Skip to main content

View Diary: Manufacturing the narrative (256 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's still a false narrative (7+ / 0-)

    whether you approve of the doctored narrative or not; it's still a lie.

    In theory, the job of the Economist is not to tell stories that people like (or like to hate), but to accurately explain what's going on.

    In truth, the Economist like the rest of our media is more interested in provoking stereotyped reactions: conservatives validating that Obama is a wuss, and liberals impressed with his concern.

    •  Something about them 'cropping' Reuters' photo, (0+ / 0-)

      changing a photo that doesn't even belong to them, helped me get it a little better.

      And I do get it that standards should be high and editors don't get to just manipulate whatever for whatever purpose, but there is so much media and narrative manipulation going on out there that strikes me as MUCH more dangerous.

      I can hold with your point no problem, but this just seemed a sort of paltry pit-stop in the ongoing, daily disaster that is modern media.

      But this is a good case in point. Onward.

      "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

      by Unduna on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except it's not just a crop. (9+ / 0-)

        It is an altered photograph.  An alteration that deletes a part of the reality that was there by erasing pixels and substituting other pixels is a big no-no in photojournalism.

        The cover image depicts a man alone in contemplation with his thoughts.  The reality was he was talking to two other people, whose pixels have been deleted and cropped from the image.

        •  No, I get that. That's why I put 'cropped' (0+ / 0-)

          in quotes. It's actually doctored. I get that.

          But it LOOKS doctored to me. It looks wholly fake, and that was a big source of my initial "meh" reaction. This is what gets me now - apparently, if it was completely, totally and utterly fake, that would be ok, but only if it was obvious.

          But even if it looks fake, if it is doctored real, then that's not ok.

          When is it fake enough to be ok? When it has illustration added?

          We are walking some interesting lines these days.

          "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

          by Unduna on Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site