|
To funny LOL
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
Ryan McGehee edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
ROFL! Quickdraw McGraw indeed.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Bourg's photoshop methods are much more subtle than Jill Greenburg's.
It's "the moment preserved", and still moments do not always reflect the actual moving moment. It reminds me of taking photos of people while they are talking. In many of the photos you end up with weird mouth shapes, the tongue is curling, one eye closing before the other and the person looks like they are about to vomit. Yet, watching them speak in realtime is very fluid and normal looking.
There are probably many factors that will determine if a photo editor will use this or discard. I'm guessing the political leaning of the ownership would be one of them.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If I had to walk behind Obama I might have the same look. Gag me, he stinks.
See how the look could be interpreted in different ways?
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We get it John - you don't like his plan.
I felt bad for him last night (politics aside) the guy just doesn't read well on TV his expressions and mannerisms were hard to watch....
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ron-
That was not Photoshopped -- it was real. I saw it happen from the front. And if Bourg PS'd that in any way that altered or even finessed the photo, he would be fired immediately.
I agree with goldfishmine in that McCain does not come across on TV the way he probably wants to come across. But that kind of stuff can have a big effect. Just ask Nixon after the Kennedy debate, or Al Gore after the annoyed sigh, or Bush Sr. after he checked his watch repeatedly.
McCain actually sticks his tongue out pretty regularly, which I totally do not get in this age of media and blogs taking this stuff and running with it.
Another, from last night:
news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Democratic-presidential-candidate-...
For better or worse, it is a fact of life that TVQ carries much weight today. The camera never blinks, and the split screen was particularly tough on McCain last night.
That said, Obama can sometimes be "unflappable" to the point of looking robotic in a debate setting, too. The split screen really makes every response a voyeuristic spectacle.
God knows I would not want to be under a microscope like that. I'd probably adjust my underwear when I was walking in, or worse...
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
strobist edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
"as it is gonna get nonstop play between now and the election"
Yes well that would be a good reason to move it, wouldn't it? Just from a commercial perspective. (I am not saying I agree/ disagree with that).
Talking about underwear: have you ever seen Rafael Nadal play? He adjusts his underwear hundreds of times every match. Good thing he's not a politician.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jim moved a ton of stuff from the debate last night, FWIW. This search of his Hoftstra debate photos is a good look into just how hard these A-list guys work an event:
news.search.yahoo.com/search/news;_ylt=A0WTTksUZvdI0V8BvA...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow. Holy coverage.
Am I the only one that noticed the post-debate comment by McCain, when they were shaking hands and he said to Obama "Good job, you got 'em." It was as if their mics were supposed to be turned off at that point and they weren't.
I figured the media would be all over it (and I'm always up for some media circusing), but haven't seen anything on it.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If that is what reporters shoot this day's the reporting has gone down the drain! There was a time when this pictures would have never been shown no matter which political side it came from.
There is no integrety left!
It's sad!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Seems to me that taking a photo and then suppressing it would be "no integrity".
A journalists' job is find things out and tell people what they know.
A photojournalists' job is to show what happened and/or what it looked like. Did you follow the last link David posted just above? This is hardly the only photo Bourg made.
In the bad old days, it was an old-boy's network that made sure the public never saw what the politicians really did, and what they really said.
Reuters' job is to cover the news; it's up to the newspapers and magazines to decide if and how to use the photos, and where. Sure, if Newsweek ran this photo as their lead image on the story about the debate, it would be unfair. But to my knowledge, that hasn't happened.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Scott, your simplistic look at integrity makes me smile! :))
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If this image was given special attention by the media I would consider it inappropriate, but it's 1 in 500 in that slideshow. Sure, the blogs will go crazy, but any person or organization that is journalistic should draw no special attention to it.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
also, on the other side of things, there's also a rather unflattering photo of Nancy Pelosi: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//081016/ids_photos_ts/r1355198763.jpg/
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
brettmaxwell edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
that picture summed up the whole campaign for me.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've yet to see a photo of pelosi that could be interpreted as "flattering".....:-)
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Actually, Scott Hargis is right. It is the photog's job to vacuum up the photos in a situation like that. It's the PicEd's job to decide what to move.
