> does anyone really believe a photograph is a perfect recreation of truth? While people might be aware at some level that photography isn't truth, photography

> does anyone really believe a photograph is a perfect recreation of truth? While people might be aware at some level that photography isn't truth, photography is certainly used a heck of a lot to present "truth", even when it's not. News media is assumed to at least try to stay closed to the truth and is full of photographs, and more often than not, it's completely fake. Be it due to framing, subject selection or just plain use of stock photos that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. What I find frustrating is that you absolutely can use photos to present truth or at least try to get close to it, but that means using lots of them, different angles, time lapse, tagging them with date and time and so on. No news media ever does that. They all use singular photos. They don't show you video of the same event even when it exists. They don't show you multiple angles. And they don't even show you all the other photos the photographer made at the event, only the prettiest ones, all the rest goes into the archive or trash bin. Given that we are no longer limited by the space on a paper newspaper it's frustrating how little we actually use what modern technology offers. This goes of course beyond just news, even product photos could use a few more camera angles. They never show you the full thing you are actually buying (packaging, accessories, backside, etc.), but only some very limited view on it.