FrankS
Registered User
Brett, if you remove the captions on the photos, there is no difference. There is no political bias inherant in photos, it is how they are used later (eg. given captions) that creates the bias. IMO
A continuation of observation on some photos
- Thread starter MP Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 102
- Views 945
- Status
VinceC
Veteran
>>there are quite a few pics in the gallery that I (and many fellow non-Americans) find just as disgusting (like all the 'stars'n'stripes' in peoples' frontyards)<<
I must say, there is a documentary/photojournalistic element to these flags. They are pervasive in the United States and so are part of the American landscape. They do not symbolize support for any particular American political leader or political party. Rather, they affirm an American ideal that most of our political leaders fail to achieve.
I would say all cultures have baggage that is perceived differently by other countries. I was absolutely thunderstruck when, as a very young American soldier, while stationed in West Germany, I attended a German-American military ceremony and heard the German national anthem played by a German military band. I had no idea "deutschland ueber alles" was still the country's anthem, and to me it conjured up so many symbols of oppression and national failure. Germans hear one thing, some Americans another.
Having traveled to more than 40 countries, I'm well aware that the American flag is not welcome everywhere. My country has a sometimes terrible history. I grew up in a state ironically called Indiana, even though its native inhabitants had long ago been driven away by genocidal policies. More recently, our military forces were restricted from helping in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane because of an 1878 "posse comitatus" law that prevents the military from enforcing law and order and which was originally passed to prevent U.S. troops from protecting Black Americans from voting in former Confederate States. Still, we have an American flag in front of our home in the American suburbs today. And it sometimes shows up in pictures I take of my children. Looking at this flag, you can't tell that the occupants of the household have differing political views. You can't discern which occupants of our home have a Christian, Jewish or Muslim heritage (we manage to mix all three) or that they or their parents were born in several different countries. What the flag expresses, in front of my house, anyway, is that we belong to this country, we embrace what is good about it, we try to learn from its mistakes, and we're going to do what we can to improve what we think is wrong with it.
In that respect, the stars-and-stripes are quite different from the Swastika, which has been universally condemned as a symbol for uncivilized conduct with no worthwhile ideal.
Within the United States, the American flag is a fact of life. Trying to keep it out of photographs would require a conscious act of nearly constant censorship that would, in itself, be a political statement.
I must say, there is a documentary/photojournalistic element to these flags. They are pervasive in the United States and so are part of the American landscape. They do not symbolize support for any particular American political leader or political party. Rather, they affirm an American ideal that most of our political leaders fail to achieve.
I would say all cultures have baggage that is perceived differently by other countries. I was absolutely thunderstruck when, as a very young American soldier, while stationed in West Germany, I attended a German-American military ceremony and heard the German national anthem played by a German military band. I had no idea "deutschland ueber alles" was still the country's anthem, and to me it conjured up so many symbols of oppression and national failure. Germans hear one thing, some Americans another.
Having traveled to more than 40 countries, I'm well aware that the American flag is not welcome everywhere. My country has a sometimes terrible history. I grew up in a state ironically called Indiana, even though its native inhabitants had long ago been driven away by genocidal policies. More recently, our military forces were restricted from helping in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane because of an 1878 "posse comitatus" law that prevents the military from enforcing law and order and which was originally passed to prevent U.S. troops from protecting Black Americans from voting in former Confederate States. Still, we have an American flag in front of our home in the American suburbs today. And it sometimes shows up in pictures I take of my children. Looking at this flag, you can't tell that the occupants of the household have differing political views. You can't discern which occupants of our home have a Christian, Jewish or Muslim heritage (we manage to mix all three) or that they or their parents were born in several different countries. What the flag expresses, in front of my house, anyway, is that we belong to this country, we embrace what is good about it, we try to learn from its mistakes, and we're going to do what we can to improve what we think is wrong with it.
In that respect, the stars-and-stripes are quite different from the Swastika, which has been universally condemned as a symbol for uncivilized conduct with no worthwhile ideal.
Within the United States, the American flag is a fact of life. Trying to keep it out of photographs would require a conscious act of nearly constant censorship that would, in itself, be a political statement.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I don't think right-wingism had anything to do with it, but I saw an amusing TV example several years ago.
I live in the city that is the headquarters of the U.S. Air Force's former Strategic Air Command, and the SAC headquarters gate was (and is) always a popular point for anti-war and disarmament groups to protest. Whenever one of these protests would be organized, we'd get formalized TV and newspaper coverage showing protesters carrying signs, walking across the base boundary line, being taken away by the base guards for fingerprinting, etc.
But then one day a TV reporter broke the unwritten rule of how to cover these demonstrations: He showed up early and documented the whole process. We got to see the guards' commander and the protest organizer discussing beforehand how they'd handle the demonstration; the guard commander explaining to the protesters the penalties for trespassing on the base, showing those who wanted to be arrested where to cross and those who did not want to be arrested where to avoid, etc.
