Via Instapundit, this article on the efforts of media outlets to only use accurate images is lengthy, but I urge you to read the entire thing. I don't have time to respond to all of it, but let me say, first, that it's clear that some outlets, critically, wire services, are clearly aware that they've hired photogs in the past who have been pushing unacceptable material -- but they have no interest in giving their audience specifics.
Second, I loved this:
Other publications say they keep an eye out for photos that look staged. The New York Times will not publish a picture "if it feels like it was done for us," said Flynn, and she cited an occasion when one of her photographers set aside dramatic photos taken in Africa because the crowd had reacted to an audience of 17 cameras and photographers. "People perform for the media.... [They] are very media-savvy; they know what will attract attention."
Yeah, well we know for a fact that's nothing but a damn lie -- because the Times most certainly does publish pictures "done for them."
Lastly, I appreciate the author pointing out this:
But even these remedies would not solve the deeper problem. Because images can have a powerful impact, all sides in the Iraq war are using and pressuring photographers to tell their story, making it difficult for the photographers to act as strictly neutral observers. Iraqi insurgents, for example, frequently use videotape and photographs of their attacks on U.S. forces to magnify the propaganda impact. Insurgent groups will then distribute these images on CDs throughout the Arab world and worldwide through the Internet. The videos, usually shot at some distance from the attacks, typically show a fiery explosion enveloping a U.S. armored vehicle, but the cameras rarely show the extent of damage to the vehicle or the fate of the passengers.
But given the context of the article I would have appreciated it more if he had pointed out that the networks freely partake of these videos and call them news footage.
Comments