On 24/01/2014 11:29 AM, Tom C wrote:
----------------------------- Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor fashion or not. That's me though. :) I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there. Some of us are viewing it through a different lens so to speak. First there's the different 'standards or expectations' of PJ compared to other photography. Then there's the whole idea of whether the news being reported to us is objective to begin with, which I'll contend it's not. Slanting stories, ignoring potential sources, and using sound bites, alters what is reported, not to mention the innate bias any human possesses. The mere act of editing the written word potentially discards valuable information. At that point to call in to question the integrity of a photograph that had a minor element removed is duplicitous. Holding photography to a different standard than the non-visual aspects of the story is duplicitous as well.
I think the point is, we need to do the best we can. Without wanting to inject politics into the discussion, why do we call Palestinian bombers terrorists rather than freedom fighters? It's a pretty easy answer, it's because we aren't on their side. If we were, our language would be very different. We call landmines that the other guys use IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) because it denigrates their efforts. At the same time, their efforts cost a lot in terms of lives and equipment, so I don't know just how "improvised" these explosive devises are.
You are right, language has the power to sway opinion, which is why one must be careful when deciphering what one reads. OTOH, images have even more power to sway, and we don't have the option of looking at a picture and know immediately what politics, if any, is behind the picture. We can look at words and say, yeah, he's a left wing nutbar, based on what was written, and discard it or believe it based on whether or not it fits our own outlook. It's harder with a picture, especially one that comes from what is supposed to be a journalistic source that is supposed to have integrity and believability.
However, let me ask you something: How long would a newspaper editor in the USAor Canada (and probably more so Canada given our PM's speech to the Knesset last week) keep his job if he started referring to Palestinians as "Freedom Fighters" rather than the more accepted term "terrorist" and Israel as a Zionist Apartheid State?
Depending on your POV, either language is the "truth". bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