Two particularly heartwarming moments: It was a cold day, so the commander and organizer worked together to organize the group so that older protesters and those with young children could cross the line first, getting them into the warm building to receive their ban-and-bar letters; and the guard commander giving suggestions to the protesters' friends on the best place to stand to take photos of them, so they could get the protest in the foreground and the base's entry sign in the background.
It changed my view of these protests and of "protest culture" in general. But I never saw it again, and I've never seen anyone else do it.
kiev4a
Well-known
FrankS said:
No political bias inherant to photos? How about the L.A. Times photographer who modified a photo to make a soldier appear to be pointing his weapon at civilians when he really wasn't?
A photographer who knows what he os she is doing can go to any controversial event and shoot photos that will (without computer manipulation) generate feelings of either hate or support for either side of the issue. It is just as easy to manipulate people with photos as it is with words -- maybe easier.
VinceC
Veteran
>>No political bias inherant to photos? How about the L.A. Times photographer who modified a photo to make a soldier appear to be pointing his weapon at civilians when he really wasn't?<<
That photographer was fired. For distorting reality.
That photographer was fired. For distorting reality.
V
varjag
Guest
I agree that bias is all too common in protest photography (and war photography); once you cover yourself such an event you'd understand how difficult is it too keep your personal position from influencing the photos. It also becomes trivial to spot bias in press shots: it just leaps out onto you, regardless of paper's alignment or aesthetic considerations.
However there are still reporters who manage to shoot the events with perspective of casual bypasser, and those are worth admiration.
Unfortunately, requiring that no personal bias in protest shots to be exhibited would rule out most, if not all, contributors from such sort of submissions.
However there are still reporters who manage to shoot the events with perspective of casual bypasser, and those are worth admiration.
Unfortunately, requiring that no personal bias in protest shots to be exhibited would rule out most, if not all, contributors from such sort of submissions.
FrankS
Registered User
"A photographer who knows what he os she is doing can go to any controversial event and shoot photos that will (without computer manipulation) generate feelings of either hate or support for either side of the issue. It is just as easy to manipulate people with photos as it is with words -- maybe easier."
I don't believe this for a second. How many of you folks here ar RFF who are pro-American involvement in the war in Iraq have had their political beliefs swayed by Neils' photographs? How many anti-war supporters saw these pictures and said, "Hey, I've been wrong all along."?
The hatred (or support) is not generated by the photographs, it is generated by the people viewing the photographs. (Or do you also believe that guns cause violence and not the people using them? You can't have it both ways.)
I don't believe this for a second. How many of you folks here ar RFF who are pro-American involvement in the war in Iraq have had their political beliefs swayed by Neils' photographs? How many anti-war supporters saw these pictures and said, "Hey, I've been wrong all along."?
The hatred (or support) is not generated by the photographs, it is generated by the people viewing the photographs. (Or do you also believe that guns cause violence and not the people using them? You can't have it both ways.)
Last edited:
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
good point, Frank.. and showing the same photo with different captions can create completely different reactions
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
JoeFriday said:
I think this remark points out an essential difference between Americans and Europeans. In Europe, having suffered the worst excesses of patriotism for many centuries, even millenia, people tend to react far more paranoid to, for instance flags being displayed patriotically. I think we should recognize that difference, whilst respecting it, as the feelings driving these emotions are undoubtely similar on both sides of the Atlantic.
If we do, misunderstandings like Roman's could be avoided. Don't forget that inhabitants of his country have, historically speaking, real reason to suspect flag-waving!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Roman, I'd try to cool off. I had the same reaction last night, and that's why I thought it best to just turn off the computer.
This is how censorship triumphs: by driving away those that clearly see the wrongs of it. And who do you have left? Those who agree. I say stay. It will happen again (it's a very definite tendency on this side of the pond), and we need a dialog, not a one-tune chorus.
This is how censorship triumphs: by driving away those that clearly see the wrongs of it. And who do you have left? Those who agree. I say stay. It will happen again (it's a very definite tendency on this side of the pond), and we need a dialog, not a one-tune chorus.
nomade
Hobbyist
Uhum i voted by mistake that these don't belong to the gallery, i wanted to say they belong to the gallery...But i didn't mark the right target...
I also think yes it's political and it's biased but still can considered a journalistic type, it's a point of view, it's the photographer's view...So i think they belong in the gallery.
It's normal for a photographer to express his view in many issues of life, including politics, so i don't see what's the problem of having such photos in the gallery, it's up to u to accept it or refuse it!
I also think yes it's political and it's biased but still can considered a journalistic type, it's a point of view, it's the photographer's view...So i think they belong in the gallery.
