The image being referred to can be found on this link:
http://100photos.time.com/photos/kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture

Kevin Carter took “Starving Child and Vulture” in 1993 when he was in famine-ravaged Sudan. He started working as a photographer in 1983 and worked until he took his life in 1994.

While I’m not sure what camera was used to produce the photo other than that it would have been an analog camera, it was published less than a month later by The New York Times. It’s unclear whether he had the photos developed before sending them to the US or whether he just sent film rolls. Regardless, the fact that it was published so quickly by the New York Times after being taken in remote Sudan shows how keen the Times were to get it out. In terms of framing Carter apparently took a few photos of the child and the vulture, this one ended up framing both subjects in a way that tells a haunting narrative of the vulture waiting for the child to die.

Being the New York Times in 1993 meant that the picture was published in print. One main difference between such a photo being published in 1993 compared to modern times is that there was relatively low information surrounding the photo when it was published, as the photographer had sold it to a publication in another country. Furthermore the fact that Carter could not explain or defend the action of taking the photos and not directly helping the child meant that he received severe public backlash after the photo was taken. After the event Carter did explain that he chased the bird away and waited for sometime hoping that the child would make it to the food centre, and that he was instructed not to touch any of the children because he could contract infectious diseases. Nowadays, people can publish photos anywhere and on their own terms, explaining and justifying the reasons and background behind them when publishing, rather than having to explain after the event.

The fact that the New York Times, one of, if not the world’s biggest print news publications published the photo means that it gained worldwide notoriety, much more so than if it was published by a newspaper in his native South Africa per say. While Carter did receive plenty of backlash, he also received significant support – particularly in the form of winning a Pulitzer Prize for the picture.

The Times is an extremely highly regarded news source that markets itself on reliability and demonstrating journalistic pride and integrity. As such Carters’ photo fits the Times’ general style and was taken by its readers very seriously. However it could be worth noting that Carter, who was from South Africa, may have had more knowledge about the political and social context in Sudan as he was geographically closer to the country than The New York Times’ main audience in the US. They may have potentially had less knowledge about the condition of life in Sudan and the complexities of disease and famine, as well as the difficult circumstance Carter found himself in. This may help to explain some of the backlash he received from many New York Times readers. It’s an example of what Zylinska (2016) talks about how photography used to be: “photojournalists dispatched to the world’s remote corners that few of us could regularly access” and “advertisers trying to sell us chunks of that world”. How things have changed.