Perspective or Bias?

[rick_m.]

Mike Dixon said: "Returning to your example of the society wedding: What if the father of the bride was a lecherous alcoholic who groped the bridesmaids at every opportunity, the groom was a dimwitted inheritance baby who couldn't hold down a job at Burger King if left on his own, and the bride was a shrill and caustic bitch who no one but a halfwit would ever tolerate: do smiling pictures of bride give a fair and unbiased view of this event?"

 

Actually yes they do. All of the other stuff, though juicy gossip, is not news. You may personally delight in those things and if you do you have wonderful sources for that info in either tabloids or idle gossip. A society wedding picture is about WHAT happened. We are a newspaper not a tabloid.

 

 

Mike said: "Satisfying the expectations of your viewers (and your editors) is wise choice if your goal is preserving your livelihood. But it doesn't mean that you are free from bias--in fact, it indicates that their is a particular set of expectations you are trying to meet with the photos you create. It's the same thing that paparazzi do, the same thing that right-wing propagandists do, and the same thing that left-wing propagandists do; you're just trying to satisfy a different market."

 

You lumping all journalistic discretion together with outright propaganda is the same thing as lumping murderers with shoplifters. After all they are both criminals.

 

In your last few posts I see a fairly common thought process that defies the evidence. That somehow the media, advertisers and the government are in cahoots. You even assert that this is a deliberate attempt to "dumb-down" America. The idea is patently absurd. It draws to mind thousands of publishers, producers, agency managers and bureaucrats linked by red phones. No such conspiracy exists. Can big advertisers influence small media outlets? Probably. But not enough to cover up big stories. They may be protected from cheap-shots but not serious malfeasance. The 'media' took on Ford over the explorer in the face of billion plus dollar advertising campaign. And cost Ford dearly. Powerful government people are slammed every day. The war is almost universally excoriated. CBS took a crippling hit over its attempted slime job on Bush.

 

Remember. We get advertisers by giving them the news they want to see. If we throw snow balls at our 'pals' we loose readers. When that happens we can't demand high advertising rates. We risk just as much by coddling our advertisers as we do by slamming them when it is newsworthy. And advertisers, likewise need us for the access we provide to customers. They advertise with us or risk ceding the space to their competitors. It�s not personal. It�s just business.

 

So we choose to suck-up to whoever is running this conspiracy? And we let our competition scoop us? Suppress a story and "see what happens". Think about that. Give up a chance to break a major local or national story? Why? So we can "dumb-down" America at the expense of our advertising revenues not to mention integrity?

 

To steel a line from Shakespeare:

 

�O, Kate,� Henry replies, �nice customs curtsey to great kings. Dear Kate, we cannot be confined within the weak list of a country�s fashion. We are the makers of manners, Kate, and the liberty that follows our places stops the mouths of fault-finders.�

 

True? Ask Nixon. Or Dow Chemical�. Or�..

 

Shakespeare�s admonition is true collectively of that vast machine we call the media. The media in all of its variety and depth. We have so much information in this country that we sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. Fox news is wildly popular at a time when it is widely held that the media is "liberal". And this success has spawned counter claims that the media is a tool of big business, the tri-lateral commission, the illuminati or whatever other demon suits the inflamed writer's imagination.

 

To lay the "dumbing-down" of America at the feet of the media is true only to this extent. We have presided over the collapse of our education system without firing a shot. That is until the pundits like Bill O'rielly and Amy Goodman come along to wake us from our torpor. Care to guess what the Georgian press was saying about Franklyn and Paine?

 

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Care to guess what the Georgian press was saying about Franklyn and Paine?</I>

<P>BY

"Georgian" I believe that John is referring to Great Britain in the era of King George III in

the late 18th century (1700s). And not the State of Georgia (USA) or the Republic of

Georgia (formerly part of the USSR).

 

A free press is only free to those who own a printing press --or that and the

technologically modern equivalents: a television station, a radio station or an internet

connection. And in the latter case its only true if you are fortunate enough to live in a

country where the goverment cannot disconnect you or put you in jail or much worse for

saying things they do not want said.

[john_stafford2]

Rick, your attempts to change my words with yours won't work. Your comments are all over the map. Seems you must be accustomed to throwing out a lot of stuff to let someone else pick and choose or edit. That doesn't work with me.

 

You are either a neutered hack apologist with a camera or a photojournalist. Do you know what makes the difference?

[rick_m.]

John Stafford said: "You are either a neutered hack apologist with a camera or a photojournalist. Do you know what makes the difference?"

 

If you feel the proper method of discussion is insult we can go there if you like. Perhaps a better course of action is to let you continue your pontificating and ad hominum attacks without a response.

 

As they say. Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty and the pig likes it.

