This is a straw man argument, because nobody claims that the whole journalistic process is objective. It has never claimed to be objective. What honourable journalists (and there are plenty of them) strive for is to be an honest witness.
B On 24 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Mark Roberts <[email protected]> >> >>>> That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a >>>> photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to >>>> represent an unaltered *photograph*. > >>> 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. :) > >> Yes. That's you. This isn't about you. Or me. It's about the public's >> expectations, editors' expectations (and demands) and the Associated >> Press's expectations and the requirements stipulated in their >> contracts. > > I think the only expectation the public at large has is that the news > be accurate. I don't believe that the public explicitly (or > implicitly) has the expectation that each and every photo be > unaltered, especially where it doesn't matter. The public apparently > likes Instagram. > > In your response, you've clipped where I wrote: > > "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.". > > This is an example that works to illustrate a point, one we're both > probably trying to make Mark, just from slightly different views. > > By your omission, people could think that I wasn't agreeing with you > on those points, when in reality I was. > > My point is that the objectivity of the whole journalistic process is > questionable, not just the visual component. And while an agreed upon > rule was violated, which was wrong for the photographer to do, it's > hypocritical to take the photographer to task, and then pretend to > have journalistic integrity. If one can't accept a photograph that was > altered in a very trivial way irrelevant to the story, because it > lacks integrity somehow, then they better damn well go back and make > sure the FOV, shooting angle, DOF (don't want to blur out pertinent > background details) and everything else tells the whole story. Then > make sure the written word tells the whole truth fairly without > omissions. > > Referencing the Bible, Jesus accused the Pharisees of 'straining out > the gnat from their drink, while gulping down the camel'... 'Cleaning > the outside of the cup while the inside is dirty'. - Matthew 23:24 > > That's what this looks like to me. Focusing on a nit while ignoring > the whole bigger picture of whether 1) other unaltered photos present > a biased or cropped view of reality and 2) whether the reporting > behind the scene does the same. > > I don't want to belabor it anymore, I understand the principle that > journalistically an unaltered photo may meet a higher standard (not > that it necessarily conveys a point more accurately or honestly). > > I found these comments on dpreview of interest (and of course this is > a subject open to huge debate): > > "One tends to think of journalistic photographic manipulation as being > something only present in the digital age. Its not true...for > example...one of the famous images of students killed in a protest at > Ohio State University in the late 60's had an inconvenient pole in the > background behind a devastated student, which was removed in editing > and that has become a famous and accepted image in the history of > journalism. In Nachtwey's movie War Photographer, Nachtwey gives > instructions to his printer to dodge, burn and highlight areas of an > image to focus attention or create effect. That's also manipulation. I > think it's really a no-no to alter the content of an image so as to > lie - as in adding extra victims or body parts - but this edit has not > taken away from the image or created a visual lie, the debate is > precious and silly and should be dictated by common sense. The whole > underlying intent was to clean up an otherwise good news image." - > Peter Bendheim > > "This is a funny topic I always enjoy when it 'crops' up. The > assumption that what a photographer does with a camera is objective > and absolute and deserving of instant trust, while what he/she does > with a cloning/healing tool in Photoshop is immediately dishonest is > so laughably last century. Cropping also removes elements from an > image, choosing your moment so your photo tells a particular angle of > the story is part of shooting, but that's all ok by these foolish > rules. > It's splitting hairs and it's arrogance of the highest order." - Peter > Stuckings. > > I agree he broke his contract. I agree he altered an image. Under the > terms of the contract was that wrong? Yes it was. > > In the big scheme of things though... ? > > Tom C. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
