Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture, etc....that 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 away....and that's sad...
Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the > > information, I think that helps....I do think people at one time > > trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etc....I think for a variety > > of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come > > back....hopefully > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > http://heathparks.com > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" > > <billcammack@> 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. > > > > > > <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" <heathparks@> 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 > > > > > > > > > >
