EXCELLENT!

Communist vietnam flag lady better stay in the Bay area, because if she is any where near Orange Co., she will get her ass kicked. The vietnamese community are extremely militant against this b.s.

"Superb" is a massive understatement.

zombietime can flat out teach.

Sweet.

Almost good enough to make me forgive him for introducing me to Inflated Scrotum Man. Pictorially, that is.

Great example of PhotoDowdification,

And that was all she wrote.
Very well done.

I take his point but he's also making some assumptions that may not be true. These kids may not be merely pawns, the woman may not belong to a communist group and she may have no more idea of what the shirt means than the next dope you see wearing a Che t-shirt.

I think they're safe assumptions he's making, but he's making them for us rather than letting us draw those conclusions ourselves. I always think that weakens your case, when you probably have someone red-handed but fill in details that may turn out to be mistaken later.

Maybe some intrepid reporter could ask the Commie-clad woman what her feelings are about, say, private property or the ownership of the means of production.

I have only one gripe with zombie's excellent report -- he/she called the running of the tightly-cropped photo, "the no-man's-land between ethical and unethical."

I disagree. There is ethical and there is everything else. There is competence and there is everything else.

Calling this a "gray area" is like suggesting that one can be a little bit pregnant.

Sorry, but I have to quibble - slightly. There are plenty of examples of more egregious bias to go around without hyperanalyzing cropping and context in this case. Here's what I mean - the idea that the close-up of the youth in a bandana is "hiding something" ignores that -

1. The youth is a more of a dramatic, visually arresting picture, hence the focus is also partially on drama. When we call the media on complex ideological bias, this "drama" or "composition" bias is often totally overlooked or at least underplayed. Soley writing that it's ALL carefully-crafted ideological bias weakens the argument a tad, IMO.

2. The fist shaking youth in a "terrorist style" bandana is not exactly a "whitewash" of the protestors that's intended to depict a false "positive message" to me. I's possible that it's the Chronicle editor's idea of a positive message, but it's also an accurate message showing us a picture of a pretty severe ideologue.

When I see a protestor wearing a "terrorist style bandana" that specifically promotes segregated racial identification, I think, "look at that looney little pain-in-the-ass racist anarchist," not "oh, the media is trying to push protestors as everyday people." I would venture that most people that would tend to be inclined towards that position would agree. I would also bet that the people that look at a "fist clenched anarchist bandana person" and approve would NOT somehow be miraculously offended IF THEY ONLY WOULD HAVE SEEN the Communist star on the other woman's back as well.

3. Zombie projects his own narrative on to the protestors:

Because the whole truth -- that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards -- is disturbing, and doesn't conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote.

I think the characterizations are slightly presumptuous. (that they were recruited and controlled by the Communists - I'm certain their sentiments are fairly well indoctrinated by now, and I would probably draw the conclusion that little Malcometta X has a neat red star t-shirt in her closet as well, just from the cropped photo )

4. "By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader's impression of the rally, and the rally's intent."

Of course this happens - he's on the right track - but I don't think that this is a stunning example of it. Again, I think the cheap artistic and dramatic sensibilities of the editors is underplayed. And in this case, at least they showed us a "dramatic" picture of a bandana wearing protestor with racialist sensibilities, and not a youth that looks like she's been singing in the local choir and just had to DO SOMETHING against this evil war, driving a political narrative that projects the idea of an anti-war movement gaining popular support.

Zombie does have a point - he's on the right track - but I think that there are more dramatic examples of the media's bias out there to devote a detailed critique to.

Examples:

1. Go to any routine, small local protest and then note that the media exclusively uses the zoomed in tactic to make the protest look much bigger. Again, partly dramatic bias, but often ideological to misrepresent the force of the protest, depending on its pathetic size.

2. Find photo-cropping that zooms in on everyday people protesting in the midst of total friggin loons, not cropped pics of racialist loons that were REALLY surrounded by SLIGHTLY MORE LOONEY loons.