If Jim does not shoot that photo, then he is being both shooter and PicEd, and that is not a situation you want in an event of this magnitude.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Zombies are here!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@alfredk - You're simplistic view on the integrity of news agencies of yesteryear makes me groan. You may like your news filtered, but I like having the unfiltered, as well.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Not just an angle thing, either. Here is is form the front, the way I saw it on teevee:
eyeteeth.blogspot.com/2008/10/best-debate-photo.html
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't think Alfredk is pinning the blame on the photographer--as DH said, it's the Ed's responsibility.
And I don't think he's talking about censorship. He's just talking about sticking to what's relevant and treating people like humans whether you agree with them or not.
If you shot a picture of one of your parents like that and knew that they would be humiliated, would you put it on your blog?
Yes, McCain looks like an idiot in that shot, but is it really news? Is it really relevant to anything?
It's just sensationalism that proves that he can be captured on film looking like a dolt. So you can you and I. So, for that matter, can Obama.
And does anyone seriously believe that there is such a thing as unfiltered news anymore? I think we all assume it's unfiltered if we agree with the slant we're hearing.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a libertarian who hates both these guys, so I'm not sticking up for McCain. I'm just saying that I think you misunderstood Alfredk and that ";journalism" like this doesn't add anything meaningful to the dialog. It just exacerbates an already crippling level of polarization among our citizens.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
meandchi edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
I'm with DH and Scott on this one. Not shooting it, or not submitting it when d/l'd from the camera is editing, not photography. Bourg is a shooter, simply put. It's more unethical to not shoot than it is to have shot. The burden is on the editor with this one.
But much like meandchi, I also don't think it's (important) news--it's just one of many (many) images shot that night. Any one of us could be portrayed just as poorly.
(But it is funny....nice find DH)
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
as an editor, the only choice to be made here is the font size on the splash ;-)
The shooter shoots everything as best he can given equip. & talent.
The editor is the gatekeeper.
two separate, but DISTINCT roles.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
Silver Image edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
@meandchi: good try trying to defend Alfredk but alfredk wrote this:
"If that is what reporters shoot this day's the reporting has gone down the drain! "
So he is criticizing what 'reporters' shoot.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks for the help, you've got my point!
I don't care who's picture it is, I would not show my enemy like that!
And for the record, since I am not American I could care less if it's McCain or Obama who looks like an idiot.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think it's a funny photograph. I think it makes him look playful. It's all how you look at it.
I actually think it makes him look more likable than how he comes across - at least to me - when he's moving around and talking.
The nice thing is we each get to have our own opinions.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My general point was that I find it peculiar what some of us consider news worthy! The world is coming apart at it's seams and we find it important to show a highly out of context shot and elevate it to the most talked item of the day.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
AlfredK said: "There is no integrety left! It's sad!"
I agree. Wether it's the photogs fault of the Eds I really don't care. Put it in a funny gaffe folder for later. I don't think it belongs in coverage of the debate. You don't have to hide it but you don't have to push it either. This is the same type of shot that Rush Limbaugh would dredge up about Hillary Clinton when he had his TV show and I thought it was in bad taste then.
You guys want everything uncensored huh? What about the other pics that didn't make it. You don't actually believe that the photog only shot 481 pics that night do you?
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree with the comment upstairs, what's the relevance of this shot? is it newsworthy? It is a person behaving naturally at a funny situation, as a matter of fact in situations like this he looks more playful and natural than most politicians in this kind of situations -and no I am not in favor of John McCain's view on politcs or support the republican party, is he likable as a person? yes, even when I wouldn't vote for him if I was in the USA-
But this is the case were the newspaper will roll with the photo in order to attract attention to them in a situation which for me is much less relevant... I am more interested in the photos of both McCain and Obama reactions when they were listening to their opponents responses that would be better suited for the stuff I am interested: "who was more temperamental when hearing the responses of his adversary" . The relevance is what is important here, and the photo falls as totally irrelevant for me as newsworthy material, file it in gossip or bloopers if you want. As a matter of fact in the gallery there aren't photos of their facial reactions during the debate and there were plenty and they ought to be analyzed.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
eduardo_frances edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
|
@alfredk:
My general point was that I find it peculiar what some of us consider news worthy!
It is just a shot that is offered up for news editors to use as they see fit. That is really up to the outlet, not the photographer.