It's normal for a photographer to express his view in many issues of life, including politics, so i don't see what's the problem of having such photos in the gallery, it's up to u to accept it or refuse it!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'm with those that think Roman should reconsider; this is not censorship, but an attempt to keep the website on an even keel. The fact alone that Jorge initiated this discussion is clear proof of that.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Manolo Gozales said:
Worse than disturbing. It is getting annoying. What kind of discussion of "political porn" is that ??
Is it real or am I dreaming ?
Do we really discuss if visual political statements and opinions, which are allowed to get shown publicly out on the street are NOT allowed for this forum ?
That would mean RFF is a place of limited democratic rights and that is not acceptable for me. The poll results say clearly what the member's understanding of those pics is and if this kind of censorship continues anyway I will follow Roman soon. At this point I won't make any compromises.
Bertram
FrankS
Registered User
"it's the photographer's view"
No, it is not necessarily. A right-wing republican photojournalist may have taken these photos if assigned to cover the rally. He would also take pictures of protestors and signs, not of flowers in the park. He, or his publishers may add politically biased captions to the photos that would be different from those captions added by an anti-war publication.
These are just photos of an event. The event happens to be an anti-war rally. The photos themselves have no bias. How they may be used, and with what captions, introduces the bias. Neils has simply documented an event. You may not agree with the politics of those pictured, but the photos themselves are not evil. Neils has not stated his political beliefs. He may well be a right-wing republican photojournalist sent to record the event. His publication may use these images with the caption "FOOLS! or "Pinko Commie Scum!" below each one. The bias comes depending on how the photos are used later.
This photo essay is well done and no photos should be censored due to the political bias of any viewers.
No, it is not necessarily. A right-wing republican photojournalist may have taken these photos if assigned to cover the rally. He would also take pictures of protestors and signs, not of flowers in the park. He, or his publishers may add politically biased captions to the photos that would be different from those captions added by an anti-war publication.
These are just photos of an event. The event happens to be an anti-war rally. The photos themselves have no bias. How they may be used, and with what captions, introduces the bias. Neils has simply documented an event. You may not agree with the politics of those pictured, but the photos themselves are not evil. Neils has not stated his political beliefs. He may well be a right-wing republican photojournalist sent to record the event. His publication may use these images with the caption "FOOLS! or "Pinko Commie Scum!" below each one. The bias comes depending on how the photos are used later.
This photo essay is well done and no photos should be censored due to the political bias of any viewers.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
'As long as nobody posts overtly pornographic photos depicting bestiality, violence and other activities of that sort, we can handle anything. '
well there goes my next project...😉
joe
well there goes my next project...😉
joe
nomade
Hobbyist
I believe each photograph carry within it the photographer's feeling and spirit that's why i said it's the photographer's view, anyhow, i think we should be mroe open about these stuff...It's a photo, it should not be censored. As Bertram said, u can see such photos everywhere so why censor them here???
That's what i meant.
That's what i meant.
M
Marc Jutras
Guest
To me, these look like neutral photo journalism. They simply show what was seen there. They don't tell me what's the photographer's opinion on the subject. Unless we see him in the frame with two thumbs up or something of that nature, we can't tell. Even then, I wouldn't mind since I believe everyone's entitled to their opinions and beliefs.
What would bother me big time is if the discussion on a picture turned into a typical web forum political debate. That would suck.
I guess my views on this are no surprise to most. I'm used to live and let live as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (unless desired).
What would bother me big time is if the discussion on a picture turned into a typical web forum political debate. That would suck.
I guess my views on this are no surprise to most. I'm used to live and let live as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (unless desired).
C
ch1
Guest
If I posted a captionless picture after the Yankees v. Red Sox ball game last Saturday of the fomer celebrating clinching the AL-East division by beating the latter does that mean I am pro-Yankees?
If I then posted a captionless pictiure after Sunday's game of the Red Sox celebrating clinching the wild card spot because they defeated the Yankees does that mean I am now suddently pro-Red Sox?
[Note to non-North Americans - these two teams have a century-long rivalry.]
The photos were of attendees at an anti-war rally - would one expect the signage pictured to be pro-Bush?
I'm new here and don't know all the nuances of etiquette to this site - but I do think that removing the photos was censorship and a biased action.
If I then posted a captionless pictiure after Sunday's game of the Red Sox celebrating clinching the wild card spot because they defeated the Yankees does that mean I am now suddently pro-Red Sox?
[Note to non-North Americans - these two teams have a century-long rivalry.]
The photos were of attendees at an anti-war rally - would one expect the signage pictured to be pro-Bush?
I'm new here and don't know all the nuances of etiquette to this site - but I do think that removing the photos was censorship and a biased action.
nomade
Hobbyist
I really didn't express myself well here, i didn't say that this is what neils wanted to say, what was written in the banner, i meant that this is how he saw the event...
P C Headland
Well-known
[----------removed duplicate post--------------]
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
