One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders.
In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
Alternately, it reflects the tenor of the story and the facts it contains. You could say this is inappropriate editorializing, but that makes the obviously absurd implication that fraud is a neutral thing, and that there are many good kinds of fraud in additional to the bad ones.
If you're reporting clear facts about something unambiguously bad, then it's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article.
It's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article, but that's not what the parent is questioning. If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. An unflattering photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.
> If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves
Photos, are not based on facts. There is no such thing as a 'neutral' photo - all photographs are editorialized. Timing, framing, composition, lighting, contrast are among the hundreds of variables that contribute to a photo. Most news organisation are well of this and they allow post-processing of photos (to different extents). I would say an unflattering photo goes well with an unflattering article.
If facts could speak for themselves you wouldn't need journalists to put them into words, photojournalists to render them in pictures, editors to package stories, and publishers to deliver them to millions.
Of course it's important for the people in that process to be judicious and scrupulous about their handling of the facts so they can deliver material that provides reliable impressions. But showing unflattering pictures of people found to have done seriously unflattering things isn't some egregious departure from these requirements. Indeed, to the extent that a picture can say a thousand words, it's a useful - and generally appreciated - bit of data compression.
I think it's equivalent to ad hominem, pushing in a direction that should be irrelevant. This example isn't egregious (I didn't have any particular reaction to the picture, personally), but it's unsavory to attempt to build a negative association by spotlighting someone's unflattering physical characteristics.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I just took issue with the suggestion that an unflattering picture somehow supports an article about shady business practices.
I don't see the unflattering aspect here, to we want her perfectly done up with makeup and hair? that too would insinuate a disconnect from common people. in the picture I saw my take away was she was trying to explain a situation and nicely at that.
is this all a male perception of a problem they fully do not understand and therefor think they know how its perceived by the opposite sex?
To be clear, I have no opinion about this photo (see my other comments on this thread). * Original commenter highlights their observation that the degree to which a photo is 'flattering' is correlated with the author's desired characterization of the story subject.
* Child commenter responds that it is reasonable to attempt to sway the reader's opinion by including an unflattering photo.
* I respond that I don't think this is fair.
The question related to gender seems to be somewhat out-of-left-field
The exact same argument applies to any photo: If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. A photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.
My claim may have been somewhat unclear. More precisely... a photo that is intended to portray the subject's physical characteristics in a negative light has no place supporting an article about the subject's non-physical characteristics. Photos are great for adding informational content to new stories (e.g. http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/wabc/images/cms/1408319_1...).
No, but if all you really want to do is add some visuals and show what the CEO of the company looks like, why not just grab the default portrait photo from the company press pack?
And that photo isn't a manipulation? The press kit photos are designed specifically to portray executives in a competent, flattering light. THAT is manipulation of an even more devious sort -- if the company is doing something wrong, showing smiling, in-control executives when that isn't reality -- that's public relations, not Journalism; it misleads the public in drawing a conclusion of trustworthiness when that isn't warranted by the story.
As a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly (a "neurotic and delusional powerful woman out of control" -- not my opinion, just what the photo conveys), than to add a spin to a story that's already independently and factually spun in a very clear direction.
The use FoxNews does of this photo-picking with President Obama or liberal politicians is much worse. Or check the tabloids, they're masters at that.
This one? Just fine.
I also want to point out that the picture is all but an outtake. Photography agencies publish photos like this on their online collections all the time, they won't discard them. Exactly because they know outlets may pick them for a story where they would fit.
But it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.
I'm just going to go ahead and disagree. This is journalism and news in 2016. (I'm also including people's blog write-ups that they or others submit.) On tech and fundraising issues, I'd say HN and yhe niche blog posts submitted, do count for a kind of journalism.
Fair enough. there's no good word for people giving lots of facts in a blogpost that is meant to be informative, open to comments, includes updates and good-faith efforts to be informative and correct. it may not be journalism, but people read these blog posts and these posts have huge weight. I don't think there's historical precedent for this kind of self-publishing, so not sure the terminology has caught up, but I'll concede your point regarding the specific term 'journalism'.
