« A little perspective is all I'm saying | Main | 20/20 Hindsight - a Public Service Announcement »

Thursday, January 20, 2011

More Photo Nonsense

It isn't bad enough that the Associated Press regularly plays fast and loose with photo manipulation software to present images that help indict Israel in the court of public opinion.

But their selection of genuine, un-retouched photos to accompany AP news stories related to Israel is also designed to paint Israel in the least flattering light possible.

For the sake of discussion, how many file photos of Israeli soldiers do you think the AP has ready access to? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Presumably, at least a few of those photographs of IDF soldiers in their archives make the subjects look more, well, soldier-like and professional, than like Keystone Kops, right?

Keystone

So you tell me... if not to make the IDF look like a keystone kops, why would the AP be distributing the following photograph today to accompany the report of IDF soldiers having shot and killed a Palestinian who reportedly opened fire on them with an AK-47 automatic assault rifle?:

IDF Soldiers

I mean OMG... what is that? I can't imagine finding a more awkward, ungainly, ridiculous image of IDF soldiers anywhere.

And what's worse is that the Jerusalem Post, with their own not insubstantial collection of Israeli Soldiers photos decided to run with this one provided by the Associated Press when covering the story:

Photo jpost

Seriously... I understand why the Associated Press would want to make IDF soldiers look like bumbling clowns... but why should the Jerusalem Post want to help them?

I'm open to theories.

Posted by David Bogner on January 20, 2011 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef0147e1c53e08970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Photo Nonsense:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't see the same thing you're seeing: I see soldiers under fire, taking cover. If anything, this makes them more sympathetic, considering the accompanying story. If the picture showed IDF soldiers in full control, then it makes their killing of an armed fighter seem like murder.

Posted by: efrex | Jan 20, 2011 4:44:51 PM

I agree that there are unflattering photos of the IDF, but I don't really see it in this case. I see a group of vulnerable soldiers with weapons pointed down and fingers off the triggers. I therefore respectfully differ in this instance.

Posted by: Yaron | Jan 20, 2011 5:27:05 PM

I agree that there are unflattering photos of the IDF, but I don't really see it in this case. I see a group of vulnerable soldiers with weapons pointed down and fingers off the triggers. I therefore respectfully differ in this instance.

Posted by: Yaron | Jan 20, 2011 5:27:09 PM

I wonder how many people at The Jerusalem Post are familiar with The Keystone Cops.

Posted by: Jack | Jan 20, 2011 7:43:48 PM

Jack - David Horowitz probably is, if he was allowed to watch Sunday afternoon TV as a kid. I think we are the same age and were both raised in the UK. All the very old black and white films were on TV on Sundays in the 1960's.

I too don't see this photo in a negative light at all. I'm with Yaron and Efrex. Which does raise another interesting topic for discussion, interpretation of what we see in the media. One sees something bad, another something good.

Thanks for the post!

Posted by: Kiwi Noa | Jan 20, 2011 8:01:33 PM

To me, this photo doesn't look unflattering to the IDF. I'm not sure what exactly you are seeing that makes it appear unflattering to you.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 20, 2011 8:24:30 PM

I've got to agree with the others here. I don't see anything unflattering here. It's a group of young soldiers under fire. If the aim was to portray them in a negative light I'd say the photo editor failed. Surely with their archive of photos they could have found something embarrassing or inflammatory if they wanted to.

Posted by: Chichikov | Jan 20, 2011 10:27:54 PM

The fact that media everywhere have taken to resort to "symbolic" photo stock to illustrate their stories (when apparently no better shoots are at hand or a photographer is out of their budget), and this quite shamelessly (press codex, anyone??) is more than just disturbing. It's actually like ad spots - does anyone take ad spots seriously anymore, other than for some minutes of funny entertainment during pee break? Seriously, now.

Posted by: a. | Jan 21, 2011 12:59:54 AM

I've got to agree with folks here--don't go looking for trouble. We have enough tsores without imagined slights. I am reminded of what my grandfather (A"H) said when I told him, at age 16, that I had failed my drivers test as I had entered the intersection on a red light: your examiner was anti-Semitic!!
Adena

Posted by: Adena | Jan 21, 2011 5:41:41 PM

I'll go with the majority (since that's what counts). But let me describe what set me off: The helmets all askew... the off-balance leaning... the guy on the left with his pants folded over so it looks like he's wearing a mini-skirt. I still say there are countless better file photos of IDF soldiers out there.

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 23, 2011 3:20:22 PM

Post a comment