I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about
media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research
reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk
factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago
(Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide
converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments,
cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000). But the development of a new
genre-electronic video games-reinvigorated the debate.
Two features of video games fuel renewed interest by researchers,
public policy makers, and the general public. First, the active role required by
video games is a double-edged sword. It helps educational video games be
excellent teaching tools for motivational and learning process reasons. But, it
also may make violent video games even more hazardous than violent television or
cinema. Second, the arrival of a new generation of ultraviolent video games
beginning in the early 1990s and continuing unabated to the present resulted in
large numbers of children and youths actively participating in entertainment
violence that went way beyond anything available to them on television or in
movies. Recent video games reward players for killing innocent bystanders,
police, and prostitutes, using a wide range of weapons including guns, knives,
flame throwers, swords, baseball bats, cars, hands, and feet. Some include cut
scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward)
of strippers. In some, the player assumes the role of hero, whereas in others
the player is a criminal.
The new debate frequently generates more heat than light. Many
criticisms are simply recycled myths from earlier media violence debates, myths
that have been repeatedly debunked on theoretical and empirical grounds. Valid
weaknesses have also been identified (and often corrected) by media violence
researchers themselves. Although the violent video game literature is still
relatively new and small, we have learned a lot about their effects and have
successfully answered several key questions. So, what is myth and what do we
know?
Myths and
Facts
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded
very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video
game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to
lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using
meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable
consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased
aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and
decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental
studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow
examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson &
Bushman, 2001).
Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects
are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies
have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size
estimates -based on all video game studies- probably underestimate the actual
effect sizes.
Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant
(trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts:
Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been
successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years.
Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently
found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to
influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory
measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).
Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant
(aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors
(e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field
experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and
pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these
aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal"
play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the
external validity) of the measures.
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is
useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing
causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured
variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science
to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based
on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies
provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of
serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental
contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative
explanations.
Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent
video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video
game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during
free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault,
robbery).
Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small
fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to
expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects
than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is,
there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more
negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more
affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals
are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not
consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by
brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators
of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on
television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the
same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable
population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.
Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is
completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and
fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy
makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college
students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly
unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study
found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing
E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.
Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are
trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect
sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer,
the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on
bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high
levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk
factor (Rosenthal, 1986).
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts
for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot
explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured
aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played.
Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal
effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent
game.
Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases
in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of
decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be
valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b)
youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only
(or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption
is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the
Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly
untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal
violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers
have repeatedly noted this.
Theory
One frequently overlooked factor in this debate is the role of
scientific theory. Pure empirical facts often have relatively little meaning and
are seldom convincing. When those same facts fit a broader theory, especially
one that has been tested in other contexts, those facts become more
understandable and convincing. Recent years have seen considerable progress in
basic theoretical models of human aggression (for recent integrations see
Anderson & Bushman, 2002b; Anderson & Huesmann, in press; Anderson &
Carnagey, in press).
Most such models take a social cognitive view of human aggression,
integrating social learning theory, advances in cognitive psychology, script
theory, developmental theories, and biological influences. Using such general
models, media violence scholars now have a clear picture of how media violence
increases aggression in short and long term contexts. Immediately after exposure
to media violence, there is an increase in aggressive behavior tendencies
because of several factors. 1. Aggressive thoughts increase, which in turn
increase the likelihood that a mild or ambiguous provocation will be interpreted
in a hostile fashion. 2. Aggressive affect increases. 3. General arousal (e.g.,
heart rate) increases, which tends to increase the dominant behavioral tendency.
4. Direct imitation of recently observed aggressive behaviors sometimes
occurs.
Repeated media violence exposure increases aggression across the
lifespan because of several related factors. 1. It creates more positive
attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding use of aggressive solutions. 2.
It creates aggressive behavioral scripts and makes them more cognitively
accessible. 3. It decreases the accessibility of nonviolent scripts. 4. It
decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and
violence.
Unanswered
Questions
Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature.
One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link
between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while
controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors. Indeed, of
the four major types of empirical studies mentioned earlier, this is the only
type missing. There are such studies focusing on television violence but none on
video games.
Another gap concerns potential differences in effect sizes of
television versus video game violence. There are theoretical reasons to believe
that violent video game effects may prove larger, primarily because of the
active and repetitive learning aspects of video games. However, this is a very
difficult question to investigate, especially with experimental designs. How
does one select violent video game and television stimuli that are matched on
other dimensions? On what dimensions should they be equivalent? Number of
bodies? Amount of blood and gore? Realism of the images? There are a couple of
unpublished correlational studies that have compared the effects of television
and video game violence on aggression, using comparable measures of violence
exposure. Both yielded results suggesting a larger effect of video game
violence. But the issue is not settled.
Finally, more research is needed to: (a) refine emerging general
models of human aggression; (b) delineate the processes underlying short and
long term media violence effects; (c) broaden these models to encompass
aggression at the level of subcultures and nations. Several different research
groups around the world are working on these various issues.
References
Anderson, C.A. (in press). An Update on the Effects of
Violent Video Games. Journal of Adolescence.
Anderson, C.A., &
Bushman, B.J. (1997). External validity of "trivial" experiments: The case of
laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19-41.
Anderson,
C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and
prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature.
Psychological Science, 12, 353-359.
Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J.
(2002a). The effects of media violence on society. Science, 295, 2377-2378.
Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2002b). Human Aggression. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
Anderson, C.A., & Carnagey, N.L.
(in press). Violent evil and the general aggression model. Chapter to appear in
A. Miller (Ed.) The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: Guilford
Publications.
