I think the fact that they removed the only 2 females is completely is an act of dishonesty. They altered the facts in the photo. As others have pointed out, if they were just interested in this modesty of women crap, they could have censored the image without completely removing them.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 09:13 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper cuts Clinton, other woman from iconic photo My point on consuming media is the result of the flow of the thread but it does not change the base point. Was the editing of the picture right? no. Was it an attempt at dishonesty? no. Do we know what the context that the picture was displayed with was? no. Is a newspaper read by a few thousand people max worth any of this controversy? no So basically, we have an agreement that the editing was wrong and a disagreement as to the intent of the editing. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Medic <[email protected]> wrote: > > It kind of seems you are trying to make this into an academic > discussion about how we consume media. To me it seems more important > to address this dishonest representation of "preserving female modesty." > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Michael Dinowitz < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > 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:337598 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