 

Or perhaps you prefer the all-to typical tactic these days, by people of a certain philosophical bent, to simply resort to name-calling when their wits fail them.

[john_stafford2]

Rick, what ticked me off was the fact that you took a stereotypical knee-jerk reaction by declaring that I was speaking of a conspiracy.

That kind of stuff we can all get on any crap talk show. It's a typical dodge from attempting to understand.

 

Perhaps my language was not clear. The media/government relationship is not a conspiracy. I was speaking of the outcome of their relationship. It is symbiotic, relatively unexamined. Each benefits from the other without necessary cooperation.

 

So, I'm sorry I flipped out. If you pull that kind of shit again, I'll just ignore you. Deal?

[GerrySiegel]

Dick argues, way at the top, that reporters and photographers are expected to be objective as humanly possible, but editorial stance dictates otherwise...and asked how do we look at this philosophically as photographers and photo artists. I take this to mean,how do we,as consumers of this stuff and makers of images look at it or compensate for it. Of course, Rick takes strong exception, that working pros tell it like it is and he and John (I think) are offended by that word "bias." Stop me if I got that wrong. I like perspective better than bias. I know that New York Times has a perspective, Guardian has a perspective, Christian Monitor has a perspective, and Tony Snow displays a perspective. I think,Dick Hilker,that "truth" is a compound of looking at a bunch of sources,including NPR (my daily fix) and looking at Consumer Reports on autos, and taking the whole bunch as working information. I am pleased that I don't need to get all my info from Al Jazeerah,or from the O'Reilly Factor, or the Huffington Post,,.

 

The next thing we have to visualize,Dick, down the lane, is something even more fascinating than Ann Coulter and her strident bookselling. Any of us,-Dick, Rick, John,Ellis, can soon become a news source WITH PHOTOS, by blogging. Now how will that impact Truth, Justice, and the American Way (don't sneer). Apologies please to Clark Kent, and Jimmy Olson,square shooting pj:-)

Aloha,Gerry

[mike dixon]

<i>All of the other stuff, though juicy gossip, is not news. You may personally delight in those things and if you do you have wonderful sources for that info in either tabloids or idle gossip. A society wedding picture is about WHAT happened. We are a newspaper not a tabloid.</i><P>

Rick, are you capable of addressing my arguments without making negative insinuations about me? That's been your strategy in every reply so far.<P>

I'd agree that lurid details about the wedding are gossip, but I'd hardly say that smiling shots of a bride constitute "news." The typical, two-line wedding announcement conveys the factual content of the "story." Shots of smiling brides are nothing but PR. You've already made it clear that you're going into the event with a predetermined idea of what you're going to present to your readers. Those pictures make the bride's family happy and they entertain your readership, but it's a hell of a stretch to call it news. PR shots, by their very nature, are biased.<P>

<i>You lumping all journalistic discretion together with outright propaganda is the same thing as lumping murderers with shoplifters. After all they are both criminals.</i><P>

You were the one who raised the issue of satisfying the expectations of your readership. I merely pointed out that that's the same thing paparazzi and others do--that it's certainly no defense of your unbiased status. Would you argue that, since shoplifters aren't the same as murderers, they aren't actually criminals?<P>

<i>Remember. We get advertisers by giving them the news they want to see. If we throw snow balls at our 'pals' we loose readers. . . . It?s not personal. It?s just business.</i><P>

You really don't see how this creates a significant bias in reporting?

[john_stafford2]

Rick, what newspaper do you work for? I'd like to read the ads.

[john_stafford2]

Never mind, Rick. I think I found it. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Green Valley News and Sun. Green Valley, Arizona.

 

Interesting place. Median age is 72. I can imagine that what a hotbed of controversy Green Valley is, the activism, hormones run wild. Are the Grey Panthers still a lot of trouble there?

 

The most dangerous thing in Green Valley is the median-age drivers backing over median-age pedestrians.

 

But I did enjoy the pictures of the classic car meet. Tricky photography; I couldn't see the props you used to keep the patrons from tipping over.

 

And the sports photography! Direct, on-camera flash! Shades of Weegee? Is Green Valley a secret bastion of high culture?

[boris c hann]

Near the beginning of this thread Ellis referred to a "British pj" who "filled out a crowd of

Iraqi's and put weapons in the hands of people who in other sections of the picture didn't

have weapons". Who is this photographer Ellis? What was the outcome when this was

discovered? Do you have any links?

 

Rick: "I will continue to make the bride look good, not photograph bodies at traffic

accidents and refrain from putting my 18mm lens in the face of a grieving person."