Anderson, C.A., & Huesmann, L.R. (in press). Human
Aggression: A Social-Cognitive View. Chapter to appear in M.A. Hogg & J.
Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2001). Media violence and the
American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American
Psychologist, 56, 477-489.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2000).
Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer
(Eds.). Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223-254). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Rosenthal, R. (1986). Media violence, antisocial
behavior, and the social consequences of small effects. Journal of Social
Issues, 42, 141-154. About the Author Craig A.
Anderson received his PhD in psychology from Stanford University in
1980. He has been a faculty member at Rice University (1980-1988), Ohio State
University (visiting,1984-1985), and the University of Missouri-Columbia
(1988-1999). He joined Iowa State University in 1999 as Professor and Chair of
the Department of Psychology. He has received teaching awards at both the
graduate and undergraduate levels, and has been awarded "Fellow" status by the
American Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association. He is
currently on the Executive Council of the International Society for Research on
Aggression. His research on attribution theory, depression, social judgment,
covariation detection, biases, and human aggression has been published in top
social, personality, and cognitive, journals. His recent focus on violent video
games has led to U.S. Senate testimony, addresses to and consultations with
numerous scientific, governmental, and public policy groups worldwide, public
policy research awards, and articles and stories in top science news outlets.
His published works can be found at his web site.
Read a Facebook post about this Kony stuff. Since it doesn't really explain what it is, Google found the answer. I watched a few minutes of the original video, then went to the news to see what it was all about.
The Guardian article here seems very comprehensive, leading back to the original question of why put out a video with so many mistakes?
I think that as a tool to emotionally invest the viewer in the issue, the video works. I think creative license was taken with some of the "facts", but anyone truly interested will do the research to get the truth.
Oh yeah. Mutherfucker should be shot with extreme prejudice.
Kony 2012: what's the real story?
A 28-minute film about the plight of children in Africa has been watched more than 21m times on YouTube. But the charity behind it is facing criticism for its Hollywood-style campaigning on the issue. Are the criticisms fair?
The Lord's Resistance army leader, Joseph Kony, pictured in 2006. Photograph: Stuart Price/AP
Since Monday, more than 21m people have viewed this film – made by an American charity called Invisible Children – about the plight of children in Uganda at the hands of the warlord Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) guerilla group. His group is said to have abducted 60,000 children.
With its slick Hollywood production values, the film has been an almost instant viral success, dominating Twitter worldwide and having one of the fastest ever take-offs on You Tube. The hashtag #stopkony has had hundreds of thousands of tweets, and millions of people now know something about Uganda and what is happening to children there. Support for the campaign to end the conflict in the country this year is spreading.
Kony stands accused of overseeing the systematic kidnapping of countless African children, brainwashing the boys into fighting for him, turning the girls into sex slaves and killing those who don't comply.
His forces are believed to have slaughtered tens of thousands of people and are known for hacking the lips off their victims. Kony has been wanted by the international criminal court since 2005 on charges that include crimes against humanity. He has been living in the bush outside Uganda since that time.
The US designated the LRA a terrorist group after September 11, and in 2008 began actively supporting the Ugandan military. In October, the president deployed 100 combat-equipped troops – mostly special operations forces – to Uganda to advise regional military units in capturing or killing Kony.
But it has also attracted criticism: there are questions about the charity's funding, its targeting of US leaders instead of African leaders to instigate change, and accusations that it is failing to criticise the Ugandan government, with its poor human rights record.
This Tumblr page is collecting criticism of the project and this blog sums up a lot of the questions.
This morning, Invisible Children issued a detailed response to the criticism here.
We want, with your help, to investigate this further. Our principle approach is to attempt to gather views from Uganda about whether this film is the right way to go about campaigning on the issue. I'm going to be working with John Vidal, our environment editor, who has travelled extensively in the region and is on the phone now to his contacts there.
11.30am:This excellent post by Michael Wilkerson, a journalist who has worked extensively in Uganda, starts busting some of the myths around Kony and the situation in Uganda. He writes:
It would be great to get rid of Kony. He and his forces have left abductions and mass murder in their wake for over 20 years.
But let's get two things straight:
1) Joseph Kony is not in Uganda and hasn't been for six years;
2) The LRA now numbers at most in the hundreds, and while it is still causing immense suffering, it is unclear how millions of well-meaning but misinformed people are going to help deal with the more complicated reality.
It makes the following points:
• The LRA is not in Uganda but now operates in the DRC, South Sudan and the Central African Republic
• In October last year, Obama authorised the deployment of 100 US army advisers to help the Ugandan military track down Kony, with no results disclosed to date.
• The LRA is much smaller than previously thought. It does not have have 30,000 or 60,000 child soldiers. The figure of 30,000 refers to the total number of children abducted by the LRA over nearly 30 years.
It also makes the point that there is currently no threat to remove the US advisers who are working with the Uganda government to track down the army – Invisible Children's key aim is to force the US government to keep them there.
We're contacting Michael to ask him to write more about the background to this for us.
11.43am:Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian's film critic, has just filed his verdict on the Kony 2012, which will be up on the site soon.
I'm posting a taster below, partly in response to the reader who has just emailed me saying: "I am a mum in Devon with three kids, just about to run six miles for Sports Relief, please get behind this. Hollywood slick, who cares, support the kids – raise awareness and then start the criticism. It is a simple message which my 15-year-old son sent to me – Hollywood or not, it works!"
Peter Bradshaw writes:
Maybe Jason Russell's web-based film Kony 2012, calling for international action to stop the Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony, can't be considered great documentary-making. But as a piece of digital polemic and digital activism, it is quite simply brilliant.
It's a slick, high-gloss piece of work, distributed on the Vimeo site, the upscale version of YouTube for serious film-makers. And its sensational, exponential popularity growth on the web is already achieving one of its stated objectives: to make Kony famous, to publicise this psychopathic warlord's grotesque crimes – kidnapping thousands of children and turning them into mercenaries, butchers and rapists.