The world is coming apart at it's seams and we find it important to show a highly out of context shot and elevate it to the most talked item of the day.
Now that really is a 'general comment'. I don't know what outlet you are reading but I don't see it as the most talked about item of the day. Maybe on select partisan blogs, but in the main news it is mostly on polls and again the ongoing financial news.
If you are talking about this discussion thread, well then it was David who asked a question about it and it is we who are contributing to the thread.
I actually only read about the tongue jutting as some sort of tic that McCain has that became noticeable to people who watched the debate. I had better things -- photographic! -- to do last night so I did not watch the debate. So it was interesting to see a photo of what that 'tongue jutting' looked like. Well, there it is.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
Airchinapilot edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
If Barack sneezed and you captured a frame with tilted back head, dilated nostrils and buggy eyes, would you submit it? Run it? Sure, it's true in the sense that it happened. But is is true in depicting the man? The moment? No.
Yes, this is a photo editor's decision. Alas, the pro-Obama bias in the media (Hillary noticed it, too) is so pervasive as to be laughable.
The LA Times recently ran a two page spread with a 4 column brightly lit photo of Obama interacting with smiling people in a coffee shop. McCain's image was a 2 column shot of McCain and wife silhouetted against a sunset as they debarked a plane, making them looked slumped and weary.
I bitched about this to the Times national editor and he said they were already discussing it internally, shouldn't have happened, blah blah blah.
On a different tack, after watching the Frontline show about the two candidates, I commend Obama for his taste in personal photographer. Whoever is shooting those Kennedy-esque behind the scenes images is doing great work.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If I were a photographer at the event I would shoot it. I would also submit it. If I were a photo editor I wouldn't run it.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
why shouldn't this be moved?
If this were Obama voguing, would it be the same deal?
He did it, yes? I only see McCain supporters having a problem with this and Obama supporters being happy to see it. Is it going to change minds? Perhaps not. Will it reveal stage presence? Perhaps. Do we want a guy making those faces with world leaders and a press that doesnt control media as we do?
great thread
btw, i use a lot of these discussions in class when we cover ethics...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Saw that pic in Metro paper this morning. In finland. Way good coverage.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Okay, bit late to the discussion, but..... is he trying to grab Obama's rear-end or what? :-)
Yeah, if I had a camera shooting a couple pics per second for an hour or two then I can assure you there'd be some pretty sorry shots of me as well.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lesstimeonlinein09 [deleted] says:
Human beings are amusing animals to observe. They make funny faces eating, talking, laughing, when they are scared, when they are annoyed. People who smoke usually don't look like filmstars look when they are smoking on-screen, more like a constipated monkey.
It's easy to get a stupid look on anyone's face in a photo, and if they are prone to sticking their tongue out habitually, then it's easier still.
But it's still funny.
I think there should be a LolMcCAinZ site.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What's McCain's problem? He's got a sick tongue or what? ha ha...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think this clearly proves that McCain is a robot sent back in time too far back and then ... sent in time forward to the wrong century, budget cuts and failing economy canceled another expensive time travel. He was programmed to make sure there are no more budget to fund the war of 2127 against laser touting hermit crab frogs.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
MarcGrandmaison.com edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
Niko says: 'Saw that pic in Metro paper this morning. In finland"
Well there ya go, why would we want EITHER of our candidates portrayed in this way? A split second turned into an eternity.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What I honestly can't figure out is why McCain keeps sticking his tongue out in front of cameras like that. That's something you do, say, once in a presidency, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner late in your second term when it doesn't matter.
Not at least twice during the most critical night when trying to gain the presidency.
I really don't understand that. His staff must just freak when that happens.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@rawcapture:
If this were Obama voguing, would it be the same deal?
Yes.
I only see McCain supporters having a problem with this and Obama supporters being happy to see it.
Are you referring to discussions you've had outside this thread? That isn't the case within this thread.
Do we want a guy making those faces with world leaders and a press that doesnt control media as we do?
That's a stretch.... I don't see how this is relevant. In countries where the government controls the press, I can't imagine that they'd bother waiting for a legit photo to use for propoganda when PS'ing is so easy...
