"A group of about 300 protesters, many of them men wearing black, some covering their faces with bandanas and some carrying wooden sticks, smashed windows of a Wells Fargo bank branch while chanting "Banks got bailed out. We got sold out.""
Yes I can take the heat, but if it's OK to criticize, which it is, then it's also OK to post in support.
As to unsubstantiated facts. Please provide examples.
You ask a question, "Why in the world would OCCUPY demonstrators hate the press? How does a movement like this not gain the global perspective it has without press coverage?"
Let's be accurate. I related what the camera man said to the best of my ability. I did not use the word "HATE" I said disliked. I found that to be substantiated by my own experience and observations. Why is a good question and one I can't answer.
You want to talk about unsubstantiated claims? Please provide evidence that the Tea Party is vial, racist and hate filled. Not just one off the wall individual, or perhaps plant, but that say 30% of Tea Party attendees are vile, racist, and full of hate.
Research conducted by polling firm PSB reveals that almost one third of the Occupy Wall Street protesters support using violence to enforce their ideas.
Then you throw in this: "Not to mention the shooting of a congressman in Tucson and the murder of her aide."
What does this have to do with the Tea Party?????
I get that you support the occupy agenda, and I do understand some opinions will be voiced, but try to have those opinions based in fact, not disjointed innuendo.
I would also like to note here that there are some commonalities between the Tea Part and the occupy people. Both groups are unhappy with the current state of affairs. Both groups want to fix this. Unfortunately their solutions are diametrically opposed. One group seeks to adhere to the constitution of the United States. Have a smaller less intrusive government. Less taxes. individual responsibility.
The other while all over the ball park voicing a very long list of grievances, wants to have government play a larger roll in our lives, dismantle our capitalist system, go down the path of socialism, and tax the rich.
Again while some of the complaints are the same the philosophy of the two solutions is not compatible. I personally would like to see REAL, civil / factual, debate articulating the different solutions and how they have fared throughout history and the world.
Sam
Sam:
Firstly, my claim of "unsubstantiated" referred to the newsman, not you directly, other than you quoting him.
I have so much I would like to say in response but I'm about to hit the road for a trip to San Jose AND I want to not provide a knee-jerk response.
I'd intended to be finished with Street & PJ for good, but I popped in to see if things had gotten any better (they haven't) and found Sam's excellent piece of photojournalism -- the first actual PJ I've seen on Street & PJ. Let's face it, Sam did exactly what photojournalists working for publications on all sides of the political spectrum do: he assembled some very good pictures and attached captions and comments. The responses should have congratulated Sam on turning Street and PJ into a forum that actually includes photojournalism.
But of course, for the most part, the responses were negative.
Let's see if I've got this straight. A few weeks ago somebody posted a picture of a fuzzy and unkempt guy who'd made himself up to fit the image of what, ever since Vietnam, a certain branch of our newsmedia have told us is the way veterans look. The poster identified the guy as a veteran. When I asked why he thought the guy was a veteran, several people jumped on my question and opined that no verification was needed. If a guy who looks like that calls himself a vet he must be a vet. We all know what vets look like. Now, all of a sudden, Sam's captions, which certainly are less questionable than a scruffy guy's military history, represent, in BD Colen's words, "obviously biased commentary" and require extensive verification.
Seems to me that on Street & PJ whether or not a "fact" requires verification depends on whether or not you like the "fact." If there's actually a person who believes there's a reporter of any political persuasion, or even no political persuasion, who's "unbiased," that person never learned to read effectively. BD Colen stated that "...one of the biggest problems our democracy faces today is that the word "fact" no longer has meaning." But BD needs to go back and review his history. That's always been one of the world's problems, not just "our democracy's" problem. If you really think that the amount of BS being thrown around has increased in your lifetime, you'd be well advised to find a good book about United States politics in the early 19th century and read it carefully.
So, cut the crap. Whether you agree with him or not, Sam did Street & PJ a real favor.
Violence as a means to a political/economic end? Heavens no!
The French and Indian War
The American Revolution
Chattel Slavery
The Civil War
Reconstruction
The Klan
The Spanish American War
The Great War
WWII
The Korean Conflict
Iran (Mossadegh)
The Bay of Pigs
Viet Nam
Chile
Grenada
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq Part Deux
Libya
Russ, you sound angry. IMHO, the forum is doing just fine without Sam's "raising the bar." Nelson, Michael, and even myself have posted on similar subjects and I daresay they are as good or better.
Now OTOH, is this forum the best to see Street/PJ? Hardly.
Russ, you sound angry. IMHO, the forum is doing just fine without Sam's "raising the bar." Nelson, Michael, and even myself have posted on similar subjects and I daresay they are as good or better.
Now OTOH, is this forum the best to see Street/PJ? Hardly.
I can't believe I just read someone tell another poster the forum is just fine without the input of the OP, and their own post about the subject is better. This gets an award for one of the most arrogant posts I have read.
This whole discussion thus far pretty much shows the disfunctionality of the politics in the USA. I've been to a number of Tea Party events and most of the folks were fairly sane and they had their share of loonies. Naturally the folks who don't agree with the Tea Party focus in on the loonies and try to make them representative of the entire movement. The Tea Party folks naturally take umbrage at this unfair characterization.