It does not stick to the conventions of impartial journalism in the BBC style. It is partisan, tactless and very bold. But it could be seen as insufferably condescending, a way of making US college kids feel good about themselves. And is Jason Russell scared to come out and admit that effective action entails an old-fashioned boots-on-soil invasion of a landlocked African country, with all the collateral damage that this implies?
12.32pm: I've just been speaking with Arthur Larok, Action Aid's director in Uganda.
He was previously the director of programmes at the Uganda National NGO Forum for nine years. He describes the NGO forum as independent of the government. We had a long conversation but, to be clear, he hasn't at this point seen the film though he does know about Invisible Children and its work in Uganda.
It was quite a bad line from Nairobi airport, but this is what he told me:
From what I know about Invisible Children, it's an international NGO, and it documents the lives of children living in conflict for international campaigning to draw attention to the lives of children in the north.
Six or 10 years ago, this would have been a really effective campaign strategy to get international campaigning. But today, years after Kony has moved away from Uganda, I think campaigning that appeals to these emotions … I'm not sure that's effective for now. The circumstances in the north have changed.
Many NGOs and the government, especially local government in the north, are about rebuilding and securing lives for children, in education, sanitation, health and livelihoods. International campaigning that doesn't support this agenda is not so useful at this point. We have moved beyond that.
There are conflicts in the north – several small conflicts over natural resources. Land is the major issue: after many years of displacement, there is quite a bit of land-related conflict.
But many organisations and governments are focusing on this. We need to secure social stability, health and education. These are the priorities. This is what we're trying to focus on. Poverty is high compared to the rest of the country. That's the practical issue that needs to be addressed.
I don't think this is the best way. It might be an appeal that makes sense in America. But there are more fundamental challenges. Kony has been around for 25 years and over. I don't think in the north at the moment that is really what is most important. It might be best on the internet and the like but, at the end of the day, there are more pressing things to deal with. If the Americans had wanted to arrest him, they would have done that a long time ago.
They [Invisible Children] are not a member of our forum. Many international organisations prefer to work and have direct contact with their quarters. They don't work so much within the structures we have in the country. There is nothing dramatic about them. They are like any other organisation trying to make a difference. At the moment I think the work of Invisible Children is about appealing to people's emotions. I think that time has passed. Their reputation in the country is something that can be debatable. There is a strong argument generally about NGOs and their work in the north.
It doesn't sound like a fair representation of Uganda. We have challenges within the country, but certainly the perception of a country at war is not accurate at all. There are political, economic and social challenges, but they are complex. Being dramatic about a country at war is not accurate.
If the international media want to be helpful especially for the conflict situation, they should exert more time and effort understanding practically what the needs are. It is fast-changing.
The video would have been appealing in the last decade. Now we just need support for the recovery rather than all this international attention on this one point. Getting the facts right is most important for the international media. That would help the situation as it is.
12.54pm: The Invisible Children film has now been viewed more than 26m times. These stats from YouTube show how it has taken off since Monday, where it's being watched and the age profile of those watching.
Invisible Children stats
12.59pm: The Ugandan journalist Angelo Opi-aiya Izama has written this blog, which makes a similar point to that of Larok about the Invisible Children campaign being outdated. He's been talking to our foreign desk and has just sent this as an addition:
One salient issue the film totally misses is that the actual geography of today's LRA operations is related to a potentially troubling "resource war".
Since 2006, Uganda discovered world class oil fields along its border with DRC. The location of the oil fields has raised the stakes for the Ugandan military and its regional partners, including the US.
While LRA is seen as a mindless evil force, its deceased deputy leader, Vincent Otii, told me once that their fight with President Yoweri Museveni was about "money and oil". This context is relevant because it allows for outsiders to view the LRA issue more objectively within the recent history of violence in the wider region that includes the great Central Africa wars of the 90s, in which groups like LRA were pawns for proxy wars between countries.
In LRA's case, its main support came from the Sudanese government in Khartoum and many suspect it still maintains the patronage of Omar el-Bashir, the country's president, himself indicted for war crimes by the ICC.
A reader has emailed in pointing us towards this Facebook page:PhonyKony 2012.
1.22pm: Recommended: this audio slideshow by our then Africa correspondent about the LRA related violence in the north of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
It documents child abductions happening there as recently as 2009.
@Uglyflubb and others have been providing some information about the funding of Invisible Children below the line. John Vidal has been looking into this. He writes:
They call themselves "a movement" seeking to end the conflict in Uganda and stop the abduction of children for use as child soldiers, but behind the slick website and the touchy-feely talk about "changing the course of human history", there's a hard-nosed money-making operation led by US filmmakers and accountants, commuication experts, lobbyists and salespeople.
So far the organisation has released 11 films and run film tours across the US and other countries to raise awareness. In Uganda, it has given scholarships to 750 children, and helped to re-build schools there and in centralo Africa. The organisation's accounts show it's a cash rich operation, which more than tripled its income in 2011, with more than two thirds of its money coming from "general donations".
The accounts suggest nearly 25% of its $8.8m income last year was spent on travel and film-making with only around 30% going toward programes on the ground. The great majority of the money raised has been spent in the US. $1.7 million went on US employee salaries, $357,000 in film costs, $850,000 in film production costs, $244,000 in "professional services" - thought to be Washington lobbyists - and $1.07 million in travel expenses . Nearly $400,000 was spent on office rent in San Diego.
