Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
Who's Online (0)
Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
San Francisco Chronicle BUSTED!
Media propaganda through omission
Anatomy of a Photograph
An analysis of a single seemingly innocuous photograph, and the pervasive media bias it reveals.
My photo essay of the anti-war protest in San Francisco on September 24,
2005 was not the only report done about the event. A few other outlets ran
their own coverage. But the one photo from the rally that was seen by the
most people was this:
Why? Because the San Francisco Chronicle, which had the only mainstream
media coverage of the rally, published this photograph on the front page of its
Web site as a teaser for their article about the event.
Now, let's take a closer look at this image.
By chance, I took a photo of the same girl just a few moments later. Looks
practically identical, doesn't it?
But you might notice that my picture is lower resolution. That's because it's a
zoomed-in portion of a much larger photograph. I cropped off the other parts
of the picture to get a close-up of the girl.
But what would happen if I hadn't cropped off so much? Let's take a step
backward and reveal what the San Francisco Chronicle didn't want you to
see.
Here's the same photo without as much cropping, revealing more of the
context. You can see that the girl's protest contingent also sported
Palestinian flags and obscene placards.
Now let's take another step back.
Here's my full original photo, un-cropped. Now we can see that the girl is just
one of several teenagers, all wearing terrorist-style bandannas covering their
faces.
But, as you'll notice, the bandannas are all printed with the same design.
Was this a grassroots protest statement the teenagers had come up with all
by themselves?
To find out, let's take a look at another photo in the series, taken at the same
time:
Oops — it looks like they're actually being stage-managed by an adult, who is
giving them directions and guiding them toward the front of the march. But
who is she?
The last picture in the series reveals all.
It turns out that the woman giving directions belongs to one of the
Communist groups organizing the rally — if her t-shirt is to be believed, since
it depicts the flag of Communist Vietnam, which has been frequently
displayed by such groups at protest rallies in the U.S. for decades.
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.
Anatomy of a Photograph
An analysis of a single seemingly innocuous photograph, and the pervasive media bias it reveals.
My photo essay of the anti-war protest in San Francisco on September 24,
2005 was not the only report done about the event. A few other outlets ran
their own coverage. But the one photo from the rally that was seen by the
most people was this:
Why? Because the San Francisco Chronicle, which had the only mainstream
media coverage of the rally, published this photograph on the front page of its
Web site as a teaser for their article about the event.
Now, let's take a closer look at this image.
By chance, I took a photo of the same girl just a few moments later. Looks
practically identical, doesn't it?
But you might notice that my picture is lower resolution. That's because it's a
zoomed-in portion of a much larger photograph. I cropped off the other parts
of the picture to get a close-up of the girl.
But what would happen if I hadn't cropped off so much? Let's take a step
backward and reveal what the San Francisco Chronicle didn't want you to
see.
Here's the same photo without as much cropping, revealing more of the
context. You can see that the girl's protest contingent also sported
Palestinian flags and obscene placards.
Now let's take another step back.
Here's my full original photo, un-cropped. Now we can see that the girl is just
one of several teenagers, all wearing terrorist-style bandannas covering their
faces.
But, as you'll notice, the bandannas are all printed with the same design.
Was this a grassroots protest statement the teenagers had come up with all
by themselves?
To find out, let's take a look at another photo in the series, taken at the same
time:
Oops — it looks like they're actually being stage-managed by an adult, who is
giving them directions and guiding them toward the front of the march. But
who is she?
The last picture in the series reveals all.
It turns out that the woman giving directions belongs to one of the
Communist groups organizing the rally — if her t-shirt is to be believed, since
it depicts the flag of Communist Vietnam, which has been frequently
displayed by such groups at protest rallies in the U.S. for decades.
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.
Comments
There is a show on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) called Media Watch. It's sole purpose is to find unearth and expose unethical journalism. They even catch out there own station!
Maybe a similar show should be setup in the USA.
To have a look at the show over broadband go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/broadband (choose the news tab) and click on the media watch link to begin.
Does not really matter.
A commie is a commie. And a sympathizer is ... just another commie. Or radical Islamist. Or whatever I despise.
It reminds me of my demonstrating times as a student. Most of us wore Palestinian shawls, often before our faces, because the Dutch intelligence service made a lot of pictures at those venues. And yes, the famous picture of Che was on quite a few t-shirts ;)
what a load of bs
The potential for these young people to develop their minds and their veiws as their heart grows mellower is still there.
But what about folks who think in absolute terms and never allow their views to be modified by experience and tolerance (.....and drive Utes - pickups - with enormous low-revving V8s and sing Billy Rae Cyrus songs)?
Point well made about selective journalism, but that cuts all ways, and only those in our societies who by their own stupidity actively demosntrate why universal suffrage may not be such a good idea after all, use one source of news when forming their veiws on events.
I bought a Country album the other day (well I am cruising dangerously close to fifty) and there was a song by Merle Haggard with a chorous (I have no idea how to spell that word) that went "When you're running down my country man, you're walking on the fightin side of me" He missed the point then and I reckon you might be missing it now.
[Edited on 19/10/2005 by Lease]
What - gotten bored with Men at Work?
No, this CD was in the big tub of stuff going for $5. You know, with the compilation albums of best hits of the seventies. Yep, that was quite a happy day.
Come on - come up with one of your patented rants so I can get all craqnked up and then Doc Spin will chime in and Murph can come in and clean house.
Not much time left on this board so lets go out with a bang!
I know I'm missing your point but .....
I love you too !!!!
I'd reckon about 90% of the media is BS, including some major western papers.
However, the 10% of good stuff contains insights, wisdom, courage and intelligence (by that I mean the result of the brain working not propaganda churned out by "security" organisations or vested interests).
I am amused, and more than a little disturbed by the rubbish written by a guy named Steven Millroy who writes on "junk science". An "adjunct scholar" at the CATO Institute, he presents the most biased colored examples of unclear thinking. His messages supposedly debunking global warming connections are apparently believed to be effective in allaying public fears that industry might just be harming the environment.
When one checks out his articles and the industry funded CATO Institute, we see just another industry lobbyist at work.
It's a bit insulting to those of us with brains, that we are treated as undiscerning morons by people who claim to disseminate information.
Spin
But you're all talk, Jello?
Stuck in Texas... can only look when you have mum attached to your hip.
And they don't mind, either.
Spin
(Texas Aggie)
We might actually agree!
I also appreciate Jello's take on this.
But J-B, be very glad you're not my age, and you have so much ahead of you.
I'm still having fun, but appreciate quality more than quantity.
Guess who's having a birthday tomorrow? Drinks and Dinner with a bunch of friends in KL. And we'll talk F1 and A1GP, Minardi and racing in Oz.
Spin