A Symbiotic Relationship

A Symbiotic Relationship

            Since it’s conception photography has been an instant hit; it has become renowned around the world.  Artists devote their lives to mastering it, and people flock to see the fruits of their labors.  It has become a common concept to equate that a “picture is worth a thousand words”.  The belief that photographs hold this intrinsic meaning, a meaning that can be defined as true or false, has become integrated into our society.  However, there are some that argue that a photograph in and of itself is neither true nor false.  Errol Morris is one such individual who in his article Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire in the NYT argues that a context—or rather a caption---is needed before one could make the claim of whether a photograph is true or false. So, where does this leave photographs?  Do they hold no meaning unless accompanied by some form of information or context?  Or rather is their meaning simply limited in the absence of such knowledge?  But perhaps the question one should ask is whether the photograph adds meaning to the text just as the text, in turn, adds meaning to the photograph. 

How does one go about answering this question?  Photographs are easy to find, be it an art galleries, photo book, or a blog.  What about news articles?  News articles often accompany stories with some photograph, sometimes more than one.  By that notion you could see the relationship of text and photograph by simply looking at a news article.  Then again, what if you were to look at two news articles?  The same story, but presented by different news sites; wouldn’t that provide a greater representation of the relationship? 

FoxNews

MSNBC

   

         These two pictures for example, the one on the left is from FoxNews and the one on the right is from MSNBC.  Alone these pictures seem to produce very little emotion, maybe a question or two, if any.  You may even be surprised to discover that they are used, by their respective sites, to cover the same story.   Fox’s picture corresponds to the article’s title, US officials addressing cyber threat at ‘highest levels’ with China, on heels of hacker report.  MSNBC’s picture corresponds with the title, Expert: US in cyberwar arms race with China, Russia.  Both titles refer to the recent claims that China has been responsible for multiple hacking attempts on corporations throughout the United States.  Now with that information as well as the two titles, look back at their respective images.  Do these images now produce a greater emotional response then before?  Do more questions suddenly to pop into your head?  Don’t be alarmed by this sudden increase in heart-pounding and mental activity.  You have simply seen the basic relationship that both photographs and text have with each other.  But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  If the titles alone produce this greater meaning when paired with these images, what will happen when you take the actual body of the articles?  In MSNBC’s article there is a passage that states:

‘Stuxnet and Flame (malware used to disrupt and gather intelligence on Iran's nuclear program) are demonstrations of that,’ he said. ‘… (The U.S.) could shut down most critical infrastructure in potential adversaries relatively quickly.’ (Windrem).

This specific part of the article reassures the reader that the United States is able to defend itself. Now if you would take this passage into consideration, look back at the picture on the right.  A picture of a U.S soldier, accompanied by these words, do they not produce a greater sense of security? Of confidence?  Yes, the text and image work on one another, magnifying the meaning of the words used as well as the image.  The image can now be declared either true or false based off the context of the text.  At the same time, the text itself is given a “face” if you would.  It is no longer just words the reader is seeing, but an image to accompany it.  The same is true for FoxNews:

‘It is a major challenge for us in the national security arena,’ Carney said, adding that it is known that foreign countries and companies "swipe" sensitive U.S. information. Pentagon spokesman George Little also said the U.S. is a "victim of cyber-attacks from various places around the world.  (Chakraborty).

Now repeat the process and look back at Fox’s picture.  The text alone produces an element of uncertainty/nervousness, but when paired with the picture, a skull on a computer screen, the emotion in amplified into one of fear—panic.  This enhances the article itself, improving its own message and meaning.  At the same time the image, now in context with the article’s story, can, too, be declared either true or false.  So, once again we see that the image and text work together to make the each other more powerful.

            This symbiotic relationship between text and photographs can be seen in other medias such as magazines, novels, and even news broadcasts.  This analysis of these two articles and their respective images does accomplish another purpose. MSNBC being more liberal and Fox being more conservative, shows how different pictures and wording are used together for specific audiences.  But the point remains that photographs alone contain some inherit meaning, but when paired with text these two elements work off one another to increase their respective power.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/20/17022378-expert-us-in-cyberwar-arms-race-with-china-russia?lite

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/19/us-raising-highest-levels-cyber/

Photographs: True or False?

In Errol Morris’s Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire article on the New York Times, he addressed the long-standing idea that photographs could be either true or false.  Ultimately, Morris’s argument is that photographs, if and of themselves, cannot be true or false, contrary to popular belief.  However, they can be.

            Morris’s feels that a photograph with no caption, background, or emotion to a viewer makes the photograph virtually worthless.   When a photograph has these qualities it becomes something more. “It is also interesting how a photograph quickly changes when we learn more about what it depicts, when we provide a context, when we become familiar with an underlying story”(Morris).  For Morris, the relationship is not between the photograph and the world, but rather the world and language.   A photograph itself cannot be true or false, but the language used in for the photograph, what describes it and the context it is placed in—that can by true or false.  “They are only true or false with respect to statements that we make about them or the questions that we might ask of them”(Morris).

            To a large extend I do find myself agreeing with Morris.  While a photograph can be doctored and, therefore, made false I feel for arguments sake when talking about un-tampered photographs—yes they cannot be either true or false in or of themselves.  The viewer cannot discern a photograph with no caption, no context, and no emotional stimulus.