Charity Navigator, a US charity evaluator, gives Invisible Children three out of four stars overall, four stars financially, but only two stars for "accountability and transparency". This would seem to be a vote of no confidence, but it is explained by Noelle Jouglet, communication director of Invisible Children, like this:
"Our score is currently at 2 stars due to the fact that Invisible Children currently does not have five independent voting members on our board of directors. We are currently in the process of interviewing potential board members, and our goal is to add an additional independent member this year in order to regain our 4-star rating by 2013. We are aware of this and trying to fix it."
The website suggests a staff of around 100 people, with the founders and senior staff mostly drawn from film-making and media industries. Jason Russell, the ceo and a co-founder, is described as Jason Radical Russell, "our grand storyteller and dreamer". He is said to be "redefining the concept of humanitarian work" and to believe "wholeheartedly in magic and the impossible". Laren Poole, another co-founder, is another filmmaker and the Ben Keesey, the chief finanacial officer, has been with Deloitte and Touche LLP, JP Morgan & Associates and Brentwood Associates Private Equity. He is described as "embracing the impossible and plots the course of our daring future".
2.27pm: This is really interesting detail from a reader about the process of what would happen if Knoy is arrested.
Caroline Argyropulo-Palmer writes:
I did my masters at SOAS last year, focusing on transitional justice. One aspect of the IC campaign that I would like to highlight is that it is not a given that Kony would be tried at the ICC [International Criminal Court]. The court works on a system of complementarity - if Uganda can try him they will be given preference. There is also a lot of academic discussion about whether the in country trials would have to be criminal prosecutions or if alternative justice processes, such as truth commissions, would be acceptable to the ICC. It might seem like a minor point, but to me it demonstrates a lack of interest on the part of IC on the specifics. And emphasising bringing Kony to the ICC rather than to trial more generally takes the justice process away from Uganda, where complex discussions about what justice would mean about the conflict more generally have been taking place.
Does anyone know any more about this? Do get in touch.
2.39pm: If you want to know where the Lords Resistance Army is doing now in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it's well worth watching this film made by Simon Rawles for the Guardian last year.
This is Simon's take on the Invisible Children campaign:
I felt a little nauseous watching the film. Couldn't help but feel the director's concern was less about addressing the needs of those affected today by the LRA and the complexities of tackling the rebel group, than as serving as a very slick promotional vehicle for his charity.
Sure, it's great to raise awareness of the issue, but efforts need to be made today to help protect people in isolated areas that are vulnerable to attack. Pressure needs to be put on organisations like the UN to protect those in LRA-occupied areas. The film never addressed this point.
Villagers I interviewed complained why, despite a presence of over 100 UN troops in their village, the UN was consistently failing to protect them (there were several deaths in the days before I arrived there).
As those in my film explain, the LRA operate in groups or 2 or 3, and attack at random making ordinary life impossible. According to informed assessments, the LRA number little more than a few hundred and are scattered over an area the size of the UK. No one knows where Kony is, and most of his band operate independently. It'll be a hard nut to crack. And, frankly, I'm struggling to see what difference a mass social media movement can make.
2.54pm: A reader has written in pointing out there there is now thousands of pounds worth of Kony 2012 merchandise available of Ebay.On the American Ebay website 1,391 items come up under a search for "Kony" including keyrings, t shirts, posters and phone covers. This search shows 443 items for sale on the English version of the site. As far as I can tell from flicking through the sellers, this is not related to the Invisible Children campaign, but seems to be some sort of industry springing up around it. There's no indication that the profits will go to charity. One seller rgalle86rob is located in Wallasey, Merseyside and offering vinyl stickers for £1.49. M-u-s-k-y, also in the UK, is selling wristbands for £2.99.
Screengrab of Kony 2012 merchandise on Ebay.
3.04pm: We're been trying to get official views from other aid organisations through the day. This from Save the Children's director of policy and advocacy, Brendan Cox:
Anything which continues to pressurise world leaders to bring Joseph Kony to justice is to be welcomed. Joseph Kony's crimes against children are well documented. Murder, recruitment of children as soldiers, mutilation and rape. This viral film shows that even though Joseph Kony is in hiding his crimes will not be forgotten.
Throughout today several people have recommended that I speak with the Ugandan journalist Rosebell Kagumire. She's just posted this response to the Kony 2012 campaign (hat tip @LionelBadal on Twitter) and you can read her blog here. She says: "The war is much more complex than one man called Joseph Kony."
3.48pm: I've just been speaking with Liz Wainwright, an English photojournalist who completed research in Uganda for an Msc in 2009. During her time there she worked with Invisible Children and she gives a really nuanced views of their work. To verify her relationship with Invisible Children, and her knowledge of the region, Liz sent me a copy of her thesis on "stakeholder perspective on how to holistically support children who have experienced conflict in Northern Uganda", which makes frequent references to her time with the organisation. She said:
Invisible Children have had a huge impact on the area. They are well respected by other NGOs. I worked alongside them and they were very solutions focused. They didn't sit around talking for too long and checked with experts and that the local people wanted what they were doing. So many organisations stomp in, do what they do and leave. It was very needs driven. My impression over the past few years is that they've got very shiny and slick. The media campaigning is a different type of work to on the ground project work they do. I think they need to decide whether they go down the route of media campaigns or do project work. The film is very sensationalist about the conflict in Uganda. But Uganda is in transition. They are in the aftermath of the war.
This film will have implications that we can't predict yet. It'll be children who are Kony's bodyguards. If they do get Kony there will be a wall of children to get through. How will they deal with that? I don't know whether those details are thought about. Any publicity is good publicity I suppose. But everything now seems to have very short term vision. In something which is the future of these children's lives you have to have a long term vision. Anything else is reactionary and frankly selfish.
Most of the people working for Invisible Children are media professionals not development professionals. That's important, but you need the expert input. It's hard, I'm caught in the middle; I do admire them. They are having a great impact in northern Uganda. They have some unique ways of working, a good mentoring scheme where they pair people who have come through the conflict with people who are coming out of it now. But then I don't agree in the film itself. It was a little self-indulgent, emotive, that's how they do things and it has had a huge impact. Perhaps development needs refreshing as an industry and this is new blood and it's causing a stir that they are doing something different.
In the north of Uganda women are still scared to go home, even though they are told it's OK. In terms of psychological day to day living Kony is the bigger barrier to people getting on with their lives. But the Ugandan and Sudanese army don't have a great track record. They also have very aggressive tactics and they are not squeaky clean.
3.51pm: Our New York based reporter Ryan Devereaux has been attempting to make contact with Invisible Children to put some of the concerns about their tactics to them. Do post any specific questions you'd like them to answer below the line or tweet @RDevro.
4.43pm: I've just been speaking to Teddy Ruge who runs Project Diaspora, an American group working to "mobilise the African diaspora in the states to engaged with the continent". He was speaking to me from New York, but spends half his time in Uganda. Teddy wrote this blogabout the campaign. Thanks to all those who suggested I make contact with him. He said:
What I'd really like is for organisations like this to have a little bit more respect for individuals like ourselves you have the capability to speak for ourselves. By putting themselves as the heroes of our situation it debilitates our own ability to progress and develop our own capacity. Every time we take a step forward to rebrand ourselves, something comes along like this and uses us in their own game. We are left as the pawns in the game. Without a better brand we cannot develop better international relations. We need to change the image of Africa as a basket case.
The man [Kony] hasn't been in the country for over six years. You know that the majority of the audience is a bunch of teens and ideological college students who just want to do good. They don't understand the nuance of the situation. They will take it as the only story about that issue. If we don't stand up as members of the Africa diaspora, the educated elite of the continent, this story won't change. We recognise the situations, we know what they are, it's not everybody's responsibility to come and rescue us. We're not babies. We have to rise ourselves otherwise we'll always be the dependants.
All ill roads are built on good intentions. Meaning well doesn't give you the right to march into my house and tell me how to live. It does not offer you that right. Uganda is my country, my brothers, cousins and countrymen. Because I have the privilege to be in the States and I have a forum which is listened to, it's my responsibility to stand up and say something. Just because you mean good doesn't give you the right to control my life. I don't care if you mean good.
Uganda needs to be respected as an equal participant in this, we need to be respected as equal citizens of his world. We need to understand that there is more to us than the failures of our past. The US isn't defined by civil war or 9/11. Uganda is strong, vibrant, developing technology, industry, the resilient women are rising in civil groups, that's what I want to talk about.
Kony is nowhere near the top of the concerns for us Ugandans. If you go to Gulu, where the worst of his atrocities were committed, it's a different town. It's thriving, growing, people are trying to put their lives together. Kony is a sore in our history. We are not defined by him or Idi Amin
What will a $30 kit do? Did I ask you to sell my story for an action kit to make uninformed college students feel good?
5.00pm:Rory Carroll, who has reported from all over the world for the Guardian, has just filed a story reflecting on his experience meeting members of the LRA. He writes:
He wore tattered trousers, muddy wellington boots, a grubby anorak and avoided eye contact. The voice was soft. "Sometimes one blow is enough. You have to make sure the skull is crushed and the brains come out."
He was 17, still dressed in what passed for his Lord's Resistance Army uniform and still getting used to the idea he was no longer Ambush, his nom-de-guerre, but Patrick Ocaya.
For five years he had served as a corporal in Joseph Kony's ranks, tasked with leading groups of 11-year-olds in attacks on vehicles and, on occasion, clubbing prisoners to death.
Asked if he had felt sorry for those he abducted and killed Ocaya's eyes flicked from the azure sky to the red, baked earth of a ramshackle rehabilitation centre. He shrugged. "I didn't have pity. They were my orders."
It was June 2003 and I was reporting for the Guardian from Kitgum, a beleagured town of dirt roads and one-storey buildings in northern Uganda in the midst of a new LRA offensive.
Lots of comment about this picture of the founders of Invisible Children, including on the left Jason Russell who features in the film. We've only just got the rights to use it.
The photo shows the founders of Invisible Children - Bobby Bailey, Laren Poole, and Jason Russell - posing with guns alongside members of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). The photo was taken at the Sudan-Congo border during the 2008 Juba Peace Talks by a photographer on assignment for the Associated Press Photograph: Glenna Gordon
This is IC's official explanation:
A story told by Jason Russell: The photo of Bobby, Laren and I with the guns was taken in an LRA camp in DRC during the 2008 Juba Peace Talks. We were there to see Joseph Kony come to the table to sign the Final Peace Agreement. The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) was surrounding our camp for protection since Sudan was mediating the peace talks. We wanted to talk to them and film them and get their perspective. And because Bobby, Laren and I are friends and had been doing this for 5 years, we thought it would be funny to bring back to our friends and family a joke photo. You know, "Haha - they have bazookas in their hands but they're actually fighting for peace." The ironic thing about this photo is that I HATE guns. I always have. Back in 2008 I wanted this war to end, like we all did, peacefully, through peace talks. But Kony was not interested in that; he kept killing. And we still don't want war. We don't want him killed and we don't want bombs dropped. We want him alive and captured and brought to justice.
5.22pm: Ryan Devereaux in our New York office writes:
I managed to speak to Ida Sawyer, a Congo researcher with Human Rights Watch currently based in Goma. Sawyer has studied the Lord's Resistance Army for several years. She made a number of positive comments regarding Invisible Children's work in the region outside of Uganda.
"From out perspective at Human Rights Watch, we definitely support the message of the film and we think it's great that they're bringing so much attention to the film with Kony's crimes and the phenomena of the LRA," Sawyer said.