Spongeworthy -

Bingo.

The reason bill doesn't get it is that it's way to obvious. In his little world everything is layered and nuanced and only smarty moderates like him can see through the logic of true/false; one/zero; black/white to perceive the greyness of their pathetic dismal sanctimony.

Boris, please don't instigate a pi**ing contest.

Oh, and Damn you people with your 'challenging assumptions' and 'independent thinking.'

Always nipping at my heels with this shit. Can't you just look at a picture of a commie and say, "That's a commie," like the rest of us? Huh? Cant'cha??!!?

Sheesh. You with your fact checking and your openminded analysis.

I don't even know why I come here anymore.

boris -

Well that flame against me personally didn't take long. Try offering an argument against my argument, not a personal attack against me, for once.

If you are too blind to draw the obvious conclusion that a bandana-wearing racial ideologue is a far left-wing activist from the cropped picture - and the commie red star shirt WOULD HAVE REALLY TIPPED YOU OFF - IF ONLY YOU'D SEEN IT!!!!! - that has nothing to do with your personal problems with my politics. Or more accurately, your projection/i> of my politics.

But hey, I guess that's just me shining my moderate credentials again. How about:

DOWN WITH THE LIBERAL MEDIA! THEY BEAM BRAINWAVES INTO OUR HEAD WITH SATELLITES!

Here again we see the ideology of moderation.

Wayback machine:

Any organization with leaders, followers and agenda which claims it’s strength is the “love of death” and the weakness of their enemy (us) is “love of life” can be accurately labeled a “cult of death”, but unless every single member publicly endorses the agenda that label is bigotry according to bill.

BTW, this is how I got banned at indc (twice).

Great. Another threadjacking all about Evil Bill.

Can't we all just get along?

It could also be a slightly subtle way of promoting the racial divide. Make "whitey" paranoid that young blacks are getting militant and dangerous to strengthen their (the msm) view of the vast gulf rising between the races. Without the imput of the msm and Jackson and Sharpton the " races" -left to their own devices-might just get along.

I think Bill is kinda right about other factors (drama, composition) entering into this. But...

WHICH drama you want to highlight is a subjective decision. Zombie's analysis shows there were multiple interesting ways to display this one bit of the protest. The Chronicle's chosen picture was one showing the protestor in a neutral (if not heroic and sexy) light.

Bill can talk up drama and composition, but imagine if a good-looking Nazi struck a dramatic and sexy sort of pose at a White Power rally. Would the Chronicle have run that kind of picture as its front-page encapsulation of the event?

I think not.

Yes, there are always a lot of factors entering into these decisions. I find it strange, however, when the neutral factors Bill talks about -- and the media always cites -- amost always result in embarassments for the right and protection of, if not promotion of, the left.

That can't be luck, Bill.

Can't you just look at a picture of a commie and say, "That's a commie," like the rest of us?

Bill and communism:

from our last discussion at indc:

boris: There may have been some "good" communists who did not "intend" to spread communism worldwide, nevertheless, that was the intent of communism and saying so is not bigoted nor does it "appear" to be.

bill: Communism, on its face, in all of its forms, does not even have a literal, codefied manifest doctrine to spread worldwide by force of arms;

So you see, bill is too nuanced to see communists the same as we troglodytes do.

so there

Go, Boris!!!!

Aren't we all just stating the obvious? You'll will never know everything about any news story. You just have to decide who you want to believe; and don't even get me started on the whole heisenberg trophy for journalism.

Aren't we all just stating the obvious? You'll will never know everything about any news story. You just have to decide who you want to believe; and don't even get me started on the whole heisenberg trophy for journalism.

Bill,

Don't you think prolix missives like that belong on your own blog?

What's that? Oh - you want people to see it. Well, then Ace's comments are a better choice.

