What's in a Photo?
Zombietime, a great photo blog has a brilliant essay on the coverage of the September 24th antiwar protest in San Francisco by the Chronicle. It also lists a link to the Chronicle's response, which appears to artfully dodge their obvious bias and love of communists and anarchists. Am I surprised that they pick a young, attractive girl out of the masses, especially a minority, to focus in on? No, that's pretty common. The pathetic and all too obvious problem is that they remove context by focusing solely on her and her "People of Color Say No to War" bandanna.
One picture really is worth 1000 words, no matter how you slice it and the Chronicle knows that. So does everyone else in the print and video business. If you only have space for one big photograph on your opening, which one do you pick? Do you pick one that shows what is actually going on, or do you pick something more specific to better market your agenda while still trotting out the perception that what you picked is what the whole scene was about? This is a fairly obvious question, and it's obvious to all but the most dullard that the Chronicle chose to frame this as a race issue than a communist agit prop vs. America issue, as it should have been. What her or the Asian handler's ethnicity had to do with anything is moot. They hate America in its current form. They hate freedom. They love Marxist communist crap and it shows.
The Chronicle should be resoundingly thrashed for this, just to remind them that if they wish to promote leftist agendas, they're actually going to have to come out and say "We promote leftist agendas". This attacking by assuming their readers are retarded just won't cut it anymore.
Zombietime, a great photo blog has a brilliant essay on the coverage of the September 24th antiwar protest in San Francisco by the Chronicle. It also lists a link to the Chronicle's response, which appears to artfully dodge their obvious bias and love of communists and anarchists. Am I surprised that they pick a young, attractive girl out of the masses, especially a minority, to focus in on? No, that's pretty common. The pathetic and all too obvious problem is that they remove context by focusing solely on her and her "People of Color Say No to War" bandanna.
One picture really is worth 1000 words, no matter how you slice it and the Chronicle knows that. So does everyone else in the print and video business. If you only have space for one big photograph on your opening, which one do you pick? Do you pick one that shows what is actually going on, or do you pick something more specific to better market your agenda while still trotting out the perception that what you picked is what the whole scene was about? This is a fairly obvious question, and it's obvious to all but the most dullard that the Chronicle chose to frame this as a race issue than a communist agit prop vs. America issue, as it should have been. What her or the Asian handler's ethnicity had to do with anything is moot. They hate America in its current form. They hate freedom. They love Marxist communist crap and it shows.
The Chronicle should be resoundingly thrashed for this, just to remind them that if they wish to promote leftist agendas, they're actually going to have to come out and say "We promote leftist agendas". This attacking by assuming their readers are retarded just won't cut it anymore.
posted by Rob Beck | 5:59 PM
13 Comments:
Awesome photoblog at Zombietime. The sin of telling the half-truth, indeed!
Should zombietime be resoundingly thrashed for claiming the photos were taken just moments apart, when the only thing they actually have in common is the subject?
Or...you could apply another favorite left tactic and shoot the messenger. In response catastrophile, do you at least admit that the pic is deceptive in its use by the Chronicle?
In what sense is the picture deceptive? What about that image do you suppose is intended to cast the protest in some false light?
The bandana-masked youth with raised fist is pretty iconic of the modern protest movement, I'd say. It's not inherently positive or negative, simply an image everyone can recognize.
You're absolutely correct, it's very iconic. And I'd say it is designed to convey an image. The image it's designed to convey is that these young, brave black people are standing up to the nasty President and his War, because of course it's all about emptying minority neighborhoods and sending them to the front.
It better serves the readers of the Chronicle to see the girl in context, as one of a number of kids being used by a Marxist group to further their agenda against the US.
It could be argued -- and, in fact, has been argued -- that "brave" wouldn't need a mask. I think it's quite a stretch to say that that's the message being conveyed here. The image is just as likely to evoke the image of angry anarchist vandals as "young, brave, black people."
I suppose you'd be happier if every pro-war rally was portrayed as being organized by fundamentalist theocrats to further their agenda? After all, extremists are the loudest voices.
No, not really. At the rallies in support of the war, I've noticed mostly conservatives and very few "theocrats" (one of my fav new lefty terms for Christians). Extremists often are the loudest voices, but I've seen whacky Christian groups protesting the war as well as Marxists and full-fledged communists. An odd coupling, to be sure, but it's out there.