"Hopefully this will create a movement for more pressure so that real action, effective action is taken to end the LRA, and arresting, capturing Kony is a key component of addressing the LRA problem," she added.
Sawyer commented on the Ugandan military forces that the United States is cooperating with in its efforts to eliminate Kony.
"We have always had concerns about the Ugandan army and they have tried to go after the LRA for 25 years and have not succeeded in ending the problem. They pushed him out of Uganda but didn't effectively weaken the actual strength of the group. We've had concerns about Uganda's human rights record domestically, within Uganda," Sawyer pointed out.
"We think that if the US is supporting them, they need to make sure that the Ugandan troops that they are supporting are not committing any abuses," she said.
While reports of abuses committed by regional military forces pursuing Kony have surfaced, Sawyer said Human Rights Watch has not documented any committed by the Ugandan troops working with the United States.
"We have not, so far on the LRA operation, we haven't documented any serious abuses committed by the Ugandan troops," she noted. "They are probably the most capable force in the region now compared with Congo and Central African Republic armies."
"And hopefully, the idea of having these American military advisers working closely with them, they can help insure that protections of civilians is prioritized and intelligence is acted on effectively and that any potential threats to civilians, or possible retaliation attacks are avoided."
Sawyer praised Invisible Children's work in north eastern Congo–an area impacted by LRA activity–in setting up anearly warning system.
"I think Invisible Children is starting some of the best work there, in terms of setting up the early warning mechanism."
The system relies on a two-way radio network, "They're training these two-way radio monitors who can report immediately when there's LRA presence or there's an attack."
Sawyer described the network as "crucial" in terms of circulating information in effected areas. "These are areas that don't have phone networks and the roads are really bad."
"That's been one of the key programs on the ground addressing that issue," Sawyer added.
She also praised Invisible Children's rehabilitation program–a partnership with the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission–for former child soldiers abducted by the LRA in Congo. While such programs have taken hold in Uganda, Sawyer noted "a gap" in similar support networks for Congolese victims.
In Congo and Central African Republic, Sawyer said Invisible Children has been "some of the quickest organizations to respond to the needs on the ground, very flexible and willing to work with and listen to the local communities."
"I think they recognize that they are people from California coming in, they don't understand the Congo context immediately and all the facts, but I think since they've come into Congo and CAR they've worked to make sure they don't move too quickly."
5.24pm: Rosebell Kagumire in Kampala writes for us:
The invisible Children's video Kony2012, its producers said it was an attempt to get the world to become more aware of Kony's war. A video, which features the producer and his son, his trips to northern Uganda and the need for an urgent action, however has not received the applause that it saw in western countries. In Uganda many have seen it as a misrepresentation of conflict and attempt to bring down the conflict just to American action, ignoring other actors.
Victor Ochen, the Director of African Youth Initiative Network (AYInet) based in Lira which was the site of one Kony's worst massacres in Uganda said that though the campaigners have good intentions they don't seem to seek a lasting solution.
"They are focusing more on an American solution to an African conflict than the holistic approach which should include regional governments and people who are very key to make this a success," says Ochen, "Every war has its own victims. They are advocating for a mechanism to end war with more attention to a perpetrator not victims. Campaigning on killing one man and that's the end is not enough."
Javie Ssozi a digital media consultant in Kampala commented on his facebook wall "They are responding to the right cause with a wrong approach! It's a good thing to raise awareness and let the world know what is happening but its a bad thing to start fromvery far away from where "what" is happening!".
He added this video is very fit for the Western world but we must not forget that there is another side of the story. Action cannot be based on one-sided-facts or thoughts. The people of this country can speak for themselves. KONY IS A BAD GUY. Yes! Can we at least hear from the victims?
Barbara Among, a Ugandan journalist at the independent Daily Monitor said the video simplifies the war against Kony and downplays realities on the ground. "He shows the fighting Kony is like Ramble in the movie and there's no reality," she says, "You would be forgive to think the war began with him (producer) and will end with him"
Among who also hails from the north says there's a lot of ego in the video and he ignores the past initiatives of people like Betty Bigombe, the Jub peace process which is wrong. Among also points out that it is not first time that celebrities have been brought on board for the cause of ending war in northern Uganda. In 1996 after Kony's rebels attacked Aboke girl's school and abducted many girls, the then deputy head rallied around the world and made calls for peace. In fact the late Pope John Paul sent a message to Kony which is inscribed on a stone in the school in northern Uganda.
Among says the whole approach doesn't respect victims of this war.
"Asking people to buy an item written on Kony is out of this world. Even if you are trying to help just imagine parents whose children have been killed, mutilated or abducted and the emotional pain the name brings to them."
The other criticism has been that the video heavily relies on images shot in Uganda more than 6 years ago and presents it as the current situation. Yet northern Uganda is dealing a whole lot of fresh challenges of resettlement and dealing with broken systems.
Ochen adds that "To me even a bullet alone isn't good enough for Kony, killing him alone will not be enough. There are many people who are caught up in this war. Invisible Children has good access to international media but they have no connection with the community they claim to represent."
5.27pm: I'm signing off now and handing over to Tom McCarthy in our New York office who is going to continue this blog. Many thanks for all your contributions today.
I am a researcher based at the Centre of African Studies, Edinburgh University and have been working on northern Uganda since 2009. This includes field work, academic publishing, advising the Foreign Ministry of Finland on the topic (I was based in Helsinki until 2010), and using the case in postgraduate courses I teach on the topics 'Development & Security in Africa' and 'Mineral Extraction in Africa'.
Your blog already cites other experts pointing out that the LRA has been outside Uganda for several years, is far smaller than Invisible Children try to make believe, and that the Ugandan government and army are a deeply problematic ally in their campaign. I second all these points, based on my own research and that of my colleagues.
