Re: [videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Patrick Delongchamp]

For a long time, photos could be considered the smoking gun.  If you
were told: "John is gay."  You'd probably ask around before believing
it but if you saw a photo that's all you needed.

Photos have quickly become unreliable and we've had to go back to the
tried and true method of investigative citizen journalism.  Photos
just don't cut it anymore.  You have to see more than one photo from a
different source before believing the original photo.  The same is
happening with video.  (See this Microsoft Technology Demonstration
video for a peek at what's to come:
http://research.microsoft.com/unwrap/rkrf_short.wmv)

Photos and videos are now no more trustworthy than a regular story
about a fishing trip.

It's not so much scary as predictable.  inevitable.  Until a new
method of capturing an event appears that is too difficult to
manipulate, (holographic technology?) we'll have to just check
multiple sources.  BBC, Al Jazeera, Globe and Mail, New York Times,
Blogs, Vlogs, etc

What Bill said about a photo album of a party is an excellent example
of how one source can never be enough.  Russia vs. Georgia is an
excellent example of how twisted a story can get.  You'll want to read
about it or hear about it from sources you've grown to trust.  However
It's never enough to just ask one trusted source.  Ask your best
friend Sam.  The most educated, well informed guy you know and he'll
still have a skewed view of things.  Read the BBC, a well trusted
source and you'll still only get part of the story.

Even in the time before "photoshopping" produced realistic
photographs, that photo of John couldn't alone be considered the
smoking gun because it could have been John just fooling around,
making jokes.

There's no reason to fear what technology is capable of.  It's more
about fearing, or rather, expecting what people have always been
capable of.

p

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's because previously, we didn't have a choice.
>
> If the news told you that Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a building
> and that that building was currently on fire, you had no choice but to
> believe it. However, if I go down there and FILM the actual building
> with no flames coming from it and only smoke, and then I post that to
> the internet for all to see, when they turn on their televisions and
> still see images of a building burning, it becomes unbelievable.
>
> Fast forward a year, to today, and we have Qik and other on-the-fly
> services, where we can LIVECAST stuff mere seconds after they actually
> happen. So the problem is that there are checks and balances now.
> The News isn't the only source of footage or commentary.
>
> Just this morning, I found out that Brian Conley and Jeff Rae were
> detained in China YESTERDAY! That wasn't possible back in the day.
> There are too many people with too many eyes on too many things and
> too many outlets for immediately getting that information to others
> for journalists who specialize in spinning stories to remain credible
> if they keep it up.
>
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture,
>> etcthat holds true...however, I think it was always
>> a "spin"...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the
>> people who were delivering the news, in whatever form. Now we have
>> all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see,
>> unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it.
>> Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone awayand
>> that's sad...
>>
>> Heath
>> http://batmangeek.com
>> http://heathparks.com
>>
>> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes. I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
>> > credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
>> > their information to be accepted and absorbed. This includes the
>> > commercials.
>> >
>> > I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
>> > purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
>> > subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
>> > ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
>> > the video wanted to portray.
>> >
>> > For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits
>> actual
>> > huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major
>> city,
>> > they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
>> > show. Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room
>> floor.
>> > Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might
>> hit
>> > the cutting room floor.
>> >
>> > I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
>> > it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
>> > surrounded by high-rise buildings. OR... I could sta

[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Bill Cammack]

That's because previously, we didn't have a choice.

If the news told you that Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a building
and that that building was currently on fire, you had no choice but to
believe it.  However, if I go down there and FILM the actual building
with no flames coming from it and only smoke, and then I post that to
the internet for all to see, when they turn on their televisions and
still see images of a building burning, it becomes unbelievable.

Fast forward a year, to today, and we have Qik and other on-the-fly
services, where we can LIVECAST stuff mere seconds after they actually
happen.  So the problem is that there are checks and balances now. 
The News isn't the only source of footage or commentary.

Just this morning, I found out that Brian Conley and Jeff Rae were
detained in China YESTERDAY!  That wasn't possible back in the day. 
There are too many people with too many eyes on too many things and
too many outlets for immediately getting that information to others
for journalists who specialize in spinning stories to remain credible
if they keep it up.

Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture, 
> etcthat holds true...however, I think it was always 
> a "spin"...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the 
> people who were delivering the news, in whatever form.  Now we have 
> all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see, 
> unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it.  
> Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone awayand 
> that's sad...
> 
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
> http://heathparks.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Yes.  I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
> > credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
> > their information to be accepted and absorbed.  This includes the
> > commercials.
> > 
> > I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
> > purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
> > subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
> > ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
> > the video wanted to portray.
> > 
> > For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits 
> actual
> > huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major 
> city,
> > they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
> > show.  Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room 
> floor.
> >  Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might 
> hit
> > the cutting room floor.
> > 
> > I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
> > it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
> > surrounded by high-rise buildings.  OR... I could stand inside the
> > park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, 
> and
> > you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I
> > filmed that.
> > 
> > So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though
> > there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted 
> to "sell"
> > something to an audience.  I'm saying that since it's humans that 
> are
> > selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the
> > sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by 
> their
> > perception of what they want it to portray.
> > 
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://billcammack.com
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath"  wrote:
> > >
> > > But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you 
> the 
> > > information, I think that helpsI do think people at one time 
> > > trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etcI think for a 
> variety 
> > > of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come 
> > > backhopefully
> > > 
> > > Heath
> > > http://batmangeek.com
> > > http://heathparks.com
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nothing's believable, really.
> > > > 
> > > > Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's 
> being 
> > > spun
> > > > most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
> > > > 
> > > > For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, 
> my
> > > > friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of 
> > > pics,
> > > > you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, 
> because 
> > > I
> > > > didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to 
> document
> > > > the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times 
> I 
> > > had
> > > > and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
> > > > 
> > > > Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people 
> and 
> > > 

[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Heath]

Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture, 
etcthat holds true...however, I think it was always 
a "spin"...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the 
people who were delivering the news, in whatever form.  Now we have 
all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see, 
unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it.  
Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone awayand 
that's sad...

Heath
http://batmangeek.com
http://heathparks.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes.  I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
> credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
> their information to be accepted and absorbed.  This includes the
> commercials.
> 
> I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
> purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
> subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
> ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
> the video wanted to portray.
> 
> For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits 
actual
> huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major 
city,
> they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
> show.  Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room 
floor.
>  Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might 
hit
> the cutting room floor.
> 
> I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
> it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
> surrounded by high-rise buildings.  OR... I could stand inside the
> park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, 
and
> you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I
> filmed that.
> 
> So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though
> there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted 
to "sell"
> something to an audience.  I'm saying that since it's humans that 
are
> selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the
> sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by 
their
> perception of what they want it to portray.
> 
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath"  wrote:
> >
> > But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you 
the 
> > information, I think that helpsI do think people at one time 
> > trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etcI think for a 
variety 
> > of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come 
> > backhopefully
> > 
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> > http://heathparks.com
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing's believable, really.
> > > 
> > > Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's 
being 
> > spun
> > > most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
> > > 
> > > For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, 
my
> > > friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of 
> > pics,
> > > you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, 
because 
> > I
> > > didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to 
document
> > > the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times 
I 
> > had
> > > and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
> > > 
> > > Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people 
and 
> > have
> > > 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them 
respond
> > > negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, 
the
> > > final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', 
making it
> > > look like the vast majority of people polled responded 
positively.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can 
trust the
> > > person that created the media or was in charge of Executive 
> > Producing
> > > it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.
> > > 
> > >  > properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/>
> > > 
> > > Bill Cammack
> > > http://billcammack.com
> > > 
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think 
it 
> > also 
> > > > applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal 
cases, 
> > when 
> > > > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired 
> > results?  
> > > > This is the stuff that scares me about technology, 
especiality 
> > > > digital tech
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > > > 
> > > > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of 
Montauk, 
> > N.Y., 
> > > > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the 
> > > > photograph of the Monta

[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Caleb]

I agree with the comments on considering the source and hopefully  
their reputation is deserved. Basically the video, or media, itself is  
not to be trusted, its the source that makes the video to be believed.  
Here's an example of an easily faked set of pictures that I trusted  
due to the source. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4288772.stm

~
~ Caleb J. Clark
~ Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com
~ "The problem with communication is the assumption it has been  
accomplished." - G. B. Shaw.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Bill Cammack]

Yes.  I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
their information to be accepted and absorbed.  This includes the
commercials.

I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
the video wanted to portray.

For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits actual
huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major city,
they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
show.  Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room floor.
 Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might hit
the cutting room floor.

