Media, Politics and the Editors Decision

Media, Politics and the Editors Decision.

I personally tend not to read newspapers or watch the news anymore because as times gone on I’ve started to realise how much of the media is controlled and influenced by politics. It’s a case of either being left wing, with newspapers such as The Guardian, Daily Mirror and the Daily Star.  Then you have right wing newspapers such as, Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Sun.

I came across a good and slightly humorous description of the newspapers and their targeted audience on yahoo answers:

 "The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run.
The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country.
The Sun's readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big ****.
The Sport is read by the people who think that Elvis is running the country from his secret lunar bunker assisted by a team of topless aliens. "

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120715153441AA2mWT8

Of course depending on what type of paper it is and which audience its aimed at is always going to effect the content of the ‘news’ paper. To me it seems that most of these publications go out of their way to slander each other (left wing Vs right wing) and to prompt propaganda that is going to benefit them. Of course the editor’s decision has a huge part to play in this because they dictate what we see and what we don’t. I think this debate strongly links to the debate of truth in photography, because it is the editor’s final decision on what gets published.

I think a very strong example of how politics pretty much run and influence the media is when Rupert Murdoch started to take over British newspapers like, The Times/The Sunday Times, the Sun and News of the World, the content of the papers changed greatly. For instance, Don McCullin was one of the staff photographers who worked with The Times and the type of images he used to take was a true representation of what was going on in the world, his images were raw and extremely over whelming but still informative and raised awareness of the tragedy in the world. But when Murdoch took over he completely changed the image of the paper from being a serious and informative news publication to one that was filled with less important news and  celebrity gossip because he wanted the paper to be more light hearted.

Rupert Murdoch made a point to back politicians during election times if he thought they had a chance of winning, so he would purposefully help to promote them and to paint their opponent in a negative light, of course this is going to affect the voting public’s choice on who they end up voting for.  A prime example of this is that he had formed a very close relationship with Margaret Thatcher and during the 1992 general election he helped John Major to win the election by helping to promote him in his newspapers and slander the opposition. So I think it is safe to confirm how much of an effect politicians have on the media and news, they just use it as a tool for gaining power and for controlling what the general public sees.

With regards to politics and the media, a good example of this is of Kim Jong Un, the political leader of North Korea, when his uncle Jang Song-Taek fell out of favour with the leader, Kim Jong Un had him photo-shopped out of many images in papers and a documentary that had already aired on TV in North Korea, which was re-aired with the updated version without Song-Taek in, not long after Kim Jong Un had his uncle executed and supposedly fed to 120 dogs! Again this shows how much power Politian’s have over the media where they can just cover things up and control what the public are allowed to see and aren’t! I mean surely politicians shouldn’t have the right to be able to have images edited that have already been released?

My conclusion on media, politics and the editor’s decision is that in this day and age, we have to really look for the truth because it’s not going to be in the newspapers on sale in shops anymore. The day has gone where the things we read about what was going on in the world wasn’t so hugely influenced by politicians and the easily swayed editors in charge of publications. Even the images we see can’t be trusted much because they literally have the power and authority to sensor certain imagery as well edit. I think their main agenda is to manipulate what we see and read to further their propaganda for power, money and their ‘right’ to involve their selves in other countries affairs which in fact usually leads to war till they get what they want. 

How do we know what's real anymore?

The Truth in Photography & Digital Manipulation debate:

Robert Capa: The Falling Soldier.

When looking at an image one often wonders if what they are looking at is real or whether it has been staged or manipulated in any way, especially in today’s time of technology. One of the most famous pictures in debate, taken by Robert Capa titled ‘The Falling Soldier’ during his document of the Spanish Civil War in September 1936, has been the centre of much speculation that it was in fact staged rather than an actual man being shot dead by an enemy sniper.

The main arguments about this image are that it wasn’t actually taken in Cerro Muriano like Capa had said, but in fact taken in a town 35 miles away called Espejo, Capa is said to of passed through the town early in September 1936 and during that time not a single gun-shot had been fired during the beginning of the conflict, so the soldier would not have been shot by the enemy. It has been speculated that the image and the others in the series he did on the Spanish Civil War are all staged. People have suggested that maybe the soldiers he was photographing were not in the ‘heat of battle’ but instead during an exercise where Capa shot the images and got them to stage it all as if in battle.

After reading two news articles on the subject one that discussed the image in a negative light – bent on trying to prove whether the image was fake or real, then another article that discussed the image in a positive light with appreciation and looked at it for what it is – a single image that is now iconic rather than a visual document.

The first article was from the New York Times website from back in August 2009. The article was very well presented with a lot of information and research to back up the theory of the image by Capa being faked.

The second article was from LIFE.com, the image was originally used for a LIFE magazine article in June 1937 on page 19 with the bold caption ‘ROBERT CAPA’S CAMERA CATCHES A SPANISH SOLDIER THE INSTANT HE IS DROPPED BY A BULLET THROUGH THE HEAD IN FRONT OF CORDOBA.’ In the article with regards to the debate of whether or not the image was in fact real or faked, LIFE.com’s argument was that the image is just an image and pretty much that we shouldn’t think too much about it. Maybe that’s because they were the publication that released the image so they are trying to save the ‘integrity’ of the magazine perhaps and that’s why they are defending it?

But maybe the reason that Capa submitted the image was just to keep to his assignment and give the magazine what they wanted? In my opinion I do believe that the image could have been faked but more for reasons that the photographer was trying to keep to his assignment brief.

