7 ms·
Why is that weird? The photo choice manipulates the reader impression just as they intend. Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "bia
by hkmurakami 10y ago
Why is that weird? The photo choice manipulates the reader impression just as they intend.
Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical"
- smegel 10y ago> "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical" Mainstream journalism will also do just fine.
- M_Grey 10y agoImplying that once outside of the "mainstream" journalistic integrity suddenly improves? Nonsense.
- harry8 10y agoImplying that staying inside the "mainstream" journalistic integrity suddenly improving is a false assumption. I don't know that I agree with it, but it's a valid opinion to have that mainstream is no better than elsewhere.
- logicallee 10y agoBut it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.
- M_Grey 10y agoWe're not journalists, this is not a journalistic outlet.
- logicallee 10y agoI'm just going to go ahead and disagree. This is journalism and news in 2016. (I'm also including people's blog write-ups that they or others submit.) On tech and fundraising issues, I'd say HN and yhe niche blog posts submitted, do count for a kind of journalism.
- M_Grey 10y agoOnly by throwing the definition of the word out the window to make a point, could that possibly fly.
- logicallee 10y agoFair enough. there's no good word for people giving lots of facts in a blogpost that is meant to be informative, open to comments, includes updates and good-faith efforts to be informative and correct. it may not be journalism, but people read these blog posts and these posts have huge weight. I don't think there's historical precedent for this kind of self-publishing, so not sure the terminology has caught up, but I'll concede your point regarding the specific term 'journalism'. Would you include in 'journalism' very badly-written articles that are done by a writer collecting or reporting on sources (example: reporting on a tweet and its responses), while using horrific grammar and being very low-quality? You know the kind of link-bait 'articles' I'm talking about - I wonder if you would consider that part of journalism or not.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mozumder 10y ago> HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. Mainstream media has FAR higher journalistic standards than independent media. Major media sites have volumes of books that their reporters follow for their editorial process. AP has a style guide you can buy (and vet). Independent media follow no such journalistic rules. Never trust independent media. Mainstream corporate media is far more trustworthy, since they are a known known. It's such a fallacy to assume that just because it's independent that it's more trustworthy, when the exact opposite is true.
- alexqgb 10y agoAlternately, it reflects the tenor of the story and the facts it contains. You could say this is inappropriate editorializing, but that makes the obviously absurd implication that fraud is a neutral thing, and that there are many good kinds of fraud in additional to the bad ones. If you're reporting clear facts about something unambiguously bad, then it's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article.
- djf1 10y agoIt's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article, but that's not what the parent is questioning. If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. An unflattering photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.
- 36bydesign 10y agoSo no photo is the way to go? Unless the article is about taking photos?
- djf1 10y agoI'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I just took issue with the suggestion that an unflattering picture somehow supports an article about shady business practices.
- Shivetya 10y agoI don't see the unflattering aspect here, to we want her perfectly done up with makeup and hair? that too would insinuate a disconnect from common people. in the picture I saw my take away was she was trying to explain a situation and nicely at that. is this all a male perception of a problem they fully do not understand and therefor think they know how its perceived by the opposite sex?
- 10y ago
- camillomiller 10y agoAs a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly (a "neurotic and delusional powerful woman out of control" -- not my opinion, just what the photo conveys), than to add a spin to a story that's already independently and factually spun in a very clear direction. The use FoxNews does of this photo-picking with President Obama or liberal politicians is much worse. Or check the tabloids, they're masters at that. This one? Just fine. I also want to point out that the picture is all but an outtake. Photography agencies publish photos like this on their online collections all the time, they won't discard them. Exactly because they know outlets may pick them for a story where they would fit.
- NumberCruncher 10y ago>>As a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly As a non journalist this is what I call manipulation.
- celticninja 10y agoThen so is the text.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoDo you feel picking a photo to match the caption is more manipulative than picking a caption to match the photo?
- conjectures 10y ago> the way Holmes is perceived publicly ...which presumably is almost entirely based on what they read or see in the media?
- camillomiller 10y agoDo you know any other way of forming a public opinion about someone you've never met and probably never will?