October 3, 2005

ONE FOR THE ZOMBIES:

Picturing the debate (Dick Rogers, October 2, 2005, SF Chronicle)

THE CHRONICLE'S coverage of an anti-war demonstration last weekend was itself the cause of protest. The focus was a 1 1/2-inch by 1 3/4-inch photograph that ran Sunday in the paper and on the home page of its Web site, SFGate.com.

In complaints to me, to several reporters, to the managing editor and to the editor of SF Gate, e-mailers asserted that the paper had manipulated a front-page picture of a young San Francisco protester by cropping out radical imagery nearby. By doing so, they said, the paper was propagandizing, part of an effort to falsely portray the demonstration as centrist.

The reaction was prompted by a Web site called "Zombietime," which posted its own picture of the protester. It was a more distant, wide-angle view that showed Palestinian flags, other protesters similarly wearing "terrorist-style bandannas covering their faces," and a woman seeming to direct the group. She was wearing a red T-shirt with a yellow star on the back -- symbol of the flag of Vietnam.

Like a proton in a particle accelerator, the complaint spun quickly around the Internet. Jim Sparkman, who runs the anti-Chronicle Web site ChronWatch, wrote in his blog that "the editors got caught with their hand in the bias cookie jar."

Most of those who wrote to me accepted the Zombietime indictment as prima facie evidence of the paper's guilt. But after reading the arguments and examining the photographs, I thought the argument fell apart.

Set aside the contention that The Chronicle photo was a politically driven effort to distort (which would have involved at least one senior editor, the photo editor, the photographer, the layout desk and probably a handful of other co-conspirators). Consider just this: The allegedly more honest picture shows the protester at a distance, part of a group of similar demonstrators who could be seen, but were little more than part of a crowd. The Chronicle photograph closes in tightly on the teenager, riveting the reader on the bandanna mask, the steely-eyed gaze and the raised, clinched fist -- which the other picture doesn't show at all.


It's a novel arguiment that purposefully removing all negative context conveys pertinent information more clearly.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 3, 2005 2:18 PM
Comments

It's the same old boring argument that the PASSION that someone FEELS somehow bestows legitimacy on what they are PASSIONATE about (as long as "someone" is a lefty, of course...).

Posted by: b at October 3, 2005 2:27 PM

b:

I think it's a consequence of relativism gone amok; if there is no objective reality, whatever is believe must be true, and whatever is believed most strongly must be most strongly true.

Posted by: Mike Earl at October 3, 2005 3:02 PM

"allegedly" more honest picture?

At least they responded and somewhat quickly. and weaseled out.

Posted by: Sandy P at October 3, 2005 3:04 PM

Basically, their argument was our reality is better than your reality, and our reality doesn't have any room for context that would change what we want you to feel about this picture.

Posted by: John at October 3, 2005 3:22 PM

Truth means literally less than nothing to those people. Truth is a bourgiose affectation, to be displaced by higher truth. Only bullets matter.

Posted by: Lou Gots at October 3, 2005 4:53 PM

Look at it this way: if it had been a pro-war demonstration, and the choreographer had been wearing Klan robes or a swastika instead of a Communist t-shirt, does anyone think the SF Chronicle would have handled the photo in the same way?

Posted by: PapayaSF at October 3, 2005 6:57 PM

I'm surprised that the anchoring assumption, for those who don't accept the Chronicle's explanation, seems to be that a masked person with a raised, clenched fist at an anti-war rally is NOT already a negative image.

The complaint is thus simply that the Chronicle didn't run a negative enough photo.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 3, 2005 9:23 PM

Well, well, it seems that the Chronicle DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE THE BIG PICTURE, eh?

You can argue till the cows come home whether additional facts are 'relevant', but only by tossing the additional facts in and seeing what happens will you really know.

The additional context provided by the Zombietime photos wouldn't have affected the opinions of the Right or the Left. It's the MIDDLE that both sides are after.

The fact is, the Chronicle focussed on a YOUNG PERSON. The extrema to which youth are prone is not only well known, but indulgently tolerated with good humor by the Silent Majority: Fans at football games would come across as scary as well if it wasn't obvious that they were at a sports event.

Close in shot: "Aww, how CUTE. Brings back memories of my youth it does, when I was idealistic."

Pulled back shot: "HOLY SHIT! They're ALL CRAZY!"

Context Matters. We all know it. These guys are professionals. THEY know it too.

Posted by: Ptah at October 4, 2005 4:22 AM
« BUSH IS TOO FAR LEFT, I WANT McCAIN! (via Kevin Whited): | Main | TRADING PLACES: »