Again, context. The readers of this particular paper would not be surprised that the images of women were removed. They would look at the picture, read the story and get the message. The picture is secondary to the story as its only meaning is in reference to the story.
This is a departure from the standard thinking of how people read. We look at society and expect them to skim, glance, but not actually pay full attention to the text. We expect the picture to speak for us. In essence, we expect people to have a limited attention span and depend on visual queues rather than actual content. On the other hand, this idea is drilled out of Jewish children from early on. We're taught that the words matter, not the pictures. There are no pictures in a Chumash. No images in a Torah Scroll. If there are any images in a lesson, it is totally in context of the words and are secondary to the words. I'm not comparing intelligence or attention span, I'm comparing focus. We're trained to focus on the words. We're trained that the point of a picture is not the picture but what the picture shows. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that the point was visual indicator that they'd been removed, > not textual. If you said in the caption "we removed these two people" > it would be something but it would be an entirely different impact > than, say, a censor bar over the faces of the two. The point of a > picture is the picture. A lot of people who are skimming take in the > pictures a bit of text, mostly what is prominent in the first > paragraph. The altering of the photo would have been a lot more clear > if visual indication was made in the photo itself or else if they had > simply used a different photo that did not include any women. > > As one side note, I don't believe that this is actually an issue of > copyright violation. If I understand correctly, the US Government > cannot hold copyright, everything they produce is automatically > entered into the public domain. This is more of a journalism ethics > issue. > > Cheers, > Judah > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Dinowitz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Exact. As long as it has been noted that the person has been removed. We > > don't know what was said in the article, only what the picture shows and > a > > blog post about it. Context, context, context. It has been removed. > > > > > >> not, removing individuals from a photo without acknowledging that they > >> have been removed is note really a legit move by any media outlet. > >> > >> -Cameron > >> > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:337591 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