I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
surrounded by high-rise buildings.  OR... I could stand inside the
park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, and
you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I
filmed that.

So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though
there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted to "sell"
something to an audience.  I'm saying that since it's humans that are
selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the
sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by their
perception of what they want it to portray.

Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the 
> information, I think that helpsI do think people at one time 
> trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etcI think for a variety 
> of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come 
> backhopefully
> 
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
> http://heathparks.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Nothing's believable, really.
> > 
> > Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being 
> spun
> > most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
> > 
> > For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my
> > friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of 
> pics,
> > you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because 
> I
> > didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to document
> > the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times I 
> had
> > and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
> > 
> > Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people and 
> have
> > 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond
> > negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the
> > final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it
> > look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the
> > person that created the media or was in charge of Executive 
> Producing
> > it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.
> > 
> >  properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/>
> > 
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://billcammack.com
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it 
> also 
> > > applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases, 
> when 
> > > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired 
> results?  
> > > This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality 
> > > digital tech
> > > 
> > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > > 
> > > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, 
> N.Y., 
> > > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the 
> > > photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog 
> Gawker, 
> > > local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News 
> > > quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this 
> > > unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover 
> > > Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had 
> > > decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply 
> fake, 
> > > a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had 
> been 
> > > duped. 
> > > 
> > > The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what 
> > > they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, 
> Beijing 
> > > organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and 
> > > computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to 
> enhance 
> > >

[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Heath]

But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the 
information, I think that helpsI do think people at one time 
trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etcI think for a variety 
of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come 
backhopefully

Heath
http://batmangeek.com
http://heathparks.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nothing's believable, really.
> 
> Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being 
spun
> most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
> 
> For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my
> friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of 
pics,
> you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because 
I
> didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to document
> the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times I 
had
> and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
> 
> Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people and 
have
> 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond
> negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the
> final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it
> look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively.
> 
> Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the
> person that created the media or was in charge of Executive 
Producing
> it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath"  wrote:
> >
> > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it 
also 
> > applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases, 
when 
> > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired 
results?  
> > This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality 
> > digital tech
> > 
> > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > 
> > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, 
N.Y., 
> > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the 
> > photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog 
Gawker, 
> > local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News 
> > quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this 
> > unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover 
> > Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had 
> > decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply 
fake, 
> > a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had 
been 
> > duped. 
> > 
> > The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what 
> > they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, 
Beijing 
> > organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and 
> > computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to 
enhance 
> > the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month 
before 
> > that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on 
front 
> > pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile added 
to the 
> > image�was outed within hours of the photograph's 
publication. "With 
> > technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be," 
says 
> > John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press 
> > Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been stretched in 
so 
> > many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith 
in 
> > us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for 
> > photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is 
> > particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the 
photojournalist to 
> > tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just like 
we 
> > trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're 
going 
> > to have to develop that same relationship with photographers," he 
> > says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the 
> > credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not 
doctored 
> > photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how 
> > photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:
> > 
> > for the rest of the article follow the link 
> > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > 
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> > http://heathparks.com
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: Do you trust what you see?

[Bill Cammack]

Nothing's believable, really.

Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being spun
most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.

For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my
friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of pics,
you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because I
didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to document
the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times I had
and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.

Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people and have
10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond
negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the
final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it
look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively.

Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the
person that created the media or was in charge of Executive Producing
it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.



Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it also 
> applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases, when 
> does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired results?  
> This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality 
> digital tech
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> 
> When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, N.Y., 
> in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the 
> photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog Gawker, 
> local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News 
> quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this 
> unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover 
> Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had 
> decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply fake, 
> a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had been 
> duped. 
> 
> The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what 
> they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, Beijing 
> organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and 
> computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to enhance 
> the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month before 
> that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on front 
> pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile added to the 
> image�was outed within hours of the photograph's publication. "With 
> technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be," says 
> John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press 
> Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been stretched in so 
> many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith in 
> us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for 
> photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is 
> particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the photojournalist to 
> tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just like we 
> trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're going 
> to have to develop that same relationship with photographers," he 
> says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the 
> credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not doctored 
> photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how 
> photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:
> 
> for the rest of the article follow the link 
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> 
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
> http://heathparks.com
>