I'm glad some people are enjoying it, and I don't think it's a huge deal, but I still maintain this is sensationalism and not news. Don't get me wrong--I defend the press' right to publish it. I also defend the right of anyone to use the developmentally disabled as fodder for humor, but I find it classless and infantile. The fact that this photo has taken on any significance whatsoever with regard to the election/debates is a sad commentary on what's important to our voters. Elections really have become popularity contests. Let's be honest--we really shouldn't be electing these idiots based on what they say during the race, because there's no way in hell that they're actually going to follow through on most of it. If you want to know what kind of a leader they'll be, look at their voting records, professional affiliations (don't read into that--I'm not implying guilty by association), and past accomplishments. Any one of us could get up there like these two idiots and make sensational promises for 18 months, but very few of us have a track record that indicates that we could back up a single good intention. Unfortunately, sheeple are so conditioned to a world of constant advertising and instant gratification that they think that listening to these guys' soundbytes for a few months and coloring in a circle on election day constitutes "informed decision making". I'm not trying to pin blame on the media--I think Madison Avenue is much more responsible. But I don't see how running with a photo like this is anything other than pandering to the obtuse, pop-culture manner in which much of our country exercises their right to vote.
(/rant)
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@DH:
My friend, I don't understand it either, my friend, but, my friend, I can only guess that McCain's handlers are completely inept, my friend, or he's just too stubborn, my friend, to listen to them, my friend.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
"Saw that pic in Metro paper this morning. In finland. "
for anyone that thinks this is no big deal, consider the above...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@rawcapture: That kind of proves my point... The fact that they ran with it and provided an outlet for it to become international news makes us all look like idiots. If people in other countries want to make assumptions based on that (or any other) pic, then fine, we can't control that. But I don't think it says much about our integrity when we willingly feed them hype like this and try to pass it off as "what's going on in the US". I think it makes us look like a caricature of ourselves.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes you are correct, it sure is more of a big deal than if Obama hangs out with Terrorists :)
And you teach what? Ethics?
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think Godwin's law has just been adapted to Bill Ayers. (Which is the stupidest and most unfair connection that anyone can draw. Its like saying since I came from the same hometown as Timothy McVeigh, that I'm a terrorist. Seriously. Get real.)
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
........ how fast this thing derailed in to "OBMA FANZ vs MCcCAYNZ FANZ" and vice versa, can once in a life time could you people stay ON TOPIC I don't really care who you are going to vote or how much political cool aid -from both sides- you drink or how much of your back was used to tattoo the propaganda both parties have in their ads, the topic of the discussion isn't about your bias to one or the other candidate, nor is the discussion of the cool aid you drank while watching the advertising of each campaign
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'd like to take this opportunity to endorse Ron Paul.
That is all.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Most heartening thing I have seen from this entire campaign. McCain and Obama spoke at the same event last night and were both graceful towards each other and quite funny.
What a wonderful chance of pace from the last few months. Gives me a little hope that we can put this stuff down and have a little unified fun -- for a very good cause.
McCain Part One:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goaj5V4tZoc
McCain Part Two:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrqoSyKsAPw
Obama Part One:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk5YJkhizRs
Obama Part Two:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SkFjTCscM4
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm sorry, DH, but that was totally off-topic...
Can I get a moderator over here???
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just trying to lighten the mood a little. If McCain and Obama can do it, then certainly we can...
(Really good stuff there, BTW.)
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
"it sure is more of a big deal than if Obama hangs out with Terrorists "
Not sure I understand, I thought we were talking about a picture of mccain?
"And you teach what? Ethics?"
Are there teachers of any subject not covering ethics in their class?
I feel sorry for their students...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree with your assessment of last nights dinner, it was great!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just trying to lighten the mood a little.
Me too. But I fear that Godwin's law has indeed been invoked...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
here's another view...
designyoutrust.com/wp-content/photos/obm/obm_4.jpg
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
UPDATE: Jim Bourg talks about it here:
blogs.reuters.com/photo/2008/10/17/mccain-moment/
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Summary: "Not my fault--I barely hit the shutter."
I still think the editor is primarily responsible, but using the "public event seen by millions" defense to to disavow himself of any responsibility is disingenuous. As one poster on the blog (a photog and editor) observed, the image is clearly intended to be taken out of context since half of the context is out of frame.
If you'll humor me, take a quote from DH above for example:
That was...Photoshopped. I saw it happen... ...Bourg PS'd that...
