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. <http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-how-to-properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/> Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In [email protected], "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 >
