When is a photograph a 'lie'?

[Telecaster]

IMO the photo tells a truth. If any of us insist on it telling the truth, or conversely fabricating the lie, that's our mistake. Or, perhaps, our deceit. Reality tends to be more complex and nuanced than politicians, dogmatists & polemicists are willing to admit.

There are many truths to be told in this situation.

-Dave-

[michael]

This is a complex topic. Let me add the following...an article which appeared on this site some 7 years ago, and which directly addresses this topic.

Michael

[Isaac]

"Devonte struggles with living fearlessly when it comes to the police and people that don't understand the complexity of racism that is prevalent in our society,” she wrote, according to The Oregonian.

That quotation is from an article, posted 12 hours later -- "150,000 Facebook posters share story of young demonstrator's tearful hug with Portland officer".

In that article the photo is captioned  -- "In this photo shot by freelance photographer Johnny Nguyen, Sgt. Bret Barnum (left) hugs 12-year-old Devonte Hart during the Ferguson rally in Portland on Nov. 25, 2014."

The quotation in that article continues -- 'He asked Devonte why he was crying. His response about his concerns regarding the level of police brutality towards young black kids was met with an unexpected and seemingly authentic (to Devonte), "Yes. *sigh* I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry." The officer then asked if he could have one of his hugs.'

[Isaac]

This is a complex topic. Let me add the following...an article which appeared on this site some 7 years ago, and which directly addresses this topic.

The slideshow pictures show a strong vignette.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy,

Out of curiosity can you post a link to any article or editorial from the Guardian that supports your above contention ? Were they opposed to the decision not to prosecute (once the grand jury handed down a 'no indictment' verdict) ? I haven't followed the reports in the British press, so I really don't know - but I do suspect that it's not so much a British opinion, more a populist American one.

You're missing my point. I don't read The Guardian unless I'm stuck in a waiting room having finished The Times, its crossword and Su Dokus, counted the ceiling tiles and been left with nothing else to do. I've finished with that penance.

I didn't suggest that they've written anything specific about Ferguson (although they may have done); I'm just aware of the spiteful, small-minded lefty pettiness which permeates everything they publish, the champagne socialist mindset which combines middle-class self-loathing with unexpressed but thinly-disguised contempt for the working class it professes to support. This article is entirely in keeping with that attitude and my suggestion was that it be interpreted in that light.

Jeremy

[Manoli]

You're missing my point. I don't read The Guardian ...

Larfing-My-Head-Off!
Very good reply, very well written - so am I safe in assuming that you're not one of their long term subscribers ?

M

[Kirk Gittings]

Intent to deceive......there are propaganda photographs (intentionally made and staged to support a POV) and then there are photographs made for other reasons that are appropriated for propaganda purposes. None of these are lies perse (unless one considers advertising photography is all lies.....well ) unless you are naive enough to think that photographs taken by humans do not always represent the POV and personal agenda of the picture maker.

This site, given the judicious manipulation obvious in most photographs shown, could be more appropriately named Luminous Landscape Lies.........

[davidedric]

"The Guardian" didn't say anything.

What the Guardian does, and has consistently done in the 50 years that I have been reading it, is to separate Comment (which is free) from News or Facts (the sacred bit).  That is why the article is headed "Comment".   Comment, unless it is in an editorial,  does not reflect the position of the newspaper.  You read it and agree or disagree, as you choose.

It's a shame more newspapers and news channels don't adopt the same rigorous approach.

Dave

[Jeremy Roussak]

Larfing-My-Head-Off!
Very good reply, very well written - so am I safe in assuming that you're not one of their long term subscribers ?

Thank you! I think you may reasonably draw that conclusion, yes.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

What the Guardian does, and has consistently done in the 50 years that I have been reading it, is to separate Comment (which is free) from News or Facts (the sacred bit).  That is why the article is headed "Comment".   Comment, unless it is in an editorial,  does not reflect the position of the newspaper.  You read it and agree or disagree, as you choose.

So the Guardian has no employed columnists and the fact that all their comment articles adopt the same soft-left stance I described above is mere happenstance? Come on.

Jeremy

[Isaac]

…and the fact that all their comment articles…

The relevant point would be that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The relevant point would be that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.

Written by employees, published in a newspaper, reflecting the view of the world which is prevalent in all its writing and which was particularly noticeable in the unpleasant piece which led to this thread.

I don't think you're obtuse, Isaac; try not to be naive.

Jeremy

[Isaac]

As may be, and the relevant point is that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.

You seem to be in danger of conflating your point of view with The Truth ;-)

[Isaac]

This site, given the judicious manipulation obvious in most photographs shown…

Which makes Michael's old LuLa article particularly interesting (here are some of those Antarctica photos).

[Jeremy Roussak]

As may be, and the relevant point is that they are comment articles not news articles or editorials.

I withdraw the first part of my last sentence.

Jeremy

[Colorado David]

Any piece published by a newspaper, whether in print or electronic form, is reviewed by an editorial committee.  The fact that it passes muster and gets published means it reflects the position of the editorial board at some level.  Do you think if someone were to write a "comment" piece refuting the above referenced comment piece and supporting the findings of the grand jury that it would pass the scrutiny of the editorial board? I highly doubt it.

[davidedric]

To Colorado David

I'm thinking that you aren't a regular reader of the publication.   Does The Guardian tend to employ columnists who share the paper's political stance?   Yes of course. Do they do so exclusively.   No.  Try telling Simon Jenkins,  ex editor of The Times who writes a weekly column and makes other contributions, that he is of the soft left and you'd get a pretty robust response.

It may seem hard for you to accept the columnists' independence,  but no, there is no veto on content.

For the record, the paper is owned by a trust, and is not in hock to a wealthy proprietor such as Rupert Murdoch,  who of course has the right to play with his toys as he wishes.

Dave

[Colorado David]

I am not a regular reader of The Guardian, however I did spend eight years of my career in a newsroom.  I understand pretty well how the process works.  And yes, I may be a little cynical.

[Robert Roaldi]

I am not a regular reader of The Guardian, however I did spend eight years of my career in a newsroom.  I understand pretty well how the process works.  And yes, I may be a little cynical.

I don't understand what you mean by cynical.

A newspaper has the right to have an editorial slant, it seems to me. They all do, don't they? This one happens to have one that you don't have much sympathy with, nothing wrong with that. That, in itself, doesn't make it any more or less credible, other than to you. (I am not a reader of the Guardian but am aware of its reputation.)

[Manoli]

The fact that it passes muster and gets published means it reflects the position of the editorial board at some level.

On that basis, are we to likewise interpret any piece or comment that is posted on LuLa as necessarily reflecting the position 'of Michael, Kevin et al' on some level ?  I think not.