...McCain...probably wants to ... stuff ... his tongue ... in ... Obama .... in a ... voyeuristic spectacle.
God knows I would...want to...
Accurate quotations? Technically, yes. Cropped inappropriately to deliberately obscure the context? Absolutely. Give me enough words (or enough face time) and it's not hard to construct an alternate reality based on bits and pieces of the whole.
Not apples to apples, obviously, and maybe not the best analogy, but I doubt that someone in Jim's position just let fly with the shutter without giving any thought to how this was going to be interpreted. I don't think it's consistent to crucify Platon for sticking his glass in Clinton's crotch and then give Bourg a pass when it's quite obvious that Schieffer is intentionally out of frame.
That said, I still think the ed is mostly responsible, in the same way that the heroin junkie is ultimately responsible for their addiction even though the dealer knew damn well what they were doing when they offered the first hit for free.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It is amazing what a camera can do with 1/1000th second. Especially a digital camera.
If I record 1/1000th of a second of my friend's life that makes him look bad I don't really have an ethical problem. In the trash it goes. However, if it is my enemy or just someone I really have no feelings about, then I have an ethical problem. If the split second involves fame, money, power, or maybe just an ego boost, then the ethical problem is multiplied.
Most of our parents taught us how to act and treat others. Then we grew up and fame, money, power, ego, et.al became just as powerful in determing our treatment of others.
1/1000 of one second. I believe I heard Mr. McCains age to be 72 yrs. That is 2270592000 seconds. If you divided that into 1/1000th segments you would have over 2.2 trillion photos.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is humorus. But that is all. There is no news. Nothing that will improve anyones trust for our leaders. Nothing to improve our image in the world. It is images like these that degrade integrity of photographeres, editor, publishers, and readers.
All there is to be gained is fame, money, ego. Yes I know I left out power.
What is lost is integrity and sensitivity for our fellow man.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
obama and mcain who?
Oh i forgot its the race for the presidency in the land of the free!
At least your politicians have a bit of life and bon viveur about them, I have to put up with ebeneezer scooge (aka Gordon Brown) running the country into the ground...
Cracking photo though! (that is definately a dream shot, and after sitting around for hours for a boring speech and that happens awesome!)
I will be talking to David Viggers (Pic ed at Reuters UK) next week and ask him about that photo...
Rich
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you want to talk about the responsibility of editing, I would note that there is only one person on the planet who has the absolute ability to make sure unphotoshopped photos of John McCain with his tongue sticking out do not hit the wires on the most critical night of his political life.
Older shooters will remember that Vice President Nelson Rockefeller once made a very quick gesture of "flipping the bird" at a public event (he was speaking at a mc at the time) and while the gesture went away almost immediately, the photo continues to make the rounds today:
farm2.static.flickr.com/1298/1342414208_b11e5749b4_o.gif
Most politicians -- even at a state and local level -- get this instinctively. Case in point: Try to shoot a politician with a drink in his/her hand at a public function. Not that they do not drink, but most pols in the US have mastered the move of holding the drink just out of view behind the waist when the camera pops up.
I have actually had lots of fun secretly controlling the drinks of politicians at public functions.
I just do not understand how McCain doesn't get how politically expensive it could be to be sticking your tongue out multiple times when under that level of scrutiny.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@David: there is a difference between "flipping the bird" and doing something i find natural when in a situation like mccain was, hell i know I do silly faces in that kind of situation.
Again I am not a McCain supporter at all, but I fail to see the relevance of this shot, if it was this facial expression when Obama was replying to one of his comments during the debate, then it is newsworthy, there are 100 of facial expressions he did when Obama was replying to him during the debate that are 10x more valuable to be analyzed!!! and they aren't in the set of photos
In general I think people in the USA look at the wrong stuff when it comes to politic issues, point in case this photo which doesn't has any newsworthy value more than gossip.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
eduardo_frances edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
gossip or not, it's news. It's in the papers the world over and it speaks to the world; positive, negative or candid.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That drink trick is right on, As soon as my lens appears in view then the drink disappears. I have even been railroaded by a PR officer with clipboard, whilst in the back ground a lackey whispers in the ear of the politician. By the time I go to shoot again the politician is looking all sincere minus drink and chatting to someone else whilst previously they were drinking with a nubile young lady.
