I wonder if it was a Muslim or Christian paper that had PS'd a couple of Jewish people out of a photo if your attitude would be as nonchalant?
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Dinowitz < [email protected]> wrote: > > 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:337606 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