I would also bet that the people that look at a "fist clenched anarchist bandana person" and approve would NOT somehow be miraculously offended IF THEY ONLY WOULD HAVE SEEN the Communist star on the other woman's back as well.

Should so-called "news" outlets be concerned about whether people are "offended" by such things?

I'd settle for news reports helping to make people "better informed."

I think I read that in a journalism textbook somewhere.

In this case, the paper chose to omit the fact that the protestors were (a) pro-Palestinian, and (b) orchestrated by an avowed Communist.

I may not be a nuanced moderate, but the paper's omission tells me something about how it perceives the significance of this fact.

It should be said that zombie attends most of these protests, and knows perfectly well who is out there recruiting kids for extra class credit.

That's the Bay Area, folks.

Yeah, I think if you scope out his main page and other photo essays, you're willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt as far as his assumptions go.

He's a specialist.

Speaking for Bill is a bad idea, but for myself I'm sure zombie's right about these people. Still, there is little doubt he made some (safe) assumptions here and in a way that seems as bad as what he accuses the paper of doing. We can see who these people are and draw our own conclusions.

Telling us these kids are indoctrinated or pawns or whatever assumes facts I doubt he has proof of. We'd jump all over the Chron if they claimed the same about the Stanford Young Republican Button-Down Club.

Let's keep our POV free of assumptions so we can clobber them for it.

With boris, I think we now have enough people to start the Ace Chapter of the Banned by Bill Association. Membership dues should be submitted by hitting the Ace's tip jar. This should also relieve any guilt you may have for using Ace's bandwidth to bitchslap Bill.

Now, for the first order of business I make a motion we adjourn to the cocktail lounge. All in favor? "AYE"!

Damn, I wish.
Its cold and rainy and miserable today. I'm freezing and for some reason I have to work for a living like a common peasant.

Sorry for the length; above post should have read:

WAAAAAAHHH !

POV free of assumptions

no such thing

for some reason I have to work for a living like a common peasant.

Patience. The VRWC is on the verge of world domination! Soon, all that you survey will be YOURS! Bwa hahahaha!

Zombie's right. The Bay area is not that big and you see the usual suspects at every rally or just out on the street handing their crappy fliers out. You get to know who is who.

Its cold and rainy and miserable today. I'm freezing and for some reason I have to work for a living like a common peasant.

I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but isn't it strange that all of these mushbrained bums are avoiding work by attending protests organized by the World Workers' Party?

We need to go left, Laura. Lots less work. And less grooming for that matter.

The youth is a more of a dramatic, visually arresting picture

If you want to use it to support an opinion, run it on the editorial page then. It was run as HARD FUCKING NEWS intentionally in a very highly distorted manner.

I'm calling bullshit on this.

The photo that the Chron ran LOOKS posed too. How did the knot on that headscarf suddenly center itself up for the Chron's pics when its clearly offset to the left about 1.5" in all of Zombies pics?

Thanks for the attitude adjustment, Sue (shudder).

I love my work! Yay! It could be worse.

The Chronicle's chosen picture was one showing the protestor in a neutral (if not heroic and sexy) light.

I dunno, to me a bandana over the face signifies a nasty anarchist or terrorist (unless it's in a Western). It would have been a lot more effective positive spin on the rally to just not use that photo and stick to photos of people that look goofy, but not like they're about to firebomb you car.

When I see the bandana wearer, I see "likely violent nutjob, or at least a poseur" not a "positive message." Maybe I'm just getting old.

I see "likely violent nutjob...

That would be today's liberals.

Now, for the first order of business I make a motion we adjourn to the cocktail lounge. All in favor? "AYE"!

Aye!

Can't we all just get along?

Laura:

No.

Let's give Bill some credit. He keeps showing up here. Never mind that he knows it's an overwhelmingly hostile environment with more than a dozen members of the AOSHQ Banned by Bill Association waiting to pounce, lurking for a chance to "bitch-slap" him.

Why?

