Observations on some photos

[MP Guy]

As you all have seen in the past, I am not very fond of people using this site for political propegation. There have been some occasions where a bias statement has been made with a photograph and I put a stop to it. I understand the need to display pictures of all categories as this is a photo site. But recently I have seen many pictures of one subject which seems to be using the site for political promotion. I can understand 1 or 2 pictures of an event captured on film. But we are seeing a flood of the same subject matter and I am getting a little disturbed with it. I am trying to decide how to handle this without showing too much or any censorship. If you feel the same and are aware of what I am referring too, let me know.

 

[FrankS]

I don't know what pictures you are refering to but sure hope you are not refering to pictures of an anti-war protest rally! Pictures of rallys are not political statements but rather a photo documentation of what happened.

 

[MP Guy]

I think one can capture a protest on film and be neutral about it. However, when does one draw the line between capturing a protest and prompting an idea? I think a lot of the protest pictures are very good and show the event as it happened. I also think that some pictures went overboard. A good example would be showing a small picture and not the big picture. None the less, I do not want to promote one party or a political agenda over another on this forum. Middle ground should always be kept in mind when posting such photos in the gallery. That way one can not be said to favour one over another.

 

[einolu]

There is no such thing as unbiased photography. Whenever you see a photo, your not just seeing something, but you are seeing the photographers view of the world. I think if you see a photograph that seems 'unbiased', then its probably just a bad photo.

 

[DougK]

Like Frank, I'm not sure which pictures you're referring to that were over the line. If it's the anti-war rally photos, I say let 'em stay; there's nothing offensive about folks documenting what they saw. Awfully fine line to walk.

 

[JoeFriday]

I know exactly what photos you're referring to, Jorge.. and I've felt the same way.. I know very well that my political views differ from many people on this site, and I respect them enough to try and keep political photos and comments to a minimum

while I don't feel the aforementioned photos were offensive, I do disagree with the atmosphere they seem to convey

 

[cp_ste.croix]

are there pro-war rallies that we could photograph to balance the scales?


heh...i'm only teasing, no ofense meant, and i have no idea which photos you're referring to, as photography is second to gear lust for me. 😀

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hmm...that is quite a dilemma. I think it would be censorship if the pictures were to be removed based purely on their content. But if their intent is to promote some radical and polarizing idea, which is not the mission of this forum, is flatly evident (like, say, captions overemphasizing their extreme bias, and promoting traffic for others to view the pictures not for their photographic value as art but as propaganda), then I'd say you may have some discretion, for you are, after all, the owner of the site. Also, if and only if that had only been made blatantly clear in the Terms of Use for the forum gallery.

But that's just me...

It'd all be rainbows and Lawrence Welk if we were all to play by the rules, but most don't. I guess the first step is to ask the owner of the pictures.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

are there pro-war rallies that we could photograph to balance the scales?

I hear they are $1,000 a plate.

 

[FrankS]

This is an instance where I am going "all in". If photographs of an anti-war rally are censored from this site, then I will leave. A photograph documents what is happening.

There was a controversial photo previously showing a nazi swaztika with no additional context that I agreed to censoring. I'll have to check the rally photos to see if some were presented the same way.

 

[FrankS]

Sorry, who was that photographer? Link to his gallery?

 

[Trius]

Jorge: Censoring photos on any basis other than libel (I'm not sure how such photos would occur other than by manipulation) would be a very, very, very bad idea. I agree that a discussion thread can go so far as to be pointless, and closing it is reasonable.

But once you start censoring images either because you don't agree with them or feel someone is promoting their view through them, you are on a slippery slope.

FWIW, the protest in D.C. involved 100,000 or more people, plus many others in other cities. My understanding is that a counter protest the following day in D.C. numbered about 400. I would have no problem with someone posting photos from that event. But I don't think you want to get into insuring that the ratio of "pro" and "con" photos accurately reflects reality, do you?

Trius

 

[MP Guy]

I left almost all of the images from the rally. I only removed a few were they were strictly focused on a subject and did not show the rally. So Frank, you don't have to leave 🙂 Wouldn't want you too either 🙂

How many of you remember the swastike picture a while back? remeber how that was all you saw? well, that is what I am reffering to. Photos like that one.

Here is the gallery in question now and as I see it, it can stay as it is.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5305

 

[Aardvark Aallen]

I have seen the following things on this site which on any given day can ‘upset’ people.

• KKK meeting with burning cross
• Woman showing her breasts
• Anti war demonstrations
• President Bush on TV
• Young children
• Pictures of things that could affect national security, bridges, buildings…

I view most of them as photo journalism.

 

[einolu]

I would be strongly against sensoring.
Couldnt we call all the 'street photography' on this website as voyeurism, and all 'photo journalism' as propaganda.
We dont want this to become another flower/insect macro photography website. I find photos with actual subjects much more interesting.

 

[FrankS]

In order to be consistent, IF the photos that were removed showed only a political message that was negative and offensive like "Bush sucks", rather than an opinion like "Bring our troops home" AND IF the photo showed only the protest sign with no context, then I have to be okay with that.

However there is still a world of difference between a Nazi symbol and a peace group, for heaven's sake!

If any of the photos showed the context of a demonstration like the photo in this link does, then I think it's wrong to remove them.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=17648&cat=5305&page=4

 

[FrankS]

I'm waiting for a response from Neils.

 

[einolu]

In order to be consistent, IF the photos that were removed showed only a political message that was negative and offensive like "Bush sucks", rather than an opinion like "Bring our troops home" AND IF the photo showed only the protest sign with no context, then I have to be okay with that.

I dont see why a photo like that should be removed? Couldnt it be considered an abstract in some sense? What would the point of the sensorship be? Are people afraid to see other peoples opinions?

 

[Aardvark Aallen]

what thoughts regarding this 'ethical' thread, pertaining watching Al Gore drown while his picture is taken?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=140698#post140698

 

[kiev4a]

I know exactly what photos you're referring to, Jorge.. and I've felt the same way.. I know very well that my political views differ from many people on this site, and I respect them enough to try and keep political photos and comments to a minimum

while I don't feel the aforementioned photos were offensive, I do disagree with the atmosphere they seem to convey

A person should have the right to post photos of a protest but I also have the feeling that the numbers posted and the content suggest that the purpose if more to make a political ststement than to show one's photographic ability. --- Here's some photos of some people holding signs protesting the war --here's some more photos of people holding signs protesting the war ---and here's some more pictures of people holding signs protesting the war. . . .A comple of well composed shots of protestors that capture the moment are one thing. But and endless stream of posts..all of essentially the same thing --people holding signs is essentially propaganda.

Where do you draw the line? I'm sure some European formum members would be offended if someone posted photos of people carrying signs making disparaging comments about French or German government leaders. What about pictures of people with signs attacking Jews or gays or environmentalists? I think it's a matter of whose ox is being gored.

What it all boils down to is the person who operates the site "owns the ball" so to speak, so he can make the rules. If he wants to ban certain types of photos he has a perfect right to do so. Many sites ban nudes that aren't done in what the site operater considers a tasteful manner. What's the difference. Yes, it's a form of censorship. So what? If some people don't like restrictions, they don't have to participate on the site. That's the great thing about the internet. You are free to participate, or start your own site.