On 13/12/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world is >awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news >photography.
It's their job to provide a balanced view of good hard news. Speaking of which - here's some Breaking News: there were plenty of good hard news events happening all over the world that did not consist of a tsunami, hurricanes, and so on. But this is all pretty much irrelevant - publishing news pics is just like anything publishing most news magazines, it's totally subjective. They publish what they believe their readers want to see, and they're totally at liberty to do so. Personally, I have never had the desire to subscribe or buy Time magazine, and I have seen nothing recently that has changed my mind. >The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so >on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said >about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC >attacks? There were other big news stories of the year (2005) that do not feature in the Time's 'Best Photos of the Year 2005', and I would expect them to feature those as well. regarding the WTC attacks, in a line-up of ten 'best' photos of the year, I would expect 1 pic. In a lineup of 24, maybe 2 or 3 pics. About 5000 people died in a landmark mass murder, and that is big news in the western world, but far more people die from starvation and poverty: about 1000 people per hour (source: UN World Food Programme). In the Time list, there is one photo (out of 24) [pic 21] illustrating a mother and child in war-torn Sudan. That's it. There are 6 (out of 24) shots of the aftermaths of hurricanes hitting America. For a publication purporting to cover world events, I consider this unbalanced. But what's new - Time readers are more interested in the hurricanes hitting their own shores than the thousands of tons of corpses piling up in a land many miles away, and who can blame them. I like good hard news photography, and I have no problem with a rash of death and destruction - that's reality and to me it's all news, good or bad. I do not distinguish between 'good' news or 'bad' news - that would be subjective and I avoid that. What i do distinguish between is a perceived unbalanced reporting that does not deliver a wide representative coverage of world events. I'm not saying Time is an example of this (I don't have nearly enough experience of its pages over the years), but what i do say is that based on its 'Best Photos of the Year' (2005) collection, as a whole, it sucks! Individually, most pics are first rate, and there are some incredibly good shots. FWIW, the only paper magazine i subscribe to is National Geographic. I'm afraid my sub to Foto8 has lapsed - I like it a lot but I find it too wordy for my taste, and not enough pics. Bring back the Illustrated London news! News-wise, I read the BBC web site. TV news wise, I view the BBC and Sky News, but to be honest they are both crap with self-centred agendas. The only decent (UK) news prog is Channel Four News, IMO. HTH, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
