Don't you think that news photos would be more interesting if they contained an emotional bias? I'll use these old pictures of Betty Davis to make my point. Imagine that a local girl has just won a science fair. Would it be wrong to portray her as slutty (above) with the graphic implication that she slept with someone to get the medal? OK, OK, it would be wrong but surely there's a parallel universe where it would be right. Things are more fun that way.
Here's a woman (above) whose husband just died when she took his picture near the edge of the Grand Canyon. Was his fall accidental? The picture lets us know what the photographer thinks.
Here (above) are two contestants for a beauty contest. Maybe the photographer has a favorite. What's wrong with that? Newspapers need to be more interesting. We have to figure out a way to make bias work. Maybe we should do biased photo essays recapping the events of a case after the court decides it.
9 comments:
Those last two reminded me of George Carlin's beauty pageant idea: The losers should have to keep coming back until they win. Give it about 10 years and Ms. Universe would start to look pretty creepy...
We already have this phenomenon occurring...its called tabloids. These papers obtain a picture and develop a story around the photograph.
Tabloids are not exactly bias, they are more fabrication.
"Objective journalism is one of the main reasons American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long."
Hunter S. Thompson
shouldn't all art have bias? A strong personal opinion and view of the world?
Isn't Fox News sufficiently biased?
I do agree, though; bias does make things more interesting, and if people are interested they're more likely to participate. That's what's great about the internet: there's room for all kinds of biased news. You're not just confined to three or four national networks and a local paper for your information sources.
I agree! Definitely if it's biased in your way. Most local newspapers are chicken, though. They're only tough on their own employees.
I think instead of perfect photos that make celebrities, politicos and even average people look interesting or good, they should choose the "outtakes," the one where the subject was inbetween blinks or cutting a fart or taking a drink.
Newspapers are merely afraid of lawsuits, although they have plenty of bias.
The snarky attitude does exist, in tabloids. InTouch magazine is sort of what might happen if a celebrity scandal tabloid were given the 'prestige' budget of People magazine or so. They generally behave, yet still have that attitude that isn't always kind to everyone. Actually, not kiss up or mean either. Such as spreads on pregnant celebrities caught buying a load of pampers. Everybody is normal flawed and happy, rather than glamorized.
I don't think the main issue is about bias as much for me as it is about forgery and fake pictures potraying something that isn't true. It's very sad that news agencies such as Reuters had to deal with "enhanced" pictures.
shouldn't all art have bias? A strong personal opinion and view of the world?
Eddie's post wasn't about art. It was about photojouralism.
There's already plenty of bias in the newspapers these days. Why would we need more?
Post a Comment