John Francis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 06:02:35PM -0500, PN Stenquist wrote:
Editorializing by photo isn't a new concept, but it's ugly journalism.
It has nothing to do with facts or positions. It's just an attempt to
discredit by virtue of appearances.
Only if, as you
In a message dated 12/3/2008 9:46:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Francis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 06:02:35PM -0500, PN Stenquist wrote:
Editorializing by photo isn't a new concept, but it's ugly journalism.
It has nothing to do with facts or
You're wrong John, it was done under false pretenses. McCain went there
for a cover photograph, an honest image of his physical appearance. If
he had know the use his image would have been put to he would never have
agreed. This is a form of contract. A lack of agreement means no
contract
Fascinating. I don't really understand what the fuss is about, though.
Greenberg's off-the-books grab looks amateurish and B-movie hokey. Not
too far away from shining a torch in your face to tell Blair Witch
stories as a kid. I'm not a fan of the McCain either, but let's be
realistic. How
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 06:02:35PM -0500, PN Stenquist wrote:
Editorializing by photo isn't a new concept, but it's ugly journalism.
It has nothing to do with facts or positions. It's just an attempt to
discredit by virtue of appearances.
Only if, as you apparently do, you assume it will
In a message dated 12/1/2008 9:27:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only if, as you apparently do, you assume it will always be negative.
I'd suggest that editorializing by photo is why you hardly ever see
a photograph of President (Franklin) Roosevelt in a wheelchair.
Greenberg didn't hog-tie McCain and force him to pose. He agreed to do
it, and the image submitted for the magazine cover is conventionally
flattering. Whether Greenberg is a McCain supporter or not is immaterial.
There's quite a few famous photographers shooting fluff puff celebrity
From: Derby Chang
Fascinating. I don't really understand what the fuss is about, though.
Greenberg's off-the-books grab looks amateurish and B-movie hokey. Not
too far away from shining a torch in your face to tell Blair Witch
stories as a kid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87soTsQjf5Y
Hi-
On the Media ran a story about Photography Journalistic Ethics
this week.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/11/28/05
There is a link to a slide show that illustrates the story.
Some might find it interesting.
Cheers,
Mike
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Mike, interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.
-Brendan
--- Beaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi-
On the Media ran a story about Photography
Journalistic Ethics
this week.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/11/28/05
There is a link to a slide show that illustrates the
story
for sharing.
-Brendan
--- Beaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi-
On the Media ran a story about Photography
Journalistic Ethics
this week.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/11/28/05
There is a link to a slide show that illustrates the
story.
Some might find it interesting.
Cheers,
Mike
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Stan Halpin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agree - interesting story Mike. I wonder a bit at the emphasis on the
photographer though. The editor certainly bears some responsibility in
making his/her choice of what image to use. The point of the story seems to
On Nov 30, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Stan Halpin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agree - interesting story Mike. I wonder a bit at the emphasis on the
photographer though. The editor certainly bears some
responsibility in
making his/her choice of what
Editorializing by photo isn't a new concept, but it's ugly
journalism. It has nothing to do with facts or positions. It's just an
attempt to discredit by virtue of appearances. If you study front page
photos of politicians that have appeared in the New York Times, for
example, you'll see
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Beaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 30, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Stan Halpin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agree - interesting story Mike. I wonder a bit at the emphasis on the
photographer though. The editor
I guess I just can't get very excited about the McCain photo by
Greenberg. It after all wasn't used by the magazine. If she wants to
post it on her web site and boast about how she can take pretty
crappy portraits, let her. She is over inflating her own worth if she
thinks that anyone
16 matches
Mail list logo