In part, I attribute this to simple old-fashioned courage, for which he is to be commended. Bill apparently wants to demonstrate that he will not be intimidated, and he will continue to advocate his point of view in the face of certain opposition.

In part, I attribute this to the fact that Bill is an intellectually arrogant little prick who actually thinks he is holding his own in these debates. In this regard, he resembles Cedarford. And, to be fair, he does well enough to maintain the entertainment value of his participation.

Don't get me wrong, Bill is not as smart as Cedarford, but he is much more circumspect.

In any event, given his combative nature, I suspect Bill would be profoundly disappointed if he came here and we were all just "trying to get along."

So, back on topic.

As Ace says, there is no such thing as an objective photo. The composition and framing inevitably will reflect choices designed to create dramatic emphasis.

The photo that the Chronicle ran is dominated by the eyes, which are compelling. I join the dissenters in suggesting that this picture does not necessarily reflect political bias. It was an attempt to display the passion of a human being for a cause. So, in this case the cause is, for most of us, lunacy, but the photo nevertheless tells a story that would not be told by the more wide-angle shots that include the Palestinian flag.

The picture is about a person, not politics. It's a human interest story. I like it. I'd like to buy that girl a beer and shoot the breeze.

"Thanks for the drink, White Devil. What did you want to talk about, White Devil?"

The photo that the Chronicle ran is dominated by the eyes, which are compelling.

How does the saying go ? ... "once you can fake sincerity you've got it made"

A new standard: Fake but Compelling

Actually an old standard but what the hey. The media went for phony drama and the photo essay exposed the truth. One might honestly claim they both tell a "valid" story but to claim that the media drama is more newsworthy than the real deal photo essay is beyond wishy washy and leads to moonbat highway.

Look, the point of the photo essay is not "media bias" (how droll) the point is media phony.

by boris

I had this posted Tuesday. Save yourselves some time and check out my blog now and again...;-)

Are you saying...it's *old?*

Sheesh.

There are at least three levels of journalistic bias:

(1) First Degree Bias: whether the story you tell is factually accurate. In this day and age, it is getting harder and harder to tell outright lies. It still happens, as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes show, but it is rare, if only because it is so obvious. This is also sometimes called "making shit up."

(2) Second Degree Bias: whether the story you tell is the whole truth. This is harder to uncover. This is what is happening, for example, in Iraq, where the stories are not, in themselves (always) complete lies, but that they distort by omission.

(3) Third Degree Bias: the hardest level of bias to uncover (at least using only one story as your evidence). This is the kind of bias that leads a reporter to tell only certain kinds of stories. It is a form of bias that exists solely in the reporter's story selection.

Third Degree Bias is a form of journalistic failure that is always going to be shrouded in mystery and denials, simply because it is based on the charge that the reporter's selection of subject matter is different than what it should be. It consists of the accusation that the reporter should have told story A rather than Story B (as opposed to saying that he can tell whatever story he wants so long as it is accurate and thorough in and of itself).

People sometimes shy away from this kind of accusation, since the usual response is that any given reporter can only tell so many stories, and if you want to tell some other story that is out there, then that's what other reporters are for.

But, as a form of journalistic failure, it is just as real, just as reprehensible. It is merely hidden better than the others.

In this case, the photographer and/or reporter for the Chronicle apparently felt that a story along the lines of: Young Protestors Organized by Communists was not worth telling.

If that story is right there in front of you and you choose not to tell it, then that tells me all I need to know about your political persuasion and journalistic integrity.

Well, check out today's post on Ronnie Earle's reality show. I'm sure Ace will post on it by next week....;-)

Hey there chickie, did you check out all the other blogs before you posted? Got to be sure nobody else has it, you know.

/snark

Of course I did! Why do you think I am here?

I have no life. What else is there to do?

;-)

Funny you should mention it...seems like the more I talk on the internet, the less of a life I have...

Meh. It was overrated anyway.