You're right, brave doesn't always need a mask, but given the Chronicle's overall track record of not supporting the war, demonizing those who do, and lionizing those who don't, which honestly do you think they were more likely to convey? Evil, cowardly anarchists or brave oppressed minorities? Why then focus and center the words on her bandanna on the photo? Let's be realistic, k?
Looking at zombietime's pics, I can find several things to focus on which would have been more flattering to the anti-war movement than a masked anarchist. As a moonbat, I've been to these protests, and I find the screaming masked youth thing to be perfectly obnoxious, mostly because it takes the spotlight away from people who don't wear masks and actually have something to say.
And no, I don't see how there's anything in the image that conveys "brave oppressed minorities" -- I tend to believe many people reading that message would think "again with the race card" or "she doesn't speak for me."
If the bandana had said something about depleted uranium or tax cuts or blood for oil, would that have been better? Is it possible that this just happened to be the most striking image to put in a box next to a link to the story? I think you're seeing what you want to see, and assuming motives that aren't there.
To illustrate my point: I was at the annual 10/22 rally outside of police headquarters in Los Angeles in 2000. Hundreds of people were there, the police fired on a permitted march with crowd suppression weapons -- never declared an illegal assembly or gave any warning, just started shooting and later claimed miscommunication -- and then boxed us in. I saw a friend trampled by a police horse. My father, who was there to videotape the event for the organizers, had his chin split open by a police baton that was aimed at his camera, and walked around with his shirt drenched in blood until he was arrested (the charges were dismissed). A teenage girl was hit in the eye with a rubber bullet. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
What was the picture on the front page of the LA Times Metro section the next day? An American flag, set on fire by a half-dozen masked anarchists.
I can think of a thousand images from that day that would have been more representative.
Shall I take that as evidence that the LA Times was deliberately skewing their coverage? Or that just was the image they chose?
I agree with you, having been to the local versions of those same protests, they don't really convey anti-war so much as anti-our own little group, do they? However, in many cases, their shock value is useful depending on the organizers, and the organizers in San Fran are typically ANSWER and related orgs. These orgs are not "peace first" types, as I'm sure you well know.
I might be assuming motives that aren't there, just as much as you're assuming that there aren't motives where there are. Let's be realistic, neither of us was there to ask her so we're both pretty much speculating. The joy of speculation is that both you and I are free to do it in our own forums and this is mine.
I hear stories like yours regarding rallies like that and I agree it sucks. The police get heavy-handed because that's what they're trained to do, typically. I've never said otherwise, although at similar rallies, I've seen the more violent elements in your protests (like the anarchists) purposely enrage the police or counter-protestors, even kick and beat on them.
Do you think, possibly, that some of the heavy-handed treatment anti-war protestors receive is to some extent brought on by their association with people (anarchists and certain factions of ANSWER) who WANT confrontation with the police, who crave the PR value of such instances? I do, again perception, but based on what I've seen.
My whole point and many libertarians and conservatives' points is that antiwar protests are fine and I don't have any problem with them existing or sharing their message. This is the great thing about America. However, I reserve the right to share my message right back with them. Also, I think it would be a good idea for those in the anti war movement to start policing their own elements and to thin out or eliminate those with agendas that diminish your message from one of "giving peace a chance" or concern for those in the war zones' lives to anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, and pro-communism. Pics like that don't do your movement any justice.
Okay. I think we've pretty much beaten this horse to death. And you're absolutely right about the need for peace groups to police their own.
I just think that an image like the one in question is basically a Rorschach test -- we each see what we're programmed to see. You might see black power, or a terrorist, or a bandito; it could evoke thoughts of solidarity, vandalism, or the Islamic subjugation of women. Nobody's interpretation is "the real one."
Take care.
I agree, let's just put this puppy to bed and thanks very much for participating in my one and only running debate thus far on this blog. :) I'm serious, many thanks.
I love when people show up for healthy debate and not just shrill emotion. It's people like you that make me think there's still some hope for open discourse in politics. Oh, and thanks for reading. ;)
"still some hope for open discourse in politics."
Let's hope so. I'm getting pretty sick of the two-angry-mobs model.
Post a Comment
<< Home