In a time of crisis, protect the brand from by minimising legal, financial + reputational damage. That usually begins with a holding statement as part of a broader PR offensive to calm the nerves of stakeholders who matter. https://twitter.com/PaulTHalliday/status/1294901297473294336

Magnum have done that. Now they are busy looking addressing the straw that broke the camel's back. 8n the meantime, silence is a powerful response to the 'mob'. At some point, when the internal position is clear, the PR machine will go to war.

Some have asked for transparency, it won't happen. Opaque statements will shine some light on the situation but detail in the shadows will remain hidden. Note: truth is always buried in plain sight.

There will be two conversations on change which will be dominated by the need to address some but not all failings. One will take place in public space while the other will happen privately with the stakeholders who matter. Note: you + I don't.

As with all organisations, Magnum will prioritise those who have the biggest impact on profit so understanding how they derive their profit is important.

Magnum is a private organisation that serves a small bunch of people, the primary group is the photographer's themselves. What appetite do they have for change? None. They will only do what is legally + financially prudent in their eyes.

A key question is, will they give up DAH whose images of young children are at the centre of the firestorm? Scapegoat, martyr, saviour. Would this be enough to appease the situation?

The challenge in offering a sacrifice is the fact that DAH's practices are symptoms of an organisation which thought it was above critique + reproof. His going doesn't solve their problem it only shows that they have one (or many). Same goes for reindexing keywords.

There will be a natural resistance to the level of change suggested by others. The position is clear, every voting Magnum member will have to decide between the long + the short game. Only the former makes sound strategic sense. https://twitter.com/johnedwinmason/status/1294659160676741123?s=19

There are those who say that Magnum do not deserve this. That's a mute point once we start to consider the people who are illegally + unethically documented in their archive. The key test here is simple, would you like your children to feature in any of the questionable images?

Which brings us back to the very reasons why we are having this discussion in the first place - unaccountable (+ unrepentant?) privilege sustained over decades for the good of a few at the expense of many.