Media Bias Rears its Head

[Dreadsox]

How come when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs?

When terrorists strike, the press edits, blurs, places rocks...ect...
Why? Is it to diminish the effects of the terrorism? Is it to prevent people from reacting harshly towards the terrorists?

Does this bother anyone else? Or is it no big deal

The real photo:

The Guardian:

The Times:

The Telegraph:

Well, shouldn't journalists present the truth? Is this acceptable? Or is it only acceptable to show how bad the US is?

Just curious.

 

[melon]

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any differences in any of the photos.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Look at the body part in the first photo.....front left.....

 

[Screaming Flower]

was that an arm that was erased from the other photos?

 

[Dreadsox]

or leg....

 

[melon]

Interesting...that's not good journalism. They should have published the first photo unaltered.

Melon

 

[enggirl]

I just saw this photo in the newest TIME magazine, and what I think you're pointing out is hidden there, too...but by the title in big red letters. If you look in the lower left, to the left of the tracks, it loos like someone's head that's been blown off. It's red in the first photo above, then brownish in the next one, then completely gone in the other two. However, they did leave in the man in the very first train window who looks to be dead.

As far as only showing atrocities when we do them: I don't know if I agree with you. I seem to recall that, during the "war," there were very few really graphic photos published in any mainstream magazine like the ones you could see online (children with brains blown out, people with missing limbs, etc.). I think, rather, that it's a difference of viewers/readers in different countries.

Here in the US, we are strangely (when you consider the ridiculous crap we watch on TV), sensitive to "graphic" images. When things first happen, cameras roll and we see things (such as the people jumping out of the towers on 9/11), but when time catches up, those things are deemed unseemly and off-limits. At the newspaper where I work, one of the editors had to spend hours going through every picture coming off the wires after 9/11 and pick what could go in the paper so as not to freak people out more than they already were.

I think that this is why we, as a nation, can be a little gung-ho on violence--we tend to live in a bubble when you compare our media to that in other countries.

I don't know if this really answers your question--it probably opens us up to more questions/comments, actually.

 

[BVS]

I agree that good journalism should have shown the photo undoctored, but I don't think it has anything to do with media bias. I agree with enggirl.

I think the real reason is they are afraid someone like the FCC will come along and shut them down for obscenity.

 

[Dreadsox]

LOL...except these are British papers....

Now I have to go get TIME,,,,

I think of the horrible photo of the napalm victims from Vietnam. I think of the pictures of the boy who lost his limbs from Iraq.

It does not add up. I believe it is important to show the truth. The ugly truth of what the terrorists did.....just as it was important to show the consequences of our actions in these two wars.

 

[enggirl]

I agree that good journalism should have shown the photo undoctored, but I don't think it has anything to do with media bias. I agree with enggirl.

I think the real reason is they are afraid someone like the FCC will come along and shut them down for obscenity.

Ha! Especially considering the FCC has sorta overturned it's previous quasi-OK of Bono's "this is f***ing brilliant" from over a YEAR ago! But they're not going to fine him. So I wonder when the statue of limitations is up on "offensive" behavior?

I think's it's offensive that we are considered too delicate and unable to handle the absolute TRUTH. The truth--in photographs, etc.--is ugly at times and scary as hell...but wouldn't you feel better if you knew what was out there so you could try to avoid it? Sanitizing what we see just sanitizes what we think...(does that make any sense?)

 

[melon]

Heh...the FCC can't do a damn thing to them. Not only is it on paper, rather than the broadcast spectrum (the FCC's territory), but the press' freedom is protected by the First Amendment. No other medium has such wide discretion to tell the truth, no matter how frightening it is.

Melon

 

[enggirl]

Heh...the FCC can't do a damn thing to them. Not only is it on paper, rather than the broadcast spectrum (the FCC's territory), but the press' freedom is protected by the First Amendment. No other medium has such wide discretion to tell the truth, no matter how frightening it is.

Melon

True, Melon, when we're talking about newspapers and mags. Unfortunately, I live in a rather conservative town and work at a conservative-ish paper. (Um, we don't like to quote people when they say that something "sucks"!). The upper-ups at the paper are in the position of protecting the virgin eyes of the town from anything unpleasant until it's been completely sanitized. (Hmmm...but "The Passion" is A-OK---oh, and this is NOT to start a big yell-fest on that, I'm just making my own little point about how, for some people, violence/gore is okay in one context but not another. 'nuf said.)

 

[BVS]

Heh...the FCC can't do a damn thing to them. Not only is it on paper, rather than the broadcast spectrum (the FCC's territory), but the press' freedom is protected by the First Amendment. No other medium has such wide discretion to tell the truth, no matter how frightening it is.

Melon

OK first of all everyone I was being tounge in cheek. Secondly I said someone "like the FCC". I just think if things continue the way they are we may have Federal commisions for everything. Anyways back to the subject.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

I don't know where I read it (maybe in the paper I bought last Saturday which had a large comments section on this photograph), but IIRC the reason they did edit the photographs was that the newspaper editor(s) thought it was too much. Even without the limb the photo portrays a horrible image.
Here in the Netherlands they did publish the original photo and got a lot of negative reactions (if it was really necessary to show that limb).