There was a famous politician here that I photographed he had a massive drink problem so i went to the reception table and framed him inbetween two champagne bottles. I was thrown out of the reception by a lackey who spotted what I was up to. LOL
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
much like many think that britney no panties shot were relevant at all... gossip, but meh in the end I guess there is a difference on which factors are important to cast their vote.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I grew up near Binghamton and remember hearing about the Rockefeller gesture (I was one at the time, so I have no meaningful memories...). Rockefeller was a lame duck at the time, though, and he clearly didn't care. I'm guessing he was actually rather proud of the photo. You're dead on that McCain is only one who can prevent that from happening, and I don't think anyone would accuse McCain of being intuitively image-conscious. His PR staff has got to be the most underpaid, under-appreciated group of people in the world. Left to his own devices, I'm sure we'd see nothing but a stubborn, cocky, spoiled old man. There are probably paid staffers who thank God every night that the worst thing we've seen is him sticking out his tongue.
The picture was still shot and printed out of context, though, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to lay any blame on McCain. We're really talking about two separate issues--McCain's lack of media savvy and lack of journalistic integrity, and I don't think it's fair to say that the former excuses the latter. Is it pretty stupid for a single lady to take a stroll in the Bronx at 2:00 AM? Yeah, it's dumb. Does that make it her fault when she gets mugged? Sure, she could have prevented it, but she's not the problem.
gossip or not, it's news I'm not sure I understand that logic... According to that standard, the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer is indiscernible from that of the Wall Street Journal or New York Times.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
meandchi-
The main point I was trying to make is that you are in a fishbowl, and you are visible from 360 degrees. Never more so for McCain than on that night.
If he sticks out his tongue, crosses his eyes, flips B.O. off or stood up and peed on the lectern -- it was gonna get moved. And he has to know that.
That is the way it is. And that is the way you'd want it, IMO. The press knew about JFK's affairs and self-censored, because it was a different time. It is ironic, actually, because ever since Michael Deaver and Reagan, the photogs' angles are so tightly controlled it is insane.
Deaver was the one who got the idea to line up stills, Reagan, Big American Flag. You could not help but make the guy look like a movie star.
The Pol/Flack/Media machine is what it is. And given that, you don't pee on the lectern. Because it will go into the machine. And even if the NYT won't put it on 1A, Gawker and Wonkette definitely will.
And the other half of the electorate will dead-sure-certain make it the most emailed photo of the day on Yahoo, so no one in the world will miss it.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Meandchi: Dude haven't you heard? TMZ will be rated as the best news source to form your opinion on political and electoral stuff from now on ;)....
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I certainly don't disagree with anything you're saying. And I'm certainly not an advocate of the other extreme. I'd much rather have what we're seeing now than to have our news manufactured and fed to us by the government. I think you're just saying, from an insider perspective, "it is what it is" and I'm asking, from an outsider/consumer perspective, "is that what it should be?". Realistically, yes, McCain should know better. Idealistically, the shot and, much more so, the publishing, should be a sad commentary on what we consider "newsworthy". The main point I'm trying to make here is that this was a dishonest composition. The guy that shot it knew it and the guy that published it knew it. It's hypocritical to tout the benefits of not having news filtered by the government machine and then to dispense "news" filtered by the media machine to which you belong.
So let me simplify this: I'm not talking about the legality of this action. I think any pj should be able to shoot whatever they want in a public forum and any ed should be able to publish it without fear of governmental prosecution.
I'm talking about the ethics of this action. It was a classless, sophomoric thing to do. That's all I'm saying.
LOL Sadly, I don't think that's too much of a stretch...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
"I'm talking about the ethics of this action. It was a classless, sophomoric thing to do."
wait, in politics?!!!!! SAY IT AINT SO!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@rawcapture: could you explain your point without behaving like a child? that would enrich the discussion you know instead of derailing it -although you are quite an expert on it-
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
fstops and shutter speeds [deleted] says:
"TMZ will be rated as the best news source to form your opinion on political and electoral stuff from now on..."
///flattered you appear to lack constraint commenting on any single post here from me, but starting to check my locks at night...
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
fstops and shutter speeds edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
|
Unlike you I was just throwing a joke to a point in which I concur with meandchi, pretty much whenever you seem to differ with someone you start getting replying like a lolcat, I assume you pretty much don't have anything intelligent to say, but of course trying to be a "badass" is such a great thing in a forum I guess.
but starting to check my locks at night...
