For a long time, photos could be considered the smoking gun. If you
were told: John is gay. You'd probably ask around before believing
it but if you saw a photo that's all you needed.
Photos have quickly become unreliable and we've had to go back to the
tried and true method of investigative
Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture,
etcthat holds true...however, I think it was always
a spin...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the
people who were delivering the news, in whatever form. Now we have
all become so jaded that we seem
That's because previously, we didn't have a choice.
If the news told you that Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a building
and that that building was currently on fire, you had no choice but to
believe it. However, if I go down there and FILM the actual building
with no flames coming from it and
I agree with the comments on considering the source and hopefully
their reputation is deserved. Basically the video, or media, itself is
not to be trusted, its the source that makes the video to be believed.
Here's an example of an easily faked set of pictures that I trusted
due to the
Nothing's believable, really.
Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being spun
most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my
friends and my acquaintances. Therefore, if you see the set of
But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the
information, I think that helpsI do think people at one time
trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etcI think for a variety
of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come
backhopefully
Heath
Yes. I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
their information to be accepted and absorbed. This includes the
commercials.
I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
purest form of
