photos over the past two decades, but recent research and experience of those same organizations show that the photos of suffering work. At least that is true if donations to charities is how you measure images’ impact.

Back in 2011,David Campbell was arguing that photos of starving children fail to capture the causes of famine. The crime is that the international community has enough experience with such crisis to respond before food insecurity becomes full blown famine, but the imagery that leads to action only occurs after the crisis.

The recourse to the stereotypes of famine is driven by the complex political circumstances photography has historically been unable to capture. This means that when we see the images of distressed people, feeding clinics and starving babies, we are seeing the end result of a collective inability to picture causes and context.

This is certainly a valid point and Campbell, now the Director of Communications and Engagement at the World Press Photo Foundation, admits that there are no easy answers, just a lot of tough questions. Charities have also made the argument that such photos remove a person’s dignity. They simply become a prop, a fetishized idea of a complex world — hence “porn.”

There is also a lingering effect on perceptions that causes systemic damage.

We were developing a campaign last year that told the story of a tiny nation going up against a large, rich country who was stealing their natural resources. (The campaign progressed behind closed doors and never launched publicly, so I can’t say much more.)

The first creative ideas we received from designers and photograph samples tried to play up the poverty and suffering of the small country. The message was, “Hey, look how poor they are while Goliath steals from them. The big country is even giving aid while stealing resources. It’s crazy!”

The organization with whom we were working also noted some striking statistics that highlighted the underdeveloped conditions in the modest country. They were staggering for sure and it certainly highlighted the injustice of the situation. It highlighted something else as well: the nation’s helplessness and hopelessness.

We argued that this campaign would be a coming out moment for the nation. Initial research showed that many of our campaign targets knew very little about the country. Most of the public didn’t know it existed, let alone where it was on a map. This would be the first time most people not only heard about the issue of the campaign, but also were exposed to the country and its people.

The other side was making that tried and true colonialist argument: but they don’t have the infrastructure and capacity to manage their own resources. If we chose messages and images about poverty and suffering, we would end up making their case for them.

So, we pushed hard for positive imagery and wrote tight guidelines for content.

Of course, the other, more obvious content would be accurate. And what we chose was also honest. The fact is photos provide the frame for understanding, they tell a story. Multiple version may be truthful, but selection, decisions are required. Those decisions have a lasting impact on the viewers.

Now, think of “Africa.” You know, that monolithic place that forms in nearly every westerner’s mind. What is the image that first springs to mind? Think of the people? Are they rich, poor, middle class? Are they “exotic?”

Here’s what Google Images serves up based on their billions of searches.

YouTube is even more obvious.

Do any of these photos show a people in charge of their destiny in a modern, connected world. Are they people that can be relied upon to develop their nation, their resources and feed themselves? No, they are in need of our help, and always will be.

Ultimately, people trying to use imagery for good face the difficult challenge that any person finds when they dig into an issue: Do I do the most good now, or the most good over time. It’s easy to choose the former. People are dying, they need help, maybe this photo will get it to them. It’s hard to know or even imagine the long-term impact…until you look back at decades of the same imagery defining people.