Paranoia is a sign of insanity you know? take a chill pill buddy, the scary latino won't force your locks ;).
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
eduardo_frances edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
Frankly, I'm glad it was shot and moved. With the current state of the economy I/we needed a good laugh.
There's a lot of talk about the responsibility of the photog and editor. I don't see anything about the responsibility of the audience/reader. It should be obvious to any reasonable viewer this wasn't a gesture directed at Obama, just a goofy and ill advised expression that was caught in a fraction of a second.
To suggest the PE should omit the photo because it MIGHT be misunderstood or misinterpreted would suggest the PE needs to dumb down content so it's readers don't get the wrong idea. In other words, the PE needs to play to the lowest common denominator. I suppose no words longer than five letters should be used either. You know how those SAT words can confuse a reader.
Then again....perhaps the news media really should be gearing content to the Joe Sixpacks.
I'm sorry for the rant. I think the photo is funny. It was clear to me that McCain wasn't really trying to grab Obama's ass. I'm glad I wasn't denied a much needed chuckle.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I guess I just don't think it's Reuter's job to entertain. If I saw this in The Onion, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I mean, it is a funny shot. The problem is that this was passed off as news.
I think you have far more faith in the American public than I do. We're talking about a group of people that elects the same two caricatures from the same two parties harping on the same talking points year after year. So...when it comes to politics, I assume that the majority is the lowest common denominator, and yeah, I do think the media plays to them.
Yes, the reader has a responsibility to interpret the shot, and you and I are here doing that and that's great. But this was a dishonest composition passed off legitimate news. Is it really the pj's or ed's job to interpret or use creative license in their composition?
I should probably stop harping on this because I think I'm giving the impression that I'm losing sleep over this, and I'm really not. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm just baffled that so many people seem to be giving Jim and the ed a pass.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
meandchi edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
|
Reuters workflow,
Picture Desk Signed off by editor. Then sent to external Reuters site to another picture who signs it off for release,
So there are two picture editors who signed off these images.
Remember reuters is a picture agency and they have to sell images. They will sell to there clients. They have no affiliation nor bias to any political arm.
If Itook that shot I would be happy as I have just made a ton of money for my agency.
It was a funny photo period
PS look up obama and his famous pie speech in Philadelphia.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Since this is wandering away from the original topic, let me add this:
@ acenines:
I think Godwin's law has just been adapted to Bill Ayers. (Which is the stupidest and most unfair connection that anyone can draw. Its like saying since I came from the same hometown as Timothy McVeigh, that I'm a terrorist. Seriously. Get real.)
Sorry, but they have extensive connections, particularly serving on the Annenberg project together. Why is this relevant? Because Obama is a cipher.
The company you keep indicates how you think. Obama spent 20 years with an pastor who claims AIDS is a government scam to kill blacks, that 9/11 was an inside job etc.
He launches his political career in the living room of Marxist Bill Ayers who bombed the Pentagon and has never regretted it. He gets financial help from a convicted felon, Tony Rezko.
But we're not supposed to look behind the curtain, just gape in wonder at The One.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Since this is wandering away from the original topic, let me add this:
:)
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Strobist.com /
Discuss
I grew up near Binghamton and remember hearing about the Rockefeller gesture (I was one at the time, so I have no meaningful memories...). Rockefeller was a lame duck at the time, though, and he clearly didn't care. I'm guessing he was actually rather proud of the photo. You're dead on that McCain is only one who can prevent that from happening, and I don't think anyone would accuse McCain of being intuitively image-conscious. His PR staff has got to be the most underpaid, under-appreciated group of people in the world. Left to his own devices, I'm sure we'd see nothing but a stubborn, cocky, spoiled old man. There are probably paid staffers who thank God every night that the worst thing we've seen is him sticking out his tongue.
gossip or not, it's news I'm not sure I understand that logic... According to that standard, the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer is indiscernible from that of the Wall Street Journal or New York Times.
LOL Sadly, I don't think that's too much of a stretch...
I guess I just don't think it's Reuter's job to entertain. If I saw this in The Onion, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I mean, it is a funny shot. The problem is that this was passed off as news.
Feed – Subscribe to Strobist.com discussion threads