[Edgar_in_Indy]

Yeah, that ship has sailed a long time ago, if it was ever even in the harbor to start with.

LOL It very much was. I've seen guys fired for staging tiny things. But...believe what you want to belive.

I certainly will believe what I want to believe, but that aside, you misunderstood my statement.

Of course there are, and have been, many good and honest journalists. But what I was trying to say is that there has probably been biased news for as long as there has been a news business. In other words, there has never been a time when "the news", in general, could always be trusted. From what I've heard, there was some pretty outrageous stuff printed in newspapers back in the 1800's, particularly in regards to politics and politicians.

[TaoMaas]

I certainly will believe what I want to believe, but that aside, you misunderstood my statement.

Of course there are, and have been, many good and honest journalists. But what I was trying to say is that there has probably been biased news for as long as there has been a news business. In other words, there has never been a time when "the news", in general, could always be trusted. From what I've heard, there was some pretty outrageous stuff printed in newspapers back in the 1800's, particularly in regards to politics and politicians.

Ah, okay...gotcha. Sorry. You're right, there have probably always been those who bent or broke the rules, but photojournalism would not be alone in that. It happens in many lines of work. For instance, just because there's a crooked cop...or two, three, four, or forty...doesn't equate to "all cops are bad". In fact, the vast majority are doing the best they can to adhere to a code of ethics while doing their job. Photojournalists are doing the same for the most part.

[normhead]

The goal of police officers is to uphold the law. One of the goals of photojournalists is to sell their work. So, they must tailor their work to whoever it is they are trying to sell to. They are on completely different ethical playing fields. If you have to go to analogies like that, you probably don't have much of an argument.

[Parallax]

That generated more unrest (but for the newsies better stories) that the original event.

Ancient journalism proverb: "If it bleeds, it leads." Modern day addendum to ancient proverb: "If it isn't bleeding, poke it, stab it, or cut it."

In fact, the vast majority are doing the best they can to adhere to a code of ethics while doing their job. Photojournalists are doing the same for the most part.

I agree with the first of those two sentences.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

For instance, just because there's a crooked cop...or two, three, four, or forty...doesn't equate to "all cops are bad". In fact, the vast majority are doing the best they can to adhere to a code of ethics while doing their job. Photojournalists are doing the same for the most part.

I have noticed that there is a direct correlation in the US between how biased the media is, and how bad the police are.

[normhead]

Now there's a classic piece of anecdotal evidence for you?

You see what you look for.

You could just as truthfully say... there is a direct link in the media between between how bad a police force is perceived to be and how many people they kill. But there are many other ways to deduce how bad a police force is. Many of them completely legitimate. Although it dos deserve to be said, the media don't report legitimate research, which is much less about individual shootings and more about enforcement trends over time, rather than responses to individual cases. Sometimes the media gets it right, and there are real systematic problems with some police forces, and sometimes they skewer a good force, where a police action was completely justified. The media's role in society, is to promote the media. You will never find such a bunch of people convinced the are doing something worthwhile as those that work for the media. The tabloid press is 99% wasted, the regular media, only 90%.

[Parallax]

The media's role in society, is to promote the media. You will never find such a bunch of people convinced the are doing something worthwhile because they work for the media. The tabloid press is 99% wasted, the regular media, only 90%.

That's a pretty accurate summation.

[Winder]

Digital Photos Can't Be Trusted, Says Renowned War Photographer

[normhead]

The iconic photographer also struggles with the fact that the art world has taken photography beyond its role as a form of visual communication and into the world of subjective art.

Photography has always been art. This man is suffering from some kind of delusion. Photography started out because it was cheaper than having your portrait painted. That is the birth of photography. You put on clothes that were better than what you usually wear, you sat in a room with better stuff than the stuff you had at home, you had a picture taken that looked better than you ever looked. And you picked up your portrait and hung it on your wall so people could forget the reality for a moment and see your potential. "Ya, he cleans up real nice."

The first sign of a crackpot is the idea that he is involved in some kind of honest portrayal of the truth. The best anyone can do is the "truth as they see it". And that is lot different than "the truth."

I went to a certain spot, I framed the picture a certain way, I selected the images to be published from rolls and rolls of films looking for something that fitted my view, or my editor's and I want you to believe it is the truth.... my question is, "Why do you want me to believe it's the truth?" But, as per usual with this kind of thing, I don't get to ask my questions. Just some dude putting forward his point of view, as if for some reason I should care.

Oh ya, I should care because he left his family and friends and went traipsing around the world as some kind of soldier groupie. Well that really validates his viewpoint. I'd point out, as an anti-war protester, with a non establishment point of view, I was never paid to go take pictures of a war zone. Funny how that works.The guy who has done what he had to do to become part of the propaganda machine that gets created for any war, claims another media can't be trusted. Dude, it's you that can't be trusted.

[Parallax]

The first sign of a crackpot is the idea that he is involved in some kind of honest portrayal of the truth.

The common name for such person is "journalist".

[Winder]

Photography has always been art. This man is suffering from some kind of delusion. Photography started out because it was cheaper than having your portrait painted. That is the birth of photography. You put on clothes that were better than what you usually wear, you sat in a room with better stuff than the stuff you had at home, you had a picture taken that looked better than you ever looked. And you picked up your portrait and hung it on your wall so people could forget the reality for a moment and see your potential. "Ya, he cleans up real nice."

Except that the vast majority of photographs are not taken with the intention of being art. The vast majority of photographs are taken to document a moment in time. High school yearbook, wedding, drivers license, Traffic light cameras, Runner crossing the finish line, or images taken from a space probe. People weren't having their portraits painted as "art", they were having them painted to document who they were. It was more for posterity and a symbol of money and status. https://www.fabulousnoble.com/news/history_of_portraiture

The first sign of a crackpot is the idea that he is involved in some kind of honest portrayal of the truth. The best anyone can do is the "truth as they see it". And that is lot different than "the truth."

It has nothing to do with the truth. I don't know what philosophical rabbit hole you keep getting lost in, but the truth has nothing to do with the subject. The photographer doesn't need to know what the truth is. Mars Exploration Image Gallery | NASA These are pictures taken by a machine on Mars. Does the machine know what truth is? Does it matter? No. Truth, as you mean it is irrelevant to the role of photographer. The concept of truth that is relevant for the role of a journalist revolves around their intent to present an actual story as they perceived it and without manipulation.

[normhead]

I don't know what philosophical rabbit hole you keep getting lost in, but the truth has nothing to do with the subject.

Then what is all this nonsense about "integrity in photojournalism."

I think we need an independent arbitrator to decide who is in the "philosophical rabbit hole." I'm guessing it's not me.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a "philosophical rabbit hole". Although if declaring it such makes you feel better, go with that.

[Winder]

Then what is all this nonsense about "integrity in photojournalism."

I think we need an independent arbitrator to decide who is in the "philosophical rabbit hole." I'm guessing it's not me.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a "philosophical rabbit hole". Although if declaring it such makes you feel better, go with that.

The picture that a photojournalist takes may or may not represent the "truth". That is not relevant. The question is: did the photojournalist intend to and/or attempt to deceive the viewer of the image. Are journalists making a conscious effort to mislead the audience?

You seem to be trying to argue that there is no absolute truth and that is a completely false concept.

[Parallax]

I don't think all journalists who mislead do it consciously; and that's part of the problem. If they were making a conscious effort to NOT mislead we'd all have a much more accurate view of things.
A reporter that misleads consciously should be rebuked. One that does it unconsciously should be blackballed from the profession. They're dangerous.

[Digitalis]

The news industry seems to be like any other industry...it's profit driven.

*shock,horror,outrage*