Would you include in 'journalism' very badly-written articles that are done by a writer collecting or reporting on sources (example: reporting on a tweet and its responses), while using horrific grammar and being very low-quality? You know the kind of link-bait 'articles' I'm talking about - I wonder if you would consider that part of journalism or not.
You just argued that mainstream media has rules, that they problems they bring in are well-understood, and independent media is untrustworthy. You provided evidence for two of them. You did not in any way show mainstream media to be more trustworthy than independent media. If anything, they're clearly not due to all the times they've been caught manipulating their audiences, lying, or even justifying a right to lie. They're both untrustworthy and consistently subversive in how they do things.
So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two. It's what I have to do if I rely on the mainstream sources. It's been clear on a regular basis that their goal is to hold interest of specific demographics to keep them looking at ads rather than inform them. They're also very prone to self-censorship of anything that gets in the way of that due to cash flow.
> So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two.
That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources.
You know about the Theranos fraud because mainstream media, The Wall Street Journal - the largest newspaper in the country - thoroughly exposed them.
"That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources."
This is not what the mainstream media does. What it does is start with the biases and goals of the organization that targets the beliefs and wants of particular viewers. The journalists will have run into this trying to get things by editors in the past. Then, they'll begin on their peace which may use any combination of sources to support its claims with little presented for alternative opinions. They even like to cite "anonymous sources" to push total bullshit. They'll then present the story.
Sometimes I see well-researched stories that cover most odds and ends. Most of the time I see them reporting whatever they saw or heard from one source with their own slant. The funny thing about your comments is that even most viewers of these organizations I run into know they're extremely biased. They'll say "What else do you expect from (Huffington Post or Fox News here)? They always push that (liberal/conservative) BS!" They just think the bias of their preferred outlet is correct most of the time. Of course, that's all the info they see too. ;)
Because mainstream media's biases are beholden to the companies and government people causing us many problems. They also self-suppress critical stuff that could result in reform if it had people's attention. They also have this weird habit of running and heavily covering shock stories when critical legislation or business events are happening, making citizens miss the chance to act on it.
A media more independent from corporate and government interests would have less of these issues. Especially suppression. Then it's just a matter of gauging accuracy and bias of each.
I didnt say they do nothing of benefit. I use them since they're most of what we have. Your claim also doesnt counter mine in any way. Large, well-funded, independent media wouldve done the same thing if we had that instead. Further, it would be more likely as MSM continues to shift from journalism to just sharing anything that will get views. Most MSM just copies stories of relatively few journalists since that generates the most ad revenue at the lowest cost.
I agree on the independent-trustworthy fallacy. Many 'independent' journalists are highly dependent on foundation grants or other funding from some rather biased billionaires. NPR is listener (and taxpayer) funded. Since the majority of the listeners are of a certain political party, it follows that NPR won't challenge the orthodoxy of the hands that feed them.
Eh, I see where you're going. There's two ways to look at that, though. One is worrying about her sanity. The other is thinking she's an energetic, ambitious person pushing her product and company. You'll see a lot of what's in the photos if you ever delve into the world of sales teams and marketing execs. ;)
The profession is about enthusiasm and confidence. So, many people there are constantly smiling, wide-eyed, vigorously shaking your hand like you're their lost brother, telling you how happy you'll be with the product, and so on. Many of them. They're also usually successful to some degree.
Photo choice is one of the most effective editorial tools a publication has. For example, do they show a photo of the person as a child, wearing a suit, or casual clothes posed with a weapon? Each is technically the same person, but all will prejudice your view towards the subject.
I actually don't care about her appearance, and it's not being too clever. Editors pick specific photos for reasons often subconscious ones. You can look at a photo used in a story and see the basic prejudice of the editorial. Ignoring information provided is a poor way to evaluate the source. That the same photo is used often is a data point. Thinking everything is about a woman's appearance in a photo ignores a whole class of information. Your HN Challenge is a call for ignorance which I'll skip.
