work of Russell and Fenton did show the horrors of Crimea to the people of Britain, Russell slightly more than Fenton due to the lack of reality shown in photography at the time
Fenton:
- took photographs which allowed British people to see what Crimea was like
- although his work was more intended for the families of soldiers, it gave the British people a perspective on how war was fought in Crimea
- but his work was not a real insight into the brutality of war
o Fenton photographed mainly wealthy people
o avoided photographs of death
o was not present during the winter of 1854/55
- therefore, it is unlikely his work CHANGED PUBLIC ATTITUDE regarding the conduct of the war —–> more allowed the public to see what was happening in Crimea
Russell:
- sent on behalf of The Times to report on the war in Crimea
- he witnessed and reported on the major events of the Crimean War with Alma, Balaclava and Inkerman
- he was not afraid to criticise the British Army particularly Raglan
o his reports would therefore expose the on the ground actions of the British Army and show that it was not the ‘the finest force’ it was perceived as
o criticising Raglan showed the public how poorly run the Army was
o led to public outcry
- therefore, Russell’s reports gave a real insight into British actions in Crimea which gave the British public the ability to form an opinion on how the war was being conducted
exposed the failures in the administration of the civil service as well as the army which reshaped public opinion on how the army was perceived
work of Florence Nightingale
exposed the horror in hospitals such as Scutari, showing the public the poor sanitation in Crimea
government policies increasing attention to the news/improved technology
improved technology meant Brits could receive news of events in Crimea faster as well as cheaper paper printing made the news easily accessible
CONCLUSION