Exercise: Guardian use of Guerrero's photograph.
The El Pais link to this image has been blocked. Likewise The Guardian have removed their link to the original image allowing access only to the subsequent doctored images.The use of photo altering software makes it only too easy to amend images and so prevalent has it become that on 18th. November this year Reuters issued the following, "Hi, I’d like to pass on a note of request to our freelance contributors due to a worldwide policy change.. In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images that’s fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc).
Cheers,".
This is aimed at stopping the submission of images that have been altered while in RAW.
The question was, what would I have done with the Spanish image? I would have showed the image in full and in colour if available. That was the truth about the bomb blast. I would not show recognisable images of the dead, such as a close up of the murdered soldier Lee Rigby, but that arm was part of the scene, was unrecognisable, and gave an impression as to what barbarous people are capable of. The picture of Lee lying in the, otherwise, empty street was such a powerful image that further detail was unnecessary.
Reference:
Zhang, M. Reuters issues a worldwide ban on raw photos. [Online} Published on November 18, 2015 Available at:
http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/Published on November 18, 2015
But Should You Print It.
So we arrive back at the subject of censorship and who says what is permissible. The article is very wide ranging and detailed in it's observations. I deal with each of the four areas separately.
Faking:- Should never be allowed. If no image of an event exists then by all means show a reconstruction, but say that it is a reconstruction. Leave the fakery to advertisers and propagandists.
Decency:- So readily available is internet pornography that the idea of censorship on the grounds of decency seems rather quaint. On 16th January this year The Sun "newspaper" printed it's last Page Three Girl. What in 1970 seemed so daring and racy is seen in 2015 as mundane and trite. There is no need to cross the pubic barrier; it was breached years ago. Even top shelf mens magazines are dying on their feet due, in the most part, to internet porn. Why bother print what those seeking titillation can find free online.
Privacy:- Here is a message for the rich and famous. When in a public place don't do anything that may embarrass you, for without a doubt someone will have their iPhone trained and ready to snap. The days when the paparazzi were the only danger are long over. The choice to print or not is one of taste and public interest. What the editor rejects will appear on You Tube anyway. What readers of The Sun find interesting is very different to those of The I. Each editor must know and recognise his market. I have no interest in personalities, soap stars, footballers, or game show hosts so will never buy a "Red Top" newspaper, but I recognise the were I the editor of such a publication this would be part of my daily output. There would still have to be a limit, and I would draw it at truth, and what hurt it may cause innocents caught up in the story.
Violence:- The theme of whether or not the presence of the camera resulted in death is an old one. The Eddie Adam picture of a South Vietnamese police chief shooting a Vietcong prisoner is a case in point. Was this man murdered just because the camera was there or would he have died anyway. The use of horrific images in general must rest with their importance to a story. The Vietnam War was big news item in my youth. The news of the war was largely a diet of propaganda and falsehood mixed up with a smattering heroic tales of the brave and willing US soldiers. It took the picture of the napalmed girl to bring home to the horror of what was being done in the name of freedom. If the message is strong then so must be the images that back it up.
Had there been more images such as that of the Iraqi soldier then perhaps more people would have challenged Blaire's lies about why we went to war and the lack of planning for peace.
I agree with the article in that those who criticise the use of graphic war photographs do protest too much. Before we are led into war show us what war means, and that includes displacement of people as well as death and injury. Less of the "Shock and Awe" and more of the pain and suffering.
I still can't watch the events of 9/11. I find them too shocking and too disturbing. This does not mean that the images should not be out there or that I want them removed or censored, but it is my my choice not to view them.
Decency:- So readily available is internet pornography that the idea of censorship on the grounds of decency seems rather quaint. On 16th January this year The Sun "newspaper" printed it's last Page Three Girl. What in 1970 seemed so daring and racy is seen in 2015 as mundane and trite. There is no need to cross the pubic barrier; it was breached years ago. Even top shelf mens magazines are dying on their feet due, in the most part, to internet porn. Why bother print what those seeking titillation can find free online.
Privacy:- Here is a message for the rich and famous. When in a public place don't do anything that may embarrass you, for without a doubt someone will have their iPhone trained and ready to snap. The days when the paparazzi were the only danger are long over. The choice to print or not is one of taste and public interest. What the editor rejects will appear on You Tube anyway. What readers of The Sun find interesting is very different to those of The I. Each editor must know and recognise his market. I have no interest in personalities, soap stars, footballers, or game show hosts so will never buy a "Red Top" newspaper, but I recognise the were I the editor of such a publication this would be part of my daily output. There would still have to be a limit, and I would draw it at truth, and what hurt it may cause innocents caught up in the story.
Violence:- The theme of whether or not the presence of the camera resulted in death is an old one. The Eddie Adam picture of a South Vietnamese police chief shooting a Vietcong prisoner is a case in point. Was this man murdered just because the camera was there or would he have died anyway. The use of horrific images in general must rest with their importance to a story. The Vietnam War was big news item in my youth. The news of the war was largely a diet of propaganda and falsehood mixed up with a smattering heroic tales of the brave and willing US soldiers. It took the picture of the napalmed girl to bring home to the horror of what was being done in the name of freedom. If the message is strong then so must be the images that back it up.
Had there been more images such as that of the Iraqi soldier then perhaps more people would have challenged Blaire's lies about why we went to war and the lack of planning for peace.
I agree with the article in that those who criticise the use of graphic war photographs do protest too much. Before we are led into war show us what war means, and that includes displacement of people as well as death and injury. Less of the "Shock and Awe" and more of the pain and suffering.
I still can't watch the events of 9/11. I find them too shocking and too disturbing. This does not mean that the images should not be out there or that I want them removed or censored, but it is my my choice not to view them.
No comments:
Post a Comment