Originally posted by tyranny22
F'd and the S.
I don't disagree with your point whatsoever.
But, about this photo ...
I understand why the "manipulation" (if you want to call it that – I'll call it appropriately cropping an image) was done. In the photo the man
that is being detained is clearly no threat to the GI's in the picture. They're giving him water. The soldier standing next to the detainee (with
his knee in the picture) is not holding the gun. Another soldier behind him is holding the gun. It's not pointed at his head. In fact, if the gun
were to go off, the round wouldn't even hit the detainee. It's being held in a safe position. I can tell by the way the M4 is being braced by the
The crop in the photo was correct.
Had the gun been intended to cover the detainee - perhaps intentionally pointed at his head - then I could understand someone calling a crop like this
"manipulation" ... this however, IMO, is not the case.
EDIT: To clarify ... I agree that media manipulation is a constant and vile thing ... however, I think you present a bad example using this image. If
the un-cropped image had been used as an example of brutality or cruel treatment of detainees, then I would argue, as I don't believe this image
shows that. It's just a bad angle.
[edit on 23-2-2010 by tyranny22]
i think you miss the point. as soon as you get into bad angles or the specifics of how his sewcondary hand embraces his gun you are reading 10x as
much into it than most people will. if the photographer sends you (say you work for the msm) a few photos from the event, including the one above. if
the media is presenting the war as being bad regularly, the trooops as being bad, perhaps the government being bad, the general foreign policy as bad
or any number of other things then the msm will have to choose and crop what images they got to best serve their agenda. if they want the public to
think our soldiers are cruel then the pic on the left will be shown. how many people do you really think will star closely at the soldier's secondary
hand embracing the gun to accurately determine what the soldier is doing? less than 1% i think you can safely say. at a quick glance all the left
image looks like is a man being held down with a gun pointed to his head.
similarly if the paper is conservative and they think the army is not harsh enough with 'the enemy' then they can show the pic on the right to make
it seem like the army is worrying more about helping the enemy than killing them.
whatever the agenda will be will vary from picture to picture and story to story and each depending on news source too. what this thread is trying to
prove is how easily people will be fooled into seeing one thing because the media manipulate and decide which parts of which images are acceptable for
whatever message they wish to put across. and like it or not, 99% of people won't see the left image and suspect that the guy is being treated nicely
and getting water or help, after all why would you think that when you can't see it happening?
for those who think cropping is not manipulation you are missing the point. the message and the things people will deduct from looking at the image
can be totally put one side or another entirely depending on cropping and that is inherently manipulative of the media since they are limiting that
which you can see and choosing it to give you a specific thought about what you are seeing. the images above demonstrate that quite excellently.