August 09, 2006
Media Distortion - It Gets Worse and Worse
Reporting distortions by the media is like keeping up with Bill Clinton's women. The media has so many transgressions that it becomes tedious keeping up with them, and the large numbers might have the effect of numbing people to this problem. Nevertheless and without great fanfare, here's the latest, courtesy of the Left's Least Loved, Michelle Malkin:
The NYTimes issues a correction to its pieta online photo caption: "...The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed."
Just a slight difference. To continue, here's more....
"Fauxtography" alert: NYTimes and USNews;
plus Time and Reuters' Issam Kobeisi
Take a close look at the cover of US News magazine. The image and the story context imply that (an armed Lebanese man) is at the scene of an Israeli airstrike or explosion caused by IDF artillery. The same guy appears in a photo taken by none other than ex-Reuters camera man Adnan Hajj. He's pointing a gun at the site of the explosion. Only guess what? The site is...as Allah points out, a garbage dump.
Well, it stinks.
This is too much, so I simply refer you on. Malkin's site has other examples, but you may want to check a particular reference from her, Free Republic's "Fauxtography" list, which keeps up with the on-going story of reporting fraud to customers by the major media. If you're going to read all of them, get comfortable first. This could take some time.
Where's Ralph Nader and Michael Moore when you want someone to blow the whistle on corporate wrong-doings?
Posted by Woody M. at August 9, 2006 01:34 PM | TrackBackAs a member of the media, this stuff really gets under my skin. Especially the way people with an axe to grind run with it.
A few (the vast minority) of photogs doctor their stuff and suddenly it's the media's agenda.
No, it's just a few guys.
Just like every doctor doesn't issue fake presciptions and every psychologist doesn't talk his way into patients' pants. A few bad apples make the industry look bad.
Sadly, a few zealots are looking behind every rock for the bogeyman and the find him at Reuters.
Enjoy your current witch hunt!
Posted by Bishopdic at August 9, 2006 02:51 PM
Bishopdic, did you know that 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name? In the major media, a similar statement comes close.
I'm not going to look up numbers, but I've seen polls where something like 90% of reporters in major media vote Democratic. Their bias is clear and their reporting distorts reality to suit their political agenda. This is not a secret.
The field of journalism is an industry--not a profession, as it lacks standards, an ethics code, and a regulatory review board. Everyone does what he wants.
Rather than attack or mock conservatives, wouldn't it be better to consider the validity of the proven distortion claims that we raise and start a clean-up of your field by setting higher standards and enforcing penalties for violators other than "we're pulling his photos?"
Posted by Woody at August 9, 2006 04:57 PM
Bishopdic, doctoring a photograph for clarity is one thing and the photographer that didn't do it, whether by dodging, saturating color or whatever would be a bad photographer. That taking a photograph in the heat of battle and expecting it to be a perfect photograph with no adjustment necessary is to be unrealistic. However, as you have no doubt heard, a picture is worth a thousand words, and the attempt to push peoples buttons via these so obviously emotionally charged photographs is not news photography, it is propaganda with a particular point of view that the photographer, or the reporter, or the editor want's to push. You are right of course, "Especially the way people with an axe to grind run with it," but it is the photographer in this case who has an axe to grind. Not the blogger that discovers and reports the "fauxtography."
Posted by GM at August 9, 2006 05:07 PM