 

I've no opinion on the issue of making the bride look good, but why wouldn't you

"photograph bodies at traffic accidents"? This seems a mighty strange stance for a news

photographer. Would you take the same approach in, say, Iraq? If the answer's yes then

you're the ideal "embed" - the military would love to have you along for the ride. I also find

it strange that you wouldn't photograph a grieving person. I understand that there are

many reasons (relating both to the victim and the photographer) to find this a distasteful/

cruel act but surely it's part of the job of a news photographer. I'm curious, if you think

this is wrong, what do you make of the work of people like Peress, Nactwey, and Delahaye?

[rick_m.]

So John. Insults work for you. OK. Have it your way. But of course you don't display any of your work. Do you have any to show? Where are you published? Who pays you for photography John?

 

I suspect you are just the typical amateur hiding behind the anonymity of the internet so you can pontificate as if you really were a professional photographer? Would you prefer we knew you as a programmer working in the library of a college or do you prefer programmer/analyst? Is that you John? And you presume to lecture a working professional with years of experience on how to take a picture. Get real man.

 

You don't post your pictures because you don't have any. Right John? Or are you afraid of criticism by those of us who know the difference?

 

So my friend from pop 27K Minnesota. That is you, right? Let me know the next time you win a journalism award. Letﾒs share stories about international photojournalism. Letﾒs compare notes when your photo is on the front page of a major national daily. We can have fun comparing our daily photojournalism work. You can show me all of the pictures you have published this week. Letﾒs stand in the rain together at the scene of a disaster. Why don't we both lean on the ring at a title fight. Or maybe we could cover some professional sports together. All you need is your press pass and we can be buddies. Maybe you can give me some pointers. I look forward to it.

 

But if I can't get my email to work you don't mind if I ask you to help do you?

 

This your idea of fun on a forum John? At least now people will know to put your comments into perspective.

 

You insult me and my paper. You should have said papers BTW. (Your demographics are not even close either) Did you mention my company's 32 other newspapers and 23 specialty publications? Radio? While you are googling why don't you list the other publications where I am published? Maybe you could mention my recent calendar project while you are handling my PR. And I am crushed. Not a single plug for my event and portrait work. You are not a very good PR man after all.

 

I think it is great to be a computer programmer. I don't know much about it but I respect the professionalism of those who do it for a living. It doesnﾒt diminish me at all to admit that there are any number of professions about which I know little. I rather admire the expertise of others and enjoy learning from them. You might try it.

[boris c hann]

Welcome to The Twilight Zone.

[rick_m.]

Boris: I don't photograph dead bodies at car acciedents because we don't publish them. I know of few papers that do. Covering a war is an entirely different matter. So might be a particularly important crime scene.

 

I would not "imbed" with the US military because I beleive it is an obvious, though effective, way to manipulate the press. It is dangerous for the soldiers and presents a way to restrictive view of military operations. It does make for some whiz-bang sound bites for the broadcast media though.

 

I don't shove my camera into the face of a grieving person out of respect for their privacy. (I would consider doing it and have done it so I should have said that it is not my normal practice to do so).

 

Peres freely admits that his take is different from the mainstream photojournalist. He compares his work to that of the forensic photographer if I recall. He is brilliant. His work in Rwanda and Bosnia was fascinating.

 

I am not squeemish. There is a very important place for graphic imagry and I would not shy away from it. The scene of a local traffic accident does not present the "justification" for shocking the reader that a war, pestellance or disaster does. It is, IMO, a judgment call. And it is never, in the end, my call. Editors decide what gets in and what does not. And I know my editors pretty well.

 

I very much respect the work of Peres and particularly James Nachtwey. I am not, I am sad to admit, in their league at all. Maybe someday.

[boris c hann]

"I don't shove my camera into the face of a grieving person out of respect for their privacy.

(I would consider doing it and have done it so I should have said that it is not my normal

practice to do so).....I am not squeemish. There is a very important place for graphic

imagry and I would not shy away from it. The scene of a local traffic accident does not

present the "justification" for shocking the reader that a war, pestellance or disaster does."

 

I think it's less about the level of "justification" and more about the fact that the American

media have a lower level of "respect" for the lives of those who aren't American. There was

huge hypocrisy at the time of the invasion of Iraq with condemnation of Al-Jazeera for

showing images of American prisoners/casualties while the American media were doing

the very same thing with regard to Iraqi prisoners/casualties. The US media is happy to

show bodies, just so long as they're the bodies of "foreigners".

[kevinconroyfarrell]

T.S. Eliot said, There is more to culture than anyone can be aware of. In other words, no

one

can get outside his own culture enough to see it in its entirety. We cannot separate

ourselves from our culture. We are enveloped in it. It has us, we do not have it. We can

never see the extent to which culture affects our judgments and our actions. Often what

we

imagine to be personal opinions or judgments are really the product of culture.

 

I think another way to say culture might be to say bias. And the extent and depth of bias is

such that no one could ever locate it all, much less remove it.

