||[Aug. 27th, 2006|01:33 am]
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.aspIn the midst of all the hubbub about photo manipulation in Lebanon, I stumbled upon this: |
And wrote this to the webmaster of aish.com:
To whom it may concern at aish.com:
I recently viewed your "Photo fraud in Lebanon" flash movie linked from the photo section of your website. There certainly seem to be some questionable images or organization that you cite in the movie. What concerns me, however, are the presumptions and implications that you raise in the course of the movie--suggesting that no media organizations can be believed, that journalists intentionally alter their photos in an effort to influence public opinion of Hezbollah, or that Mickey Mouse is not an internationally recognized and marketed image that could be expected to be found in a child's collection of toys--or what remains of them. Your movie is clearly aimed at a Jewish market--as is much of your website--and has the effect of implying that mass media is anti-Semitic. This implication is ignorant, and your movie claiming misinformation is itself misinforming. Unfortunately you do not have the good sense to put those photos into context, at the very least by providing caption information and photographer credit with every photo you have cited. Perhaps some of the photos you use are in fact photo illustrations, intentionally set up by the photographer to illustrate a point, and captioned appropriately. Of course, as you are not a news organization, one can hardly expect you to give fair exposure to information that may disprove or dispute your agenda, but without even the context of full captions a simple viewer may assume that you are unabashedly biased. It may also be fair to tell your simple viewer that most of the sources that you list at the end of the movie are conservative, generally anti-media, opinion-oriented blogs.
Ultimately, journalists lying through false words or manipulated photos is damaging to the profession and, as you have pointed out, misinforming to the public that they serve. Poorly researched movies such as the one on your site are also damaging to the profession of journalism and, as you have pointed out, misinforming to the public that you serve and that now, as a result of your movie, make general and generally incorrect assumptions about journalism and what journalists do.
I'm not sure what I expect to come of this, or what inspired me to write it.
Watching that bullshit really pissed me off, and as the site is not quite as much of a blog as the sources that are used for the movie, I felt that writing it might actually mean something to the person who reads it.
Also, I am nervous and antsy about buying a Mark II, and kind of having trouble convincing myself to go to sleep.