The Guardian has widely reported recent electoral violence and the persecution of opposition leader, homosexuals and journalists in Uganda. This is clearly sanctioned, even driven by the country's leadership. The persecution of homosexuals is also strongly driven (and funded) by American-based Christian fundamentalist groups, who also see Uganda as a frontline in the cultural war against Islam, thanks to the Museveni regimie's outspoken (and military-strategis) support of the US 'War on Terror'.
There is also wide consensus in the scholarly community on the following facts:
While the extreme atrocities committed by the LRA cannot be justified by any 'political cause', the LRA did originally emerge as a direct reaction to extreme atrocities committed since the late 1980s by the government and armed forces of Uganda against the Acholi people in northern Uganda. The person in charge since 1986 until today is Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, who is himself a former rebel army leader and came to power by force.
The Ugandan army and military, including members of the family of the president, are known to have cashed in on the country's sending of troops to participate in the civil war of Congo DRC in the 1990s. The enrichment schemes involve the plundering of timber and high-value minerals like gold, diamonds and coltan in eastern DRC and the creation of false payment and pension schemes for army sections that do not exist ('ghost soldiers'). The DRC case led to a high-profile investigation by the UN and in the final report from 2001 Uganda was singled out for its involvement.
7.27pm GMT / 2.27pm ET: We've produced a video capturing the reactions of children from London aged 14 and 15 to the Invisible Children documentary.
7.44pm GMT/2.44pm ET: For readers just tuning in, or for readers in the United States who missed it, I want to repost a video reaction to KONY2012 by the Ugandan journalist Rosebell Kagumire (here's her blog). She criticizes the Invisible Children video as propagating sterotypes about Africa.
"Basically my major problem with [the Invisible Children] video is that it simplifies the story of millions of people in northern Uganda, and makes out a [misconception] that is often heard about Africa, about how hopeless people are in times of conflict."
7.51pm GMT / 2.51pm ET: More from Ugandan journalist Angelo Izama, from his post at Ch16.org, the international blogger network. Izama writes: "For many in the conflict prevention community including those who worry about the militarization of it in Central Africa, [the KONY2012] campaign is just another nightmare that will end soon. Hopefully."
If six years ago children in Uganda would have feared the hell of being part of the LRA, a well documented reality already, today the real invisible children are those suffering from "Nodding Disease". Over 4000 children are victims of this incurable debilitating condition. It's a neurological disease that has baffled world scientists and attacks mainly children from the most war affected districts of Kitgum, Pader and Gulu.
8.01pm GMT / 3.01pm ET: Here's a voice of support for the Kony 2012 initiative from someone close to the matter indeed.
Jacob Acaye, the Ugandan former child abductee at the heart of the film Kony 2012, has defended the video and its makers. He rejected widespread criticism in Uganda and abroad that the American-made film calling for Kony's arrest is out-of-date or irrelevant, my colleague Julian Borger writes.
A still from the so-called Kony2012 initiative, launched by the non-profit group Invisible Children which demands the removal of Ugandan guerrilla leader Joseph Rao Kony. Pic shows Jacob Achaye Photograph: .
"It is not too late, because all this fighting and suffering is still going on elsewhere," Acaye, now 21, told the Guardian in a telephone interview from Kampala.
"Until now, the war that was going on has been a silent war. People did not really know about it.
"Now what was happening in Gulu is still going on elsewhere in the Central African Republic and in Congo. What about the people who are suffering over there? They are going through what we went through."
Surely any exposure of such a man is positive, no matter how much money is spent on the medium in which the message is contained? The fact that the Invisible Children group is doing anything is better than doing nothing. I believe that, living in an age where media and social-media are engrained from the youngest to the oldest, the best way in getting a message across is by using them as a tool to do good. This is nothing new in political circles - why should it be any different when it comes to charities?
– Dan from Cardiff
8.39pm GMT / 3.39pm ET: The Guardian's Ryan Devereaux just spoke to Steven Van Damme, Oxfam's protection and policy advisor for the whole of eastern Congo. He is currently based in Goma. Van Damme said his organization is concerned about potentially violent consequences for the local population from the Kony2012 campaign. Here is Ryan's report:
"In general, we're concerned [about] the catastrophic consequences for the local population," Van Damme said. "We've seen in the past, over and over again, how there's been a lot of retaliation by the LRA, the burning of villages, maiming people, a lot of killings, with little military success."
According to Van Damme, military operations targeting Kony would present a host of risks. "They should take into account the protection of those people living in the areas where those military operations would take place, and at the same time [we're] concerned about the fact that Kony has surrounded himself with a lot of civilians around.
"The LRA is able to operate in that part of DRC because it is a remote area, because it's cut off, because it's isolated. There is very limited infrastructure, very limited amount of roads, schools, hospitals, very limited communications. The state authority is very weak and is absent. ... There's a lack of political acknowledgment of the presence of the LRA in the area."
Van Damme said the challenge of helping people impacted by Joseph Kony and his LRA forces requires focus on issues that are bigger than one man.
"What we want to highlight is the lack of development in the area that we're talking about, where people have a lot of concerns – including the lack of access to hospitals, roads and schools – with this impacting massively on these people," Van Damme said. "And so, any solution has to look at wider development in the area, and that seems to be where there's a lot less attention and a lot less funding and political support.
"The LRA problem goes way beyond a purely military solution and has to tackle all of these matters that basically boil down to a very underdeveloped region."
"Kony2012 is aimed at children... it is a very, very persuasive, manipulative film, beautifully made."
"I think it's very successful because it doesn't ask very much of people. It doesn't ask people to understand much more than 'There is good, and there is bad.'"