BTW, is it really not presenting the truth when a photo is edited like this?

Marty

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

So what right wing blog did this one come from?

If you're trying to paint is as left-wing bias then I'd merely point out that the Telegraph is the most right-wing of all the broadsheet newspapers we have in this country, closely followed by the Times. Honestly, that liberal media bias.

As for the allegation that the press are willing to show pictures of US atrocities: the press show extreme caution in printing images from Iraq. I can't begin to count how many shocking pictures I've seen of "coalition" troops abusing Iraqis which haven't made it to the mainstream press. It is near impossible to have a decent understanding of the current situation in Iraq simply from reading the mainstream press.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
So what right wing blog did this one come from?[/Q]

Are we going to play this game every time I post? I have responded politely to you in the other thread. If you have an issue with something I post, please PM me. As I said to you, I hate it when people link to left wing propaganda. I have tried in all my time here not to do the same. There is nothing RIGHT wing about what I posted, unless it is now RIGHT WING to believe that there is media bias against the US.

[Q]If you're trying to paint is as left-wing bias then I'd merely point out that the Telegraph is the most right-wing of all the broadsheet newspapers we have in this country, closely followed by the Times. Honestly, that liberal media bias. [/Q]

Actually I am a little bothered that you are trying to paint my post as an attack on the "liberal media"(Your words not mine). None of what I posted indicates that I felt it was a "liberal media" bias. It almost appears to me that you have a personal issue with what I post based on the above sentences, or that you feel that I cannot have an opinion that does not come from the right. I think that is a shame, since I have made an ethical point about journalistic integrity. Please do not put words into my mouth.

[Q]As for the allegation that the press are willing to show pictures of US atrocities: the press show extreme caution in printing images from Iraq. I can't begin to count how many shocking pictures I've seen of "coalition" troops abusing Iraqis which haven't made it to the mainstream press. It is near impossible to have a decent understanding of the current situation in Iraq simply from reading the mainstream press. [/Q]

So you disagree that there is an uneven playing field. Not publishing pictures is quite different from EDITING them to portray something not as horrific. There have also been many horrific pictures from the war that have made it in. I cited the vietnam picture as an example. If you do not see a difference beteween editing and not showing fine.

I do believe this photo was edited to diminish the anger towards terrorism. It was the wrong thing to do.

 

[Dreadsox]

Hello,

I don't know where I read it (maybe in the paper I bought last Saturday which had a large comments section on this photograph), but IIRC the reason they did edit the photographs was that the newspaper editor(s) thought it was too much. Even without the limb the photo portrays a horrible image.
Here in the Netherlands they did publish the original photo and got a lot of negative reactions (if it was really necessary to show that limb).

BTW, is it really not presenting the truth when a photo is edited like this?

Marty

Marty,

Thanks for your response. I do believe it is wrong to edit the photograph. If we are not willing to accept the reality of the situation, with all of its horror, then it does have an impact on how the situation is viewed. In my opinion, it is necessary to show the truth.


Matt

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Are we going to play this game every time I post? I have responded politely to you in the other thread. If you have an issue with something I post, please PM me. As I said to you, I hate it when people link to left wing propaganda. I have tried in all my time here not to do the same.

I would think that asking for the source of a picture or article is quite legitimate. Apparently you disagree, as shown by you declining to name the source of the Le Monde article you posted or the source of these photographs. I don't see the difference between linking to "propaganda" and posting said propaganda. If anything, I would say posting it is worse as people don't have to consciously decide to click on the link. In any case, I don't have any problem with people posting "propaganda" from either side of the argument, although the definition of propaganda is certainly open to debate.

Please don't let's make this into another personal fight, Dread -- there are enough of them in FYM already and we don't need any more, right?

It almost appears to me that you have a personal issue with what I post based on the above sentences, or that you feel that I cannot have an opinion that does not come from the right. I think that is a shame, since I have made an ethical point about journalistic integrity. Please do not put words into my mouth.

Your claim, by your own admission, is that papers edited this photo due to "media bias" - what bias were you referring to? Bias in favour of terrorism? Bias against the United States?

Your original post was about the claim that "when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs." A completely false allegation often made about the left-wing press is that they are "anti-US" or "try to portray America in a negative light." It's not a claim that's frequently made about the right-wing press, so forgive me for associating your comments with criticism of the left-wing press.

So you disagree that there is an uneven playing field. Not publishing pictures is quite different from EDITING them to portray something not as horrific. There have also been many horrific pictures from the war that have made it in. I cited the vietnam picture as an example. If you do not see a difference beteween editing and not showing fine.

I agree: there's a difference between editing a picture and refusing to print a picture. However, you made the claim that the press has "NO PROBLEM" publishing photographs of American atrocities: I merely pointed out the censorship of images showing atrocities committed by "coalition" soldiers in Iraq as evidence that the mainstream media clearly does have a problem with printing photographs of American atrocities.