 Take for example the article on MSNBC by Stephanie Nebehay, Reuters, Both sides in Syria commit war crimes including murder, torture, UN says.  http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/18/17004600-both-sides-in-syria-commit-war-crimes-including-murder-torture-un-says?lite.  The very start of the article begins with a photograph of a women holding another and appearing to be upset.  This imagine alone would produce some questions, but without context it wouldn’t be discernable.  However, under the picture there is the caption that reads, “A Syrian woman hold her injured son in a taxi as they arrive at a hospital in Aleppo on Feb. 8.”  The caption provides some context of what the picture is describing and may even draw an emotional response.  But ultimately, the response to the picture would be limited.  Nor could one make the statement of the photograph being true or false.  If one is unaware of what is currently or has been occurring in Syria, upon reading the article they would obtain background information and upon looking back at the picture on the top of the article, they then could ask questions, make assumptions and ultimately ask whether this photograph is true or false.  “Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but there are two words that you can never apply to them: ‘true’ and ‘false’”(Morris). 

Libya and Obama

                             Justification? –President Obama At fault for MIA on Benghazi

The following essay is a remake of Michael Goodwin’s Now We Know—President Obama was MIA on Benghazi.  Originally posted on FoxNews under the opinion section, the essay’s sole purpose is to rewrite Mr. Goodwin’s work for a different audience. The original article blamed President Obama for being a contributing factor in the terrorist attack on American forces in Libya. The new audience in this case is a liberal based one.  In order to accomplish this I left out some quotes and shortened a few quotes in the process.  In addition, I tried to limit the blame towards Obama, as a more liberal base would be less critical of him.  Reassuring the readers that the situation could have gone worse helps project the current handling in a more positive light. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/11/now-know-president-obama-was-mia-on-benghazi/

The terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi, Libya is without doubt a tragic fiasco.  There were insufficient security forces prior to as well as after the attack.  This is an inexcusable mistake that led to the death of one of our esteemed diplomats as well as many others.  However, some are pointing the finger at the Obama administration, President Obama specifically.  Of course the Obama administration holds some share of the blame, but this criticism centers more on the actions of Mr. Obama during as well as after the attacks.  Many critics cite the White House’s explanation of the attack as being deceitful.  The White House informed the press that there was a protest over an anti-Muslim video placed on the Internet that was later used by terrorists to launch their attack.  Critics are quick to point out the lack of video evidence of the protest as well as the use of heavy weapons as a sign of a planned attack, not a spontaneous outburst of violence.  If this attack was indeed planned and simply used these protests as a cover, does this mean the White House was being deceitful?  More than likely not, a more reasonable assumption would be to assume the White House had lacked all the facts.  So, the question moves from “why was the White House deceitful” to “why did the White House make a press release prior to having all the facts?” 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified to the Senate that President Obama had followed up with his military team early during the attack and then proceeded with other tasks.  The president’s only instructions, Panetta said, were, “Do whatever you need to do,” though he left the details “up to us.”  Although brief, Obama was informed of the situation and delegated control over to Panetta.  This distorts the picture that critics have tried to paint of an uninvolved and unaware president.  Still critics are focused on the questions of where Obama was? When did he learn what? What did he do?  The better question should be why did this happen in the first place?  Why wasn’t there greater security?  Obama has become a scapegoat because there are no current answers.

In eleven hours survivors as well as fallen countrymen were retrieved and taken out of Libya.  Although some will call this a slow response, we cannot deny that with the lack of information and confusion, the response could have been worse.  We often forget that a president’s job has many aspects that all require his attention.  President Obama is no different.  Does the administration have some explaining to do? Yes.  But it is unrealistic to point the finger at Obama and say, “look what you did!” Or in this case “look what you didn’t do!”

Taking An Approach

The key idea behind Joseph Harris’s “Taking the Approach” is the creation of knew knowledge.  It is the adaption of another’s writing, not the adopting, through which your some of your ideas and even those of the author change.

“When you take on the approach of another writer both your thinking and theirs needs to change.  Otherwise you are simply applying ideas to examples. To transform is to reshape, not to replace or rebut. The original does not go away but is remade into something new.” (Harris, 74).

Harris lists several ways to achieve his: acknowledging influences, turning an approach on itself, and reflexivity.

Acknowledging Influences: Making note of other writers whose own writing has been a source for your own model.

·      Defining Concerns: What kinds of problems or issues does this writer often seem attracted to? What kinds of questions do they often ask?

·      Characteristics Methods: How does the author answer the problem or questioned posed? What research methods do they use? What sources?

·      Style: What type of person is the writer? What do you like about them? How do they interact with others?

Turning an approach on itself: Asking the same questions that a writer asks of others.

Reflexivity: Reflecting and noting the specific choices of methods, values, languages, you have used in constructing your text.

The NYTs are a prime example of “taking the approach”.  You can often learn a lot from an author by looking at their past articles.  You can derive a style from them; what they like, what interests them and who are they more politically aligned with. In addition, you can also see, through the opinion sections, the personal questions and concerns raised by the writer(s).  This more often encompasses reflexivity, in which the author is giving their personal opinion and therefore is more inclined to be reflective of their work than an editor.

In the blog that I’m following Hit and Run I can obtain a sense of style, usually, from the authors.  They normally incorporate their own personalities alongside the facts of their topic. It reminds me of an editor, but with more freedom.  In any case, they don’t seem to employ reflexivity very often, if at all.  There is an occasional turning the approach on itself in which the authors ask questions while reporting on the topic.