?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A blogger takes a closer look at the photo that lead the SF Chronicle's anti-war protest coverage.

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

Not totally surprising to people familiar with the composition of A.N.S.W.E.R.

qrsline_small

Comments

( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
readherring
Sep. 28th, 2005 02:28 pm (UTC)
Um, so what? So the SF Chronicle ran a picture of a loony group being led by a woman in what might be a communist shirt. (Note: I have a t-shirt with a picture of chairman Mao on it. It advertises a bookstore in Chapel Hill) It was a huge protest. Tons of people showed up; it's not surprising that a few nuts got in. The conservative rallies are sometimes visited by the "God hates fags" protesters. Both sides have their extremists.

As to the great liberal media conspiracy behind publishing this picture - I severely doubt it. The SF Chronicle ran about ten or so pictures of the protest. Most likely, the editor picked this one out for its color and composition. It is a good picture. Chances are, the editor didn't know what was in the background either. S/he just had to sort through a hundred or so photos and pick the best ones for publication.
bxiie
Sep. 28th, 2005 08:30 pm (UTC)
Sure. Uh, huh.

I read the Chron every day, FWIW.

(Crossed fingers) Nope, no bias.
readherring
Sep. 29th, 2005 02:16 am (UTC)
Right. I'll give you that the SF Chronicle leans leftward, though I'm not terribly swayed by your argument that you read it every day. You did find G.W. Bush leaning too far to the left on a few occasions, if I recall.

As to the blogger's claim that "the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader's impression of the rally, and the rally's intent", I give you another "Sure. Uh, huh."
bxiie
Sep. 29th, 2005 06:38 am (UTC)
Actually, I often find that W. doesn't represent my interests. He's much more like an FDR-era democrat than a historical republican.

Sure. Uh, huh.
bxiie
Sep. 29th, 2005 09:42 am (UTC)
To clarify; the Chron did not run the picture of the loony group being led by the woman; the Chron only ran the closely-cropped image of the female with the bandana.
readherring
Sep. 29th, 2005 02:18 pm (UTC)
To clarify what I'm saying:

I doubt this photo was cropped. The photographer, who may have been working for the paper or independently, went through the crowd looking for pretty pictures. (Regardless of a newspaper's bias, they all prefer pretty pictures. The exception is found in the tabloids with their paparazzi shots. Those are the papers that go for the AHA! shots.) A close-up of a masked person looks good, so they take the shot. A wide-angle shot that obliquely catches the banner-holders to show the scary commie girl in front just isn't an attractive picture.

Besides, if the photographer widened the shot, it would have been difficult to keep the cuss words out, and the newspaper can't print those.

So the photographer dumps 100 pics on the photo editor. The photo editor picks out the 10 nicest ones. Look at the other Chronicle photos - they are all colorful and well-composed.
bxiie
Sep. 29th, 2005 02:21 pm (UTC)
Yes, dear.
eloquentwthrage
Sep. 28th, 2005 02:33 pm (UTC)
Humanity must end. That's my new mantra. Humanity must end.
(Anonymous)
Sep. 28th, 2005 03:55 pm (UTC)
Communism is good for all people. Capitalism is good for few people.
bxiie
Sep. 28th, 2005 08:08 pm (UTC)
Yep. Just ask the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans, Cambodians.

Rediculous.
bxiie
Sep. 28th, 2005 08:28 pm (UTC)
2005-09-28 20:26 (link) DeleteFreezeScreen Select
What's even more rediculous is that someone I know chose to place anonymous comments of this sort on my journal. Yes, I know that I can turn off anonymous comments; that's not the point. I intentionally leave anonymous comments enabled so folks can place comments like this. No, someone spewing pro-communist speech doesn't offend me, regardless of how naive I feel the sentiment is.

What gets me is that this unnamed person that I know and undoubtedly consider a friend doesn't have the conviction and character to own their comments, won't debate or defend thier position, standing behind it.

One thing's for sure; I'll tell you how I feel, what I believe. And I'll look you in the eye and defend my beliefs, too.
readherring
Sep. 29th, 2005 01:48 am (UTC)
You sure s/he's not just some crazy person who hit the random journal button? I've heard tales of crazy people who use the internet... :)
bxiie
Sep. 29th, 2005 09:41 am (UTC)
I tend to use Occam's razor, myself.
rozebud
Sep. 29th, 2005 04:08 pm (UTC)
I've occasionally left "anonymous" comments by accident, by clicking the link in an email reply and then LJ doesn't recognize me. But this wasn't me. I'm no commie! I'm a socialist - ask any internet survey! ;-p
rabidkitten
Sep. 29th, 2005 10:58 pm (UTC)
I've had folks stop by and leave both signed and unsigned comments anonymously. While it's true that you stand behind beliefs, I would argue, you should give your friends the benefit of believing they will do the same.
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

AFFF
bxiie
Bjamexza Q. Pyndejo / James O. Payne, Jr.
Bxiie Q. Pyndejo

Latest Month

May 2013
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031