 

[Dreadsox]

I would think that asking for the source of a picture or article is quite legitimate. Apparently you disagree, as shown by you declining to name the source of the Le Monde article you posted or the source of these photographs.

I was asked not to drag issues from one thred to another...and you are doing so with your first post.

I had NO need to put the source of the article when I posted the article DIRECTLY....I also told you I did not remember where I ran into the article(Which you have now either ignored or believe that I am lying about). I told you the name to search:

[Q]The main page that everyone links to is Andrew Sullivan...although I do not think that is where I read it. [/Q]

it took quite a bit of searching to get to the actual article. and you would see a TON of pages through a basic google search(, of which I am sure you are capable) that linked to it so I am not sure which one I used. I find it REDICULOUS, that when I post an article and link to the article directly that you want to know more than that. I did not quote from ANYTHING other than the article.

In this case I have posted actual photographs and posted what papers they were from.

I asked politelty for a PM if you had something to say on this. I think YOU may be making it personal in this thread and I hope not, but it seems to me that you have an issue with my postings that would be better left in PM land.

 

[Dreadsox]

Your claim, by your own admission, is that papers edited this photo due to "media bias" - what bias were you referring to? Bias in favour of terrorism? Bias against the United States?

Your original post was about the claim that "when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs." A completely false allegation often made about the left-wing press is that they are "anti-US" or "try to portray America in a negative light." It's not a claim that's frequently made about the right-wing press, so forgive me for associating your comments with criticism of the left-wing press.

By your own posting I clearly demonstrated a VARIETY of newsprint from the more right and left papers. You ASSUMED I was ignorant about the leanings of the paper.

In General...I do believe the PRESS as a WHOLE is biased towards this administration. But I digress....

They are treading on thin ice....in my opinion....I am not certain we can trust what we see anymore.

 

[BVS]

I am not certain we can trust what we see anymore.

Dreadlox,

This I completely agree with. I work with Photoshop quite a bit, something I taught myself, and it's so easy these days to doctor photos. It use to be that the written word would have to be approached cautiously, but if you had a photo then you were pretty certain. That's no longer the case.

So what do we have? Will we have to create a new media, a new form of technology that records history without distortion? Is this even possible? Or will we eventually grow into a world that doesn't trust anything anymore?

 

[verte76]

I don't think *anyone* should "doctor" photos. That being said there is always controversy about graphic photography of something like a terrorist attack. The pictures from Istanbul in November were pretty damn graphic, and there was a ton of controversy in Turkey over the shots. The pictures were blasted as "unnecessary" by many. Perhaps some people felt like they'd better use "discretion" in depicting the terror attack. It may have had nothing to do with politics. Just my purple tuppence's worth.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks to you both for sticking to the discussion. It is concerning.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Dread,
I have no argument with you on a personal level, as I think you already know. I disagree with you politically, but of course you already know that. Can we both just act like adults and have a civil discussion? Please?

To get back to the topic, while I agree that editing photographs is in general a bad decision, I disagree with the point you made regarding the media being willing to print pictures of American atrocities but not pictures of al-Qaeda atrocities. But I think I already said that in my last post.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dread,
I have no argument with you on a personal level, as I think you already know. I disagree with you politically, but of course you already know that. Can we both just act like adults and have a civil discussion? Please?

I am waiting....that's why I politely asked you to PM. Instead you publicly typed innacurately about my attempts to satisfy your curiousity. But hey...its all good.

 

[Dreadsox]

To get back to the topic, while I agree that editing photographs is in general a bad decision, I disagree with the point you made regarding the media being willing to print pictures of American atrocities but not pictures of al-Qaeda atrocities. But I think I already said that in my last post.

Then you agree with the blurring? It is acceptable to doctor photos of attrocities committed by terrorists.

 

[deep]

Does this bother anyone else? Or is it no big deal

It absolutely is no big deal.





If the head lines in the 3rd and 4th paper said something like;

"Did Spain bring this upon itself?"

or

"Why did this happen?"


It looks like the 3rd and 4th image is one and the same, poorly photo-shopped.

Does one have to see every body part to find it repugnant? I do not.


Was there bias because the photographer did not photograph close-ups of the faces of the corpses?



You find the bias you look for.

This premise in this thread seems silly to me.

So what right wing blog did this one come from?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

It is acceptable to doctor photos of attrocities committed by terrorists.

Nope. As I said in the previous post "editing photos is in general a bad decision."

I disagreed with the conclusion you drew from the photographs, not with the idea that editing photographs prior to publication is questionable.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

P.S. Dread, I responded to some of your comments over in the thread about the Le Monde article -- I don't want to take this thread too far off-topic so that seemed like the sensible place to reply.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Media Bias Rears its Head

It absolutely is no big deal.

How can you say it is no big deal? Would it be acceptable to make the photo seem to be more awful by adding in things?

From a historical point of view, researching, ect....why would you find this no big deal?

Don't you think it sets a dangerous precident?