Banned from r/Leica for a Photo of John Abernathy being Arrested/Assaulted and tossing his M10 to a Fellow Photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since so many of these type of events have been proven to be embellished, if not complete fabrications (I can only list a dozen or so off the top of my head) it’s pretty much SOP to wait for ‘the rest of the story’ to reveal itself. Without this, it’s to posit a narrative; which isn’t journalism. Forgive me for skepticism, but one can only blame those that generated this situation where the media just isn't trusted...(Gallup: lowest trust in media since polling began in 1972.)
 
splitimageview said:
Since so many of these type of events have been proven to be embellished, if not complete fabrications (I can only list a dozen or so off the top of my head) it’s pretty much SOP to wait for ‘the rest of the story’ to reveal itself. Without this, it’s to posit a narrative; which isn’t journalism. Forgive me for skepticism, but one can only blame those that generated this situation where the media just isn't trusted...(Gallup: lowest trust in media since polling began in 1972.)
Click to expand...
Given the incidents involving bullets, a journalist throwing his cell phone & Leica has definitely not front page stuff.....
 
38Deardorff said:
Given the incidents involving bullets, a journalist throwing his cell phone & Leica has definitely not front page stuff.....
Click to expand...

I'm reasonably sure that story has also not been told in full context either.

"Journalism" is dead. The "News" now depends on what bias people prefer and which telling amplifies their own beliefs. Actual reportage' is DOA ...
 
splitimageview said:
Since so many of these type of events have been proven to be embellished, if not complete fabrications (I can only list a dozen or so off the top of my head) it’s pretty much SOP to wait for ‘the rest of the story’ to reveal itself. Without this, it’s to posit a narrative; which isn’t journalism. Forgive me for skepticism, but one can only blame those that generated this situation where the media just isn't trusted...(Gallup: lowest trust in media since polling began in 1972.)
Click to expand...

I remember listening to the usual talking heads and reporters covering the Vietnam war in the late 1960s and beyond. I don't recall ever seeing a major commentator revealing their personal political view in their reporting. The closest I ever saw was Cronkite breaking down when he announced the JFK assassination. Dan Rather was superb field reporter until a few decades later, when he ginned up a fake story to promote his personal poltitics and thereby ended his career.

Ditto the university professorate that still had people from all corners of the social and political spectrum, but you really never heard any of that inside the classroom unless the topic at hand inherently commanded that. By the 1980s, when I was an adjunct faculty member teaching graduate school, the picture was very different. The professorate and administration was overtly single-sided and very loud about it. We moved from educating people to think, to creating madrassas to flog a more-or-less single agenda. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Humanities where things like actual journalism used to be taught.

Journalism is doomed.
 
splitimageview said:
Forgive me for skepticism, but one can only blame those that generated this situation where the media just isn't trusted...(Gallup: lowest trust in media since polling began in 1972.)
Click to expand...
Were this something that could only be viewed through the lens of "the media" some forgiveness could be appropriate. But when the people who were there are sharing what they saw, directly to the public without corporate interference, skepticism of "the media" holds no water. What's been shown and shared is as close to the truth as anybody could hope for without being there themselves. If it makes you uncomfortable, that's because it's an uncomfortable situation.

As for skepticism of the media, sure, but then what of skepticism of "offishul" sources? The "other side" that's so clamored for? People's faith in that isn't exactly high right now either.
 
Last edited:
The false narratives are often parroted by individuals on social media and then picked up by the corporate media.

They all follow the same pattern: a social media post, massive shares, the media bites, picks up the story, amplifies it...then later, the truth trickles out. If the media posts a correction, inevitably it's on page 12 and no one sees it...

Sorry for the skepticism, but this has happened so many times in the recent past, it only makes sense to question.
 
boojum said:
I think we are witnessing why analog vs digital is enough controversy here.
Click to expand...


Sort off, but they're not equal and opposing sides.


One side wants the whole truth, with context, to be told, no matter who is implicated or exposed in the process.

One side wants their socio-political ideology to prevail at any cost. That cost includes half truths, incomplete reporting, manipulating stories, and using social media to enrage the village children with torches.

I know where I land.
 
The # of posts from one user here (and being allowed to do so) tells me everything I need to know. We see a decry bias they can’t see in themselves.

Renee Nicole Good & Alex Pretti can tell you more about the practices of ice.

I am going to ban myself from this thread now. It's disgusting anyways.
 
Everyone is going to express a political bias or leaning in one way or another, simply by virtue of what they post. Some will look at the Abernathy incident and see it as an example of federal heavyhandedness, others will see it as someone getting what they signed up for. What's interesting is when someone can see both sides and more. Feds have been heavyhanded, and people have been putting themselves in positions to be involved. We truly can have it both ways.

As for media bias: political commentary masquerading as news reportage has been the mainstay of the media for quite some time, and it happens all along the political spread. As photographers and documentarians, we ought to be aware of what we are putting out there. Most of us are more sophisticated than cat and flower photos. Oh, wait.

M9 - Tulip Festival by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 - Bathing in the Sun by Archiver, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
splitimageview said:
…….. Sorry for the skepticism, but this has happened so many times in the recent past, it only makes sense to question.
Click to expand...
With the perforation of folks who may want to appear neutral initially but may act otherwise as time goes on. Seeing them from the “beginning” or when they come into the area may provide additional information that could allow one to make a more informed conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom