41 ms·

The image of another tower used in the article is pretty confusing. This <https://apnews.com/article/radio-station-tower-stolen-am-fm-alabama-d16a57daeaf10f473d

by sh79 3y ago

The image of another tower used in the article is pretty confusing. This <https://apnews.com/article/radio-station-tower-stolen-am-fm-alabama-d16a57daeaf10f473df39d628e1fe388 https://apnews.com/article/radio-station-tower-stolen-am-fm-...> one apparently includes the real one, which I think makes the theft appear more within the realms of possibility.

graemep 3y ago
One of my earliest memories of something in the newspapers was, as a teenager, finding out a picture in The Guardian was of any entirely different conflict, more than a decade earlier, albeit in the same country. The media did not really care much about accuracy then, and its even worse now.
- jackfoxy 3y ago
  This is more and more a problem, not just with images. Even most of the higher quality (better researched) Youtube channels are fast and loose about using irrelevant stock footage to go along with their narration. Of course the channels with AI voice-over are universally terrible at this. I know a lot of this is content creators have limited access to good visual content. A naval historiographer I follow will show, for instance, ship photos or archival video that is not exactly the ship or event he is describing. He's probably a solo creator and I'm sure constrained by archival access, and frankly time. One notable exception I have found is this channel https://www.youtube.com/@wildwestfaces https://www.youtube.com/@wildwestfaces The narration is often of first person memoirs of historic events and the images are relevant and sync well with the narration.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    >> A naval historiographer I follow will show, for instance, ship photos or archival video that is not exactly the ship or event he is describing. It isn't about money or resources. Even the biggest budget Hollywood productions regularly pass off incorrect ships in full understanding that most viewers cannot tell a sloop from a brig. Sometimes it is about cost or practicality, but more often it is about which ship comports with audience expectations.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Which, in my books, invalidates either as a learning resource. I mean, as a viewer, if I spot a naval historiographer routinely using wrong footage, then how certain can I be they're not also playing fast and loose with what they're saying? After all, the only piece of clear evidence that I have points towards them not caring. As for what "comports with audience expectations", maybe this is an extreme position, but to me, intentionally choosing something incorrect but more recognizable is gaslighting at scale - it reinforces the misconception in those already exposed, and introduces it to those new (usually young) to a topic.
      - jackfoxy 3y ago
        Drachinifel is pretty darned knowledgeable. I imagine its not that easy to get enough footage of some American WWII destroyer that is NOT a Fletcher class, (as a made up example), to fill out an entire 45 minute narration. And there's a shit ton of work that goes into a video that long for a solo creator. Now, the abysmal nature of name brand corporate history videos is another matter.
        setr 3y ago
        acoup typically shows whatever image he can, and then states how close it is to the actual thing he was trying to talk about (and where it deviates) in roughly a single sentence — I’m not sure it’s actually that hard to fit in. In a video format, I’d probably expect it as a text-disclaimer on the image for anyone who cared. Not doing so is exactly the same as the Hollywood thing; focusing on the narrative rather than the actual teaching, which seems to me psychotic behavior for anything purporting to teach. If you’re misrepresenting the image of the object for narrative convenience, the immediate question is how much of the other material has been butchered for that same convenience? The priorities are out of order. It’s a violation of viewer trust, and it’s only acceptable in the sense that the viewer often doesn’t know they’ve been tricked… because they were viewing it for the precise reason that they don’t have the knowledge to differentiate between a truth and a lie on that subject
      - sandworm101 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- seadan83 3y ago
  A single example of one inaccuracy many years ago is not evidence for (at least as far as the Guardian is concerned): "The media did not really care much about accuracy then, and its even worse now." To say that, you would also need to know the actual accuracy rate of media over time. I don't think anyone really knows that without perhaps having done a PhD thesis on the topic. What's more, good media publishes citations & corrections: https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections They will correct things like that when pointed out. On the other hand, honest mistakes of the wrong photo is not that uncommon. In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo. I did not read the article and immediately think, "Oh yeah, random tower in the middle of nowhere USA, this is for sure a picture of that tower". Perhaps just me.. Regardless, on wrong image, I've certainly noted that a few times - for example reading protest signs that are clearly for a different time/issue than what is being documented (EG: protests in Russia in like 2010s and the news was running images from things that happened 15 & 20 years earlier).
  - 1over137 3y ago
    >In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo. God forbid they just write their article with no photo at all. Better to use a wrong one apparently.
    - seadan83 3y ago
      > Better to use a wrong one apparently. I think this is hypercritical. If there is a story about some dolphin, if there is a picture of 'any' dolphin to give context, is that then the "wrong one" and suddenly a ding against the newspapers accuracy worthy of running a correct? Particularly when there is a context line stating "this is just a random dolphin to give you an image of a dolphin." > Better to use a wrong one apparently. Humans are very visual creatures - in some ways - yes. Even conceding that the picture is the "wrong" one, which again I think is a hypercritical judgment.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      this captures a meta-observation very well.. a "PhD" worth of knowledge is needed to discern, but publishing a stock photo for a news item is incentivized to be a moment's decision. Compare and contrast to "any idiot can ask hard questions that take days to reply correctly to" .. there is a power asymmetry at work in the public eye. Guideropes and economic assumptions disappearing into a sand-storm of digital information. basically, not looking good for the future of reliable media
flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
The caption is infuriating: > "A different radio tower, which has presumably not been stolen"
- cutemonster 3y ago
  I think it's a good caption? I also think it's probably not been stolen
- brookst 3y ago
  Why is that infuriating? It’s accurate, acknowledges the suboptimal photo choice (or availability), and has some humor. As an editor, given this as your only photo choice, what caption would you write?
  - wly_cdgr 3y ago
    Question is moot because I would just do my job to the minimum acceptable standard of competence by sourcing a picture of the actual tower
    - fbdab103 3y ago
      So...a picture of some random sky? Maybe draw an outline of what the tower would look like if it were there?
      - 1over137 3y ago
        'Artist renditions' are used for space news, criminal descriptions, etc. maybe not such a crazy idea here.
        fbdab103 3y ago
        Sure, for high profile things. This is the daily news and a mild curiosity which is hardly worth the resources. Show a picture of a similar model tower, annotate it as such, and I have now have a sense of the difficulty in cutting it down.
trbleclef 3y ago
The one in the article looks like a stripped down Long Lines[0] microwave tower, not anything at all like a radio broadcasting tower. [0]https://long-lines.com/ https://long-lines.com/
dang 3y ago
("the article" referred to by parent is https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/alabama-200ft-radio-tower-stolen https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/alabama-200f.... We merged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39311852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39311852 hither)

by sh79 3y ago

graemep 3y ago

One of my earliest memories of something in the newspapers was, as a teenager, finding out a picture in The Guardian was of any entirely different conflict, more than a decade earlier, albeit in the same country. The media did not really care much about accuracy then, and its even worse now.

jackfoxy 3y ago
This is more and more a problem, not just with images. Even most of the higher quality (better researched) Youtube channels are fast and loose about using irrelevant stock footage to go along with their narration. Of course the channels with AI voice-over are universally terrible at this. I know a lot of this is content creators have limited access to good visual content. A naval historiographer I follow will show, for instance, ship photos or archival video that is not exactly the ship or event he is describing. He's probably a solo creator and I'm sure constrained by archival access, and frankly time. One notable exception I have found is this channel https://www.youtube.com/@wildwestfaces https://www.youtube.com/@wildwestfaces The narration is often of first person memoirs of historic events and the images are relevant and sync well with the narration.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> A naval historiographer I follow will show, for instance, ship photos or archival video that is not exactly the ship or event he is describing. It isn't about money or resources. Even the biggest budget Hollywood productions regularly pass off incorrect ships in full understanding that most viewers cannot tell a sloop from a brig. Sometimes it is about cost or practicality, but more often it is about which ship comports with audience expectations.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Which, in my books, invalidates either as a learning resource. I mean, as a viewer, if I spot a naval historiographer routinely using wrong footage, then how certain can I be they're not also playing fast and loose with what they're saying? After all, the only piece of clear evidence that I have points towards them not caring. As for what "comports with audience expectations", maybe this is an extreme position, but to me, intentionally choosing something incorrect but more recognizable is gaslighting at scale - it reinforces the misconception in those already exposed, and introduces it to those new (usually young) to a topic.
    - jackfoxy 3y ago
      Drachinifel is pretty darned knowledgeable. I imagine its not that easy to get enough footage of some American WWII destroyer that is NOT a Fletcher class, (as a made up example), to fill out an entire 45 minute narration. And there's a shit ton of work that goes into a video that long for a solo creator. Now, the abysmal nature of name brand corporate history videos is another matter.
      - setr 3y ago
        acoup typically shows whatever image he can, and then states how close it is to the actual thing he was trying to talk about (and where it deviates) in roughly a single sentence — I’m not sure it’s actually that hard to fit in. In a video format, I’d probably expect it as a text-disclaimer on the image for anyone who cared. Not doing so is exactly the same as the Hollywood thing; focusing on the narrative rather than the actual teaching, which seems to me psychotic behavior for anything purporting to teach. If you’re misrepresenting the image of the object for narrative convenience, the immediate question is how much of the other material has been butchered for that same convenience? The priorities are out of order. It’s a violation of viewer trust, and it’s only acceptable in the sense that the viewer often doesn’t know they’ve been tricked… because they were viewing it for the precise reason that they don’t have the knowledge to differentiate between a truth and a lie on that subject
    - sandworm101 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seadan83 3y ago
A single example of one inaccuracy many years ago is not evidence for (at least as far as the Guardian is concerned): "The media did not really care much about accuracy then, and its even worse now." To say that, you would also need to know the actual accuracy rate of media over time. I don't think anyone really knows that without perhaps having done a PhD thesis on the topic. What's more, good media publishes citations & corrections: https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections They will correct things like that when pointed out. On the other hand, honest mistakes of the wrong photo is not that uncommon. In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo. I did not read the article and immediately think, "Oh yeah, random tower in the middle of nowhere USA, this is for sure a picture of that tower". Perhaps just me.. Regardless, on wrong image, I've certainly noted that a few times - for example reading protest signs that are clearly for a different time/issue than what is being documented (EG: protests in Russia in like 2010s and the news was running images from things that happened 15 & 20 years earlier).
- 1over137 3y ago
  >In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo. God forbid they just write their article with no photo at all. Better to use a wrong one apparently.
  - seadan83 3y ago
    > Better to use a wrong one apparently. I think this is hypercritical. If there is a story about some dolphin, if there is a picture of 'any' dolphin to give context, is that then the "wrong one" and suddenly a ding against the newspapers accuracy worthy of running a correct? Particularly when there is a context line stating "this is just a random dolphin to give you an image of a dolphin." > Better to use a wrong one apparently. Humans are very visual creatures - in some ways - yes. Even conceding that the picture is the "wrong" one, which again I think is a hypercritical judgment.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    this captures a meta-observation very well.. a "PhD" worth of knowledge is needed to discern, but publishing a stock photo for a news item is incentivized to be a moment's decision. Compare and contrast to "any idiot can ask hard questions that take days to reply correctly to" .. there is a power asymmetry at work in the public eye. Guideropes and economic assumptions disappearing into a sand-storm of digital information. basically, not looking good for the future of reliable media

flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago

The caption is infuriating: > "A different radio tower, which has presumably not been stolen"

cutemonster 3y ago
I think it's a good caption? I also think it's probably not been stolen
brookst 3y ago
Why is that infuriating? It’s accurate, acknowledges the suboptimal photo choice (or availability), and has some humor. As an editor, given this as your only photo choice, what caption would you write?
- wly_cdgr 3y ago
  Question is moot because I would just do my job to the minimum acceptable standard of competence by sourcing a picture of the actual tower
  - fbdab103 3y ago
    So...a picture of some random sky? Maybe draw an outline of what the tower would look like if it were there?
    - 1over137 3y ago
      'Artist renditions' are used for space news, criminal descriptions, etc. maybe not such a crazy idea here.
      - fbdab103 3y ago
        Sure, for high profile things. This is the daily news and a mild curiosity which is hardly worth the resources. Show a picture of a similar model tower, annotate it as such, and I have now have a sense of the difficulty in cutting it down.

trbleclef 3y ago

The one in the article looks like a stripped down Long Lines[0] microwave tower, not anything at all like a radio broadcasting tower. [0]https://long-lines.com/ https://long-lines.com/

dang 3y ago

("the article" referred to by parent is https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/alabama-200ft-radio-tower-stolen https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/alabama-200f.... We merged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39311852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39311852 hither)