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 citizen journalism. Photos just don't cut it anymore. You have to see more than one photo from a different source before believing the original photo. The same is happening with video. (See this Microsoft Technology Demonstration video for a peek at what's to come: http://research.microsoft.com/unwrap/rkrf_short.wmv) Photos and videos are now no more trustworthy than a regular story about a fishing trip. It's not so much scary as predictable. inevitable. Until a new method of capturing an event appears that is too difficult to manipulate, (holographic technology?) we'll have to just check multiple sources. BBC, Al Jazeera, Globe and Mail, New York Times, Blogs, Vlogs, etc What Bill said about a photo album of a party is an excellent example of how one source can never be enough. Russia vs. Georgia is an excellent example of how twisted a story can get. You'll want to read about it or hear about it from sources you've grown to trust. However It's never enough to just ask one trusted source. Ask your best friend Sam. The most educated, well informed guy you know and he'll still have a skewed view of things. Read the BBC, a well trusted source and you'll still only get part of the story. Even in the time before "photoshopping" produced realistic photographs, that photo of John couldn't alone be considered the smoking gun because it could have been John just fooling around, making jokes. There's no reason to fear what technology is capable of. It's more about fearing, or rather, expecting what people have always been capable of. p On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 only smoke, and then I post that to > the internet for all to see, when they turn on their televisions and > still see images of a building burning, it becomes unbelievable. > > Fast forward a year, to today, and we have Qik and other on-the-fly > services, where we can LIVECAST stuff mere seconds after they actually > happen. So the problem is that there are checks and balances now. > The News isn't the only source of footage or commentary. > > Just this morning, I found out that Brian Conley and Jeff Rae were > detained in China YESTERDAY! That wasn't possible back in the day. > There are too many people with too many eyes on too many things and > too many outlets for immediately getting that information to others > for journalists who specialize in spinning stories to remain credible > if they keep it up. > > Bill Cammack > http://billcammack.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture, >> etc....that 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 to always distrust what we see, >> unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it. >> Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone away....and >> that's sad... >> >> Heath >> http://batmangeek.com >> http://heathparks.com >> >> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" >> <billcammack@> wrote: >> > >> > 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 video... a live, unedited stream... it's still >> > subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always >> > ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing >> > the video wanted to portray. >> > >> > For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits >> actual >> > huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major >> city, >> > they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to >> > show. Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room >> floor. >> > Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might >> hit >> > the cutting room floor. >> > >> > I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do >> > it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City, >> > surrounded by high-rise buildings. OR... I could stand inside the >> > park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, >> and >> > you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I >> > filmed that. >> > >> > So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though >> > there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted >> to "sell" >> > something to an audience. I'm saying that since it's humans that >> are >> > selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the >> > sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by >> their >> > perception of what they want it to portray. >> > >> > Bill Cammack >> > http://billcammack.com >> > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: >> > > >> > > But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you >> the >> > > information, I think that helps....I do think people at one time >> > > trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etc....I think for a >> variety >> > > of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come >> > > back....hopefully >> > > >> > > Heath >> > > http://batmangeek.com >> > > http://heathparks.com >> > > >> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" >> > > <billcammack@> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > 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 >> > > pics, >> > > > you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, >> because >> > > I >> > > > didn't take pictures of everyone there. My goal wasn't to >> document >> > > > the party, objectively. My goal was to document the good times >> I >> > > had >> > > > and the people I had them with. So it's basically a spin. >> > > > >> > > > Same thing with news reporting. You can interview 20 people >> and >> > > have >> > > > 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them >> respond >> > > > negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, >> the >> > > > final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', >> making it >> > > > look like the vast majority of people polled responded >> positively. >> > > > >> > > > Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can >> trust the >> > > > person that created the media or was in charge of Executive >> > > Producing >> > > > it and signing off on it before it goes out the door. >> > > > >> > > > <http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013- >> how-to- >> > > properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/> >> > > > >> > > > Bill Cammack >> > > > http://billcammack.com >> > > > >> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think >> it >> > > also >> > > > > applies to video as well. I always think about criminal >> cases, >> > > when >> > > > > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired >> > > results? >> > > > > This is the stuff that scares me about technology, >> especiality >> > > > > digital tech.... >> > > > > >> > > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989 >> > > > > >> > > > > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of >> Montauk, >> > > N.Y., >> > > > > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the >> > > > > photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog >> > > Gawker, >> > > > > local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox >> News >> > > > > quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly >> this >> > > > > unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as >> Discover >> > > > > Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that >> had >> > > > > decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was >> simply >> > > fake, >> > > > > a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media >> had >> > > been >> > > > > duped. >> > > > > >> > > > > The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe >> what >> > > > > they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, >> > > Beijing >> > > > > organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" >> and >> > > > > computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to >> > > enhance >> > > > > the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month >> > > before >> > > > > that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on >> > > front >> > > > > pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile >> added >> > > to the >> > > > > image�was outed within hours of the photograph's >> > > publication. "With >> > > > > technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to >> be," >> > > says >> > > > > John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press >> > > > > Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been >> stretched in >> > > so >> > > > > many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of >> faith >> > > in >> > > > > us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for >> > > > > photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is >> > > > > particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the >> > > photojournalist to >> > > > > tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just >> like >> > > we >> > > > > trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, >> we're >> > > going >> > > > > to have to develop that same relationship with >> photographers," he >> > > > > says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the >> > > > > credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not >> > > doctored >> > > > > photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how >> > > > > photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts: >> > > > > >> > > > > for the rest of the article follow the link >> > > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989 >> > > > > >> > > > > Heath >> > > > > http://batmangeek.com >> > > > > http://heathparks.com >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