 

Culture has a lot to do with trying to find right and wrong in an amoral world. Human

beings do not seem to be able to live without some kind of system of morality. We cannot

accept nature's chaos, so we try to impose a sense of good and evil, or, at least, of just

and unjust. I hold that beneath the surface of history writing and journalism lies an effort

to separate victims from perpetrators and the guilty from the innocent. This is a way to try

to understand an incomprehensible world. To take a side is a way to see.

[john_stafford2]

<b>rick</b><i>So John. Insults work for you. OK. Have it your way. But of course you don't display any of your work. Do you have any to show? </i><p>

I retired from photography many years ago. I am sixty years-old, so that left a good amount of time to work in newspaper and magazine photography. I left to study other interests.<p>

I posted a pertinent image rather recently but the thread in which the picture appeared seems to have been deleted. Very strange. Did you have something to do with that? <p>

Rather than answering your every challenge regarding experience which would take us off-topic and bore the others, I will relax and let the facts become clear in time. In time, my man, in time you will see.<p>

 

Regarding the demographics, well I posted what was in your paper's web page. Blame them. Yes, your paper is part of Wick's bag of others. I know. Again, I will sit back and let you brag...and learn later.<p>

[john_stafford2]

Ach. The thread with photo I referred to is online but you have to search for it. It doesn't appear otherwise. And worse, it is under my Nome d' Plume. I'll pay for that mess-up.<p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=31075184

[beeman458]

"I posted a pertinent image rather recently..."

 

As a suggestion, set yourself up a Photo.net gallery so we can see some of your images.

[beeman458]

"..., is there a point at which his perspective becomes a biased view?"

 

I'd have to say that all images have a biased view but is this necessarily a bad thing which is what I think you're really alluding to and how do the bias' of the viewer of the biased image come into play; muddying the waters ever further.

 

"As artists who wield cameras instead of brushes or chisels, is there a greater burden on us to be free of prejudice simply because of the old adage that "cameras don't lie"?"

 

Did Dali, who used brushes, free himself up from his prejudices?

 

Why this need to free up from ingrained/learned prejudices and bias' as this is what makes up the artist's soul?

[dickhilker]

I agree with you, Thomas, that an artist's bias is an integral part of his work. It's interesting that, although Dali never used a camera, he had a healthy respect for photography. In his essay, "Photographic Data" he said:

 

"The photograph is capable of realizing the most complete, scrupulous and moving catalogue that man has ever been able to imagine. From the subtlety of aquaria to the fastest, most fleeting gestures of wild animals, the photograph affords us a thousand fragmentary images culminating in a dramatized cognitive totalization. The spire of a Cathedral, at a height of ten meters from the ground, in constant darkness, is revealed to us by the photograph with that very fineness of detail, made possible only by the skillful photogenic quality to which the photographer can subject things, by which he enables us, finally, to know them. In addition to the implacable rigor to which photographic data subject our mind, they are always and essentially the surest vehicle of poetry and the most agile process for perceiving the most delicate osmoses that are established between reality and surreality.

 

The mere fact of the photographic transposition already implies a total invention: the registering of an unknown reality. Nothing has come to prove surrealism more correct than photography. Oh Zeiss, lens so full of uncommon faculties of surprise!"

[karl_price]

Rick Said :"It is, IMO, a judgment call. And it is never, in the end, my call. Editors decide what gets in and what does not. And I know my editors pretty well."

 

 

Isn't that a bias? Doesn't that influence what you shoot and how you shoot it?

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Who is this photographer Ellis? What was the outcome when this was discovered? Do

you have any links?</I><P>I had the story a but wrong. It was an American photographer

on hte staff of the

Los Angeles Times, Brian Walski, and he was immediately fired when this fakery was

discovered.

Here are some links:<P>

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082<P>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030409.htm<P>http://

www.camerairaq.com/2003/03/the_los_angeles.html<P>

 

And you can find mor by pointing your favorite search engine at "brian walski"

It is too bad he decided to do this as he is clearly a very talented and sensitive

photojornalist, in 2001 he was the Californis Press Photography Association's

"Photographer of the Year". There is a gallery of the work that one the award at http://

www.cppaonline.org/2001poy/gallery.htm<P>

I was perhaps confusing the story with another doctored photo, this time from the

London Evening Standard:<P> http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/evening-standard-

crowd.htm

[ellis_vener_photography]

try again

[ellis_vener_photography]

This is a very interesting site for those of us who aren't actually working photojourlism

grunts stationed in Iraq:

 

http://www.camerairaq.com/

[dickhilker]

Thanks for the lonk, Ellis -- it certainly shows the degree to which agenda-serving bias has gone to depict our efforts in Iraq as an unmitigated horror show. Whatever happened to balanced reporting?

 

Oh, that's right -- it doesn't sell papers!