September 28, 2005
Lying by omission...
You should take a look at this fascinating photo essay.
The SF Chronicle ran a picture from an anti-war rally, showing a teenage girl.
Blogger Zombietime happened to take a picture of the same girl about the same time. But his picture had much more, and he is able to zoom out, and out, and out, and show the context that the Chron left out...
...The San Francisco Chronicle featured the original photograph on its front page in order to convey a positive message about the rally -- perhaps that even politically aware teenagers were inspired to show up and rally for peace, sporting the message, "People of Color say 'No to War!'" And that served the Chronicle's agenda.
But this simple analysis reveals the very subtle but insidious type of bias that occurs in the media all the time. The Chronicle did not print an inaccuracy, nor did it doctor a photograph to misrepresent the facts. Instead, the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn't tell you the whole truth.
Because the whole truth -- that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards -- is disturbing, and doesn't conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote. By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader's impression of the rally, and the rally's intent.
Such tactics -- in the no-man's-land between ethical and unethical -- are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along...
The sad thing is that the people at the Chron probably don't even understand that they are telling lies. They have a certain ideology, and anything that fits in with it is "the truth."
Thanks to Rand.
Posted by John Weidner at September 28, 2005 09:34 PMPeople of Color Against the War? Does that include the "insurgents" in Iraq? Are they considered "people of color?"
Posted by: dittybopper at September 29, 2005 08:34 AMDefinition:
Opposed to the US and Bush: You are [pick one or more] person-of-color, freedom fighter, progressive, activist, militant, pacifist, young, cool...
Allied with the US, or think favorably of Bush: You are [pick one or more] white oppressor (no matter what color), imperialist, war-profiteer, fascist, old, stodgy...etc. etc.
Posted by: John Weidner at September 29, 2005 11:01 AMThe first picture also doesn't have the little girl peeking over the older girl's shoulder. It's either a different photo altogether or has been doctored. The media thing is getting really really annoying and frustrating.
Posted by: anne at September 29, 2005 11:35 AMZombietime says he took his pic about 2 minutes later. So the other girl probably just moved into the space after the Chron pic was taken...
Posted by: John Weidner at September 29, 2005 12:41 PManne;
Are you claiming that zombie's pictures are of someone other than the person in the S.F. Chronicle's picture? Or is his point invalidated by his failure to exactly synchronize his shutter with that of the SFC's photographer? As for the "media thing" getting "really old", which pictures do think more accurately represent what took place, the SFC's or zombies? Do you think it's a minor difference?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 29, 2005 01:26 PMI think Anne just didn't realize that those were two different pix. In which case it would have been very suspicious to have the other girl "airbrushed out."
Posted by: John Weidner at September 29, 2005 03:08 PMJohn,
You have a great blog!
About this image.
"Lying by Omission" is perfect to describe the whole fraud in this photo of the rally.
It would be a great collection to put together, pictures manipulated in one way or another by the anti-Americans, anti-democrats and anti-Semites propanganda groups.
I wonder what other fascist leftists think of the war in Darfur against the Christians of color.
Thx.
Posted by: Diane at October 1, 2005 11:58 AMDiane, You have a fascinating site!
That would be a great collection. One sees examples often. One thing I find interesting is how the press edits itself out of the picture. Like that recent one of Cindy and Jesse Jackson kneeling tete a tete by the propaganda crosses in Crawford. It looked "spiritual" and tender, but the uncropped pic had a solid phalanx of reporters and cameras surrounding them. Ditto certain Plaestinian "protests." Or those pictures of Bill Clinton taking a soulfull solitary walk on the beach...
Posted by: John Weidner at October 1, 2005 12:37 PMJohn,
That shot of "Honest Al" and Cindy w/ all the reporters, are we sure that one wasn't photoshopped?
Not claiming it was, but it just seemed a little TOO neat a photo. (OTOH, the recent one that had the protestor looking like one of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, w/ a platoon of photogs in front of him, THAT looked much more like the real thing.)
Posted by: Lurking Observer at October 2, 2005 08:09 AMMy recollection is that both the photos were from a Yahoo News slideshow. They didn't just appear on some warbloggers site...
Posted by: John Weidner at October 2, 2005 08:45 AM
