3 ms·

I feel that you're rushing to judgement and assuming the worst. The article sings his praises. The photograph isn't the best, but perhaps it was an attempt to

I feel that you're rushing to judgement and assuming the worst. The article sings his praises. The photograph isn't the best, but perhaps it was an attempt to illustrate his quirky and iconoclastic nature. I fully agree with you that this is a sad loss. Much too soon.

dang 6y ago
You may be right - I'm certainly making an interpretation there. Edit: I realized something about my priors in this case. I've long had the sense that flattering vs. unflattering photo choices are a powerful way by which newspapers (or some faction of editors within them—I don't know how newspapers work) express a pre-existing agenda.
- k1m 6y ago
  The photo choice struck me as a cheap shot too. But I don't know who's responsible for that at the Guardian. I assumed knowing his views on the Guardian they didn't try very hard when it came to the photo.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    It’s worth remembering that The Guardian, like most large organisations, is comprised of individuals who may vary quite significantly from the position of the entity overall. This article may be a reflection of that. DISCLAIMER: I’m a subscriber.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  I think you're probably right. If the subject's photograph is unflattering the content of the article skews negative. For example, just look at any article where the person has their mouth open and is making the 'Ch' or the 'Ooo' sound - it's always negative.
- echelon 6y ago
  This is why it's hard to be a human. We jump to conclusions, but we're not always unwarranted. It'd be better to live in a world where we didn't have to suspect ulterior motives. But alas, hill climbing in an adversarial landscape while continually being preempted and distracted seems to be our lot in life. It's no wonder we're a bit grumpy.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Those things are not accidents.
- FatalLogic 6y ago
  >I've long had the sense that flattering vs. unflattering photo choices are a powerful way by which newspapers (or some faction of editors within them—I don't know how newspapers work) express a pre-existing agenda. Don't always ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence (or time pressure on deadline). But deliberately choosing unflattering photos is certainly something that happens. It may often be the choice of an individual with an ax to grind, and no oversight, not an implicit policy of the organization

dang 6y ago

You may be right - I'm certainly making an interpretation there. Edit: I realized something about my priors in this case. I've long had the sense that flattering vs. unflattering photo choices are a powerful way by which newspapers (or some faction of editors within them—I don't know how newspapers work) express a pre-existing agenda.

k1m 6y ago
The photo choice struck me as a cheap shot too. But I don't know who's responsible for that at the Guardian. I assumed knowing his views on the Guardian they didn't try very hard when it came to the photo.
- phs318u 6y ago
  It’s worth remembering that The Guardian, like most large organisations, is comprised of individuals who may vary quite significantly from the position of the entity overall. This article may be a reflection of that. DISCLAIMER: I’m a subscriber.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
I think you're probably right. If the subject's photograph is unflattering the content of the article skews negative. For example, just look at any article where the person has their mouth open and is making the 'Ch' or the 'Ooo' sound - it's always negative.
echelon 6y ago
This is why it's hard to be a human. We jump to conclusions, but we're not always unwarranted. It'd be better to live in a world where we didn't have to suspect ulterior motives. But alas, hill climbing in an adversarial landscape while continually being preempted and distracted seems to be our lot in life. It's no wonder we're a bit grumpy.
jacquesm 6y ago
Those things are not accidents.
FatalLogic 6y ago
>I've long had the sense that flattering vs. unflattering photo choices are a powerful way by which newspapers (or some faction of editors within them—I don't know how newspapers work) express a pre-existing agenda. Don't always ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence (or time pressure on deadline). But deliberately choosing unflattering photos is certainly something that happens. It may often be the choice of an individual with an ax to grind, and no oversight, not an implicit policy of the organization