Editorializing (i.e. opinions) should stay in the opinion pieces, not be mixed in with reporting of facts. It calls the trustworthiness of the entire rest of the article in question. (Although i guess it's kinda nice if it's done blatantly so you already know in advance the article is particularly untrustworthy.)
> Editorializing (i.e. opinions) should stay in the opinion pieces, not be mixed in with reporting of facts.
preaching to the choir
> It calls the trustworthiness of the entire rest of the article in question. (Although i guess it's kinda nice if it's done blatantly so you already know in advance the article is particularly untrustworthy.)
In a lot of ways it is subconscious, but not always. If you take a objective view and look at US Presidential 2016 race articles, you get a pretty good feel for the base opinion of the editors from the picture they use of the candidates.
Every news outlet has a prejudice, and I find the choice of images to be one of the easy ways to communicate that to you. If you look for it, you can gear your reaction to the information provided.
> it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.
Yep. And I wonder what David Paul Morris [1] thinks of having his work used in this manner. It doesn't reflect well upon him as a photographer that's for sure.
You clearly don't know anything about the news photo business or photojournalism for that matter. It's not grip-and-grin posed ribbon cuttings and staged portraits for annual reports. It's photojournalism. An AP wire story written quickly about an explosion isn't going to have the literary gravitas of James Joyce. That doesn't mean that the AP writer is 'incompetent.' They're doing completely different work. Rarely you do get a Hemingway-level reporter or photojournalist that can elevate the mundane to high art, but those photographers aren't getting assigned to Theranos stories but stories of more value than some quick corporate headshot.
When I shot for Reuters (1996-2002) some of my most 'boring' images played all over the world and my favorite photos only occasionally made the wire. Did I look incompetent? I don't really care; My byline in The NY Times for a crap photo was much more valuable than the 'perfect' photo nobody sees.
Pro news photographers don't care; they aren't trying to audition to be your wedding photographer, they're chasing news and not giving a second thought to where some quick corporate headshot is running.
I'm not sure how Bloomberg News stores/sells their photos, but on a service like Getty Images, you'll find plenty of b-roll type images, because some clients will want "normal" photos, or alternate angles. Here's the Getty results for Elizabeth Holmes: http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/elizabeth-holmes?family=ed...
In any case, it's not the publication's job to make someone look good or glamorous. It's not the most flattering photo of Holmes but it's not terribly off from what she normally looks like (in general, photos of someone while they're talking/eating aren't going to be ideal, in terms of attractiveness).
No, the photo makes the subject look odd it does not make the photographer look incompetent. The fact that the picture was used by the WSJ shows the picture is good enough for publication.
I've been reading some US political news on a reddit app recently, and you can pinpoint the spin from the thumbnail photo better than the headline in most cases.
Would be an interesting art project to collect them all together get people to rate the images on some scale and display a visual political gradient.
It's not just founders, think about the pictures of Obama and O.J. where they were made blacker. Or the images of James Holmes or Saddam.
People will actually complain and threaten to kill the magazine editors if they don't make the 'bad guys' look evil enough; look at what happened with the Rolling Stone photo of the Boston Marathon bomber.
The problem with the Boston thing is that RS put them on the cover -- essentially giving them one of the most honored spots in music. That's what people were mad about -- elevating monsters and putting them at the same level as you might Bono.
They weren't complaining about the saturation or hue.
> elevating monsters and putting them at the same level as you might Bono.
I disagree with the dehumanization of people who do dispicable things (e.g. the Boston Bomber or Nazis) - they were not monsters but humans like you and I; only with very warped belief systems. There danger is that categorizing them as monsters will limit our understanding of how they come about and/or how to prevent this from recurring in the future.
On the issue of appearing on a magazine cover - I do not think the glamorizing was intentianal. Good-looking people dominate covers, and monster or not, the dude was good looking. Hitler was once Time magazine "Man of the Year" - they were not lionizing him, but only declaring he had made the greatest impact of the year.
The most hilarious example of this I've seen is a forbes article where they managed to dig up a picture of Warren Buffet with a psychopath-like expression on his face for some type of investigation a subsidiary company he invested in was under.