4.56pm: My colleague Ryan Devereaux has had a longer conversation with Ugandan journalist Angelo Izama. Izama was born in Kampala, Uganda and is currently a Knight Fellow at Stanford University. He specializes in security issues in Central Africa, and argues for a more nuanced and complex look at the region than the picture painted by Invisible Children. Here's the latest from Ryan:
Izama says there's a crucial natural resource angle that's being overlooked, pointing out that Uganda recentlydiscovered "significant deposits of oil" near its border with the DRC. "This is the one game changer in the history of conflict in that region" Izama said. He said joint military operations are increasingly concentrated in the oil-rich area.
"One of my issues with Invisible Children is that by providing such a truncated vision, and an unreal one, of what's happening today in our area right now, they missed the opportunity to cast this in much more broader and much more significant terms."
Izama pointed out that the Ugandan military – which the Obama administration legally committed itself to assisting one year after the oil discovery – has been increasing its oil-related security operations.
"For Uganda to exploit oil on that border region, it has to run a very large security operation. Part of that includes securing the border against rebels groups including the LRA, the Allied Democratic Forces, Congolese militias and several other Sudanese and Congolese groups that are all operating in that area," he said. "LRA is actually a minority."
"Governments that are motivated by exploiting solely this resource can be pretty excessive in their choice of policies. I think that Invisible Children really lost that wonderful opportunity," Izama added. "The big story in Uganda is about the oil."
Izama believes Invisible Children was mistaken in "going back into history and casting this in terms of what happened five, six years ago, which is no longer the case."
"If they had taken the story to where it is now, which is DRC, I think that you could still raise the question of Kony's atrocities, which are still ongoing now, but also raise the important issues that come with that, including the fact that DRC is where in 90s six or seven armies fought. Those are resource wars."
10.47pm GMT / 5.47pm ET: My colleague Ryan Devereaux spoke with comedy writer Jane Bussman, who has been traveling to Uganda since 2005. Bussman said Invisible Children did what it had to do to draw attention to an important issue. Here's Ryan's report:
"I think they really sat down and worked out the best way to get attention to what should be the biggest news story in the world but never is because the children involved are black," Bussman said. "Everyone is going ballistic on the Internet today," she added, "because they say the film is white-focused."
People need to realize, Bussman said, that "it's really bloody difficult to get the media to give a damn about stories with black people in the middle. ...The fact that they managed to make it an issue took some real some real brains."
Bussman takes issue with those who criticize the film for oversimplifying the situation in Central Africa. "If they got 27 million people watching it, it ain't that f**ing stupid," she said.
10.52pm GMT/5.52pm ET: The White House has congratulatedInvisible Children, the makers of the Kony 2012 video.
11.09pm GMT / 6.09pm ET:President Obama talks about Joseph Kony. Jake Tapper of ABC News has posted video in which he asks the president about the LRA. The exchange is below.
Tapper: On Friday we learned that you authorized the deployment of 100 Special Forces troops to Central Africa. The Lord's Revolutionary (sic) Army that these troops will be helping to remove their leaders from the battlefield, they are known for using child soldiers, and I'm wondering — the process of agreeing to deploy troops in a situation like this where you know that these special forces might have to return fire and they might be firing upon child soldiers — how difficult is that as a decision to make?
Obama: Well none of these decisions are easy, but those who are familiar with the Lord's Resistance Army and their leader, Mr. Kony, know that these are some of the most vicious killers. They terrorize villages, they take children into custody and turn them into child soldiers, they engage in rape and slaughter in villages they go through. They have been a scourge on the Uganda and that entire region, eastern Africa. So there has been strong bi-partisan support and a coalition, everything from evangelical Christians to folks on the left and human rights organizations who have said it is an international obligation for us to try to take them on and so given that bipartisan support across the board belief that we have to do something about this, what we've done is we've provided these advisors, they are not going to be in a situation where they are called upon to hunt down the Lord's Resistance Army or actively fire on them, but they will be in a position to protect themselves. What they can do is provide the logistical support that is needed, the advice, the training and the logistical support that hopefully will allow this kind of stuff to stop.
6.31pm: We're going to wrap up our live blog coverage of the controversy surrounding the Kony 2012 viral video. Thanks for reading – and thanks especially to all those who wrote in with valuable context and ideas. Check out the Guardian tomorrow for more, including an interview with Buzzfeed founder Jonah Peretti on why this video, of all activist videos, went viral.
Craig A.
Anderson received his PhD in psychology from Stanford University in
1980. He has been a faculty member at Rice University (1980-1988), Ohio State
University (visiting,1984-1985), and the University of Missouri-Columbia
(1988-1999). He joined Iowa State University in 1999 as Professor and Chair of
the Department of Psychology. He has received teaching awards at both the
graduate and undergraduate levels, and has been awarded "Fellow" status by the
American Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association. He is
currently on the Executive Council of the International Society for Research on
Aggression. His research on attribution theory, depression, social judgment,
covariation detection, biases, and human aggression has been published in top
social, personality, and cognitive, journals. His recent focus on violent video
games has led to U.S. Senate testimony, addresses to and consultations with
numerous scientific, governmental, and public policy groups worldwide, public
policy research awards, and articles and stories in top science news outlets.
His published works can be found at his web site.
Invisible Children stats
Screengrab of Kony 2012 merchandise on Ebay.
The photo shows the founders of Invisible Children - Bobby Bailey, Laren Poole, and Jason Russell - posing with guns alongside members of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). The photo was taken at the Sudan-Congo border during the 2008 Juba Peace Talks by a photographer on assignment for the Associated Press Photograph: Glenna Gordon
A still from the so-called Kony2012 initiative, launched by the non-profit group Invisible Children which demands the removal of Ugandan guerrilla leader Joseph Rao Kony. Pic shows Jacob Achaye Photograph: .