When I look at an image I do wonder a lot these days If what I am looking at is real or modified, a lot of magazines and newspapers make you see what they want you to see, a photographer can take an image and very easily change it in any photo editing software programme, they can remove people out of a picture or they can add people in to a picture, so it does often make you question if you are looking at a real image or a fake one. I can understand that image manipulation may be necessary in some situations but not all. When a photograph has been changed I believe it is no longer a photograph because it’s not genuinely portraying the truth because that didn’t happen… In the case of ‘The Falling Soldier’ image I don’t believe this is the case because it shows a man falling over, the lie is that the information provided alongside the image in the article was false.

Newspapers often use digitally manipulated images alongside their articles; I came across a link on google from The Telegraph’s website of some famous images that have been digitally manipulated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8982502/Digitally-altered-images-famous-pictures-that-have-been-manipulated-using-Photoshop.html?image=8

I think it is wrong when a person gets photo-shopped in to a picture that wasn’t actually there if its representing a serious news article, its presenting a false account of what happened and is basically a lie. So it does make you think about any photos you see in the news and whether or not it’s a real image. It means that they could make up a story and manipulate an image to go with it. I personally think that images in newspapers and magazines should not be allowed to be photo-shopped purely for the reason of fake stories being told and then people believing it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9002709/Kremlin-activists-caught-red-handed-in-Photoshop-smear.html

The Moral, Ethical Self and The Full Frame

The Moral, Ethical Self and The Full Frame

A large majority of photos taken for newspapers exploit tragedies in to today’s age, photographers probably get paid a lot more for an image that is over whelming and full of tragedy. It makes you question the photographer’s morals and ethical beliefs for a sum of money.

It is understandable that if we as the public did not see these kinds of images we would not actually know what is going on in the world and wouldn’t believe the severity of situations in other countries (giving that video didn’t exist). We would have to go by the description of newspaper stories and probably artist’s drawings and paintings, like how they did many years ago before photography came about. I don’t think that it would raise as much awareness because a story with description would not be as hard hitting as an image that can say more than words. The only ethical reason for taking such photos of tragedy, starvation and war would be for the photographer wanting to raise awareness of what is going on in the world, the unethical thoughts behind it would be many photographers taking the same picture and gathering around like a wake of vultures preying on their next meal.

A good example of how ethics and morals come in to play (or DON’T come in to play) when taking a photograph, is an image that was taken of a young 15 year old girl called Fabienne Cherisma, who had been shot dead by police for stealing, the first image is taken by photographer Paul Hanson, who said about the image, that his reason for taking the photograph was “For me, Fabienne’s death and her story is a poignant reminder of the need for a society to have basic security – with or without a disaster.” I can understand from a viewing perspective that it is important to see images like this in order to raise awareness of wrong doings in the world and to make people question why humans behave in this way and do such horrible things to one another.

The next image makes you think about the bigger picture and the full frame as well as the ethical decisions of the photographers taking the photos.  This image was taken by Nathan Webber, of the photographers gathered around poor Fabienne’s body snapping pictures to report back to the masses.

I think this image is a very good example of tragedies being exploited for the purpose of being able to sell a few newspapers and getting paid. It shows the full frame and really makes you think about when an image is taken and what’s actually going on outside the frame of the shot. I think this shot greatly violates the human rights of the girl because they are gathered around like vultures taking pictures of her lifeless body, I don’t think that when they were stood there taking these pictures, were any of them thinking, ‘if this was my child I wouldn’t want a load of photographers gathered around exploiting the death of my baby just to sell some papers or win an award’

I can understand that with regards to shooting an image, a photojournalist is going to shoot images of something that fits their brief for the assignment they are on and they aren’t going shoot images with loads of things that distract from the main subject. So this will always effect what the photographer is shooting as well as what we are seeing, we can’t always see the full frame because of course, that’s not what sells images and newspapers.

Whist researching I came across another debate on the ethics and morals in photography, the news publication The New York Post had put on the front cover ‘DOOMED: Pushed on the track, this man is about to die'. The photographer R Umar Abbassi snapped the photograph of the victim as he had been pushed on to the subway track instead of helping the man as a train was coming towards him, he snapped a picture instead claiming that he was attempting to get the train drivers attention with the flash from his camera, he claimed he was too far away to help the man and unfortunately the oncoming train took the man’s life.

To me this image shows that the photographer had enough time to frame the picture up so that he got only the train and the man struggling to pull himself up in the shot. If he really was just trying to get the attention of the driver of the train then the image would not have been so well framed, the shot would have been all over the place and probably showing other people standing on the side lines, but yet the shot is in focus and is well framed to show the train and the man.

I think this really crosses the line in what is ethically and morally correct. The man could have easily saved or helped the man stuck on the train line, instead he chose to take a photo, frame it up accordingly and then sell the image to the New York Post, also the NYP are equally as to blame for exploiting the tragedy with the way they presented the image on the front cover with the headline caption. It makes me think about what drives us as humans to feel the need to exploit such tragedies all just so that a newspaper publication can sell some new papers and for the photographer to make a quick buck. Not only has this image sparked a big debate on the unethical decision of the photographer for taking the picture but also for the way that the newspaper has presented it – in such a cold and disrespectful way. Again no thought was given to how the poor victim’s family would have felt about this. There is a big difference between trying to raise awareness of tragic events around the world and people just flat out exploiting other peoples misfortunes and trauma.