I have attended a number of Occupy events and amazingly most of those folks were fairly sane and they had their share of loonies. Naturally the folks who don't agree with the Occupy folks focus in on the loonies and try to make them representative of the entire movement. The Occupy folks naturally take umbrage at this unfair characterization.
The major difference I've found in the two groups is the fact that I fit in so well with the Tea Party folks. Mainly because we are about the same age. The Occupy folks are a good bit younger. Despite Sam's comments both groups like the Constitution. The Occupy folks see it as a living document while the Tea Party folks view it as being written in stone. Fortunately our founders put in this amendment process so they anticipated that changes would be needed in the future. That's why women can vote and slavery no longer exists.
Now as for photography & PJ Sam took some pictures of a protest. Ole Russ loves it because he agrees with Sam's political position. Other folks don't like it because they don't agree with Sam's politics. As for it being journalism, it sure is. You only have to read the Wall Street Journal or the NY Post to see the same biased journalistic coverage. You can go to the Washington Monthly to see similar biased journalism favoring the Occupy movement. The litmus test for anything being PJ seems to be if the pictures and text supports one's politial positions.
All I know is that I spent a year in Vietnam with a Democratic prez and a year in Vietnam with a Republican prez, never noticed a difference. I lived through 8 years of Bush the second and three years of Obama and I haven't noticed any change in my life during those 11 years.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I can't believe I just read someone tell another poster the forum is just fine without the input of the OP, and their own post about the subject is better. This gets an award for one of the most arrogant posts I have read.
Really? I apologize for lowering your bar.
Why should whether "OP" (I know, lets call him.. Sam) matters in this? I am commenting on Russ' observation.
I do sound a bit defensive when Russ claims that NO ONE else posts good PJ except Sam and I claims that no, Sam isn't the only one, and I got called as most arrogant.
That's called ironic? :-)
So, how are your photos? They look too much HDR to me, but I know some people like that stuff...
I do sound a bit defensive when Russ claims that NO ONE else posts good PJ except Sam and I claims that no, Sam isn't the only one, and I got called as most arrogant.
That's called ironic? :-)
So, how are your photos? They look too much HDR to me, but I know some people like that stuff...
Just what does my photos or yours have to do with this thread like it's some kind of measuring contest?
Lets keep the comments confined to PJ or maybe even Sam's pictures.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Why, Harry? So nobody can question the obvious and excessive bias against Sam's comments?
What, exactly is the PJ part of Street & PJ supposed to do? When I first saw Street & PJ I assumed one of the things it would try to do is teach its members something about the difference between real street photography and personal shapshots, but it didn't take long for Richard to disabuse me of that idea.
One would think that if there's really a PJ component to Street & PJ, people like BD, who's an experienced journalist and teacher, would at least try to teach people trying to do photojournalism something about journalism, perthaps its limits and how to make it effective. After all, BD's billed as a "PJ artist in residence." Instead, he piles on along with the rest of the complainers. And now you want to cut off comments that point out the bias. Let's face it, Harry, if Sam's comments had come down on the other side of the political divide you'd have been cheering.
These are my thoughts and impressions. Yes I will interject my opinions.
From a totally uninformed/rookie perspective, I somehow managed to catch this line in Sam's first post. For me, that simple sentence, separated by breaks, set the stage on what I was about to view and framed the images for Sam's experience. I wasn't there, so his comments are the only artifacts I have to understand what he saw and came away with as far as images. The rest is up to me to figure out.
Regardless of political agendas, leanings, titles and such, I knew what I was going to view looking at the images as that of Sam's shooting that day. So what if politically we have both sides of the fence here? The fact (for me at least) is the images were prefaced with a statement that set the stage, the images were presented with Sam's observations, and are his alone for the series. This was made clear.
Most everything else downstream of the OP seem to be focused on fact or not, political agenda or not. We knew the presented images would be biased. That was fact and stated up front. So why all the hate, either direction?
Yeah, I'm new. I don't have a clue on what I'm doing most of the time. I fumble on simple stuff. Heck, look at my line under my name and you'll know my level of experience. But I have learned a tremendous amount from this sub-forum. So what did I learn with this thread? That Sam shot some good images in my book and presented me with a point of view from half-way across the country I don't get with MSM. I may or not agree with the point of view, yet it's opened my eyes for a point of view of which the decision is mine on whether to accept it or not. Without Sam's images and commentary, I wouldn't understand some of what's going on in Oakland. And that goes for ALL the others in here who have posted Occupy threads. Without your comment, be it fact or personal observation, I wouldn't have my horizons expanded as they have.
And isn't that what part of the whole thing is about - to expand our knowledge and get us to actually think on our own when presented with an image or three?
Russ I know that reading is hard but give it a try. If you read the thread you might notice that two posters were getting into a personal disagreement and that is what I was responding to and trying to head off.
I indicated that comments about what was PJ were OK. What isn't OK are posts where someone attacks another poster. A good example would be your post.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Russ I know that reading is hard but give it a try. If you read the thread you might notice that two posters were getting into a personal disagreement and that is what I was responding to and trying to head off.
I indicated that comments about what was PJ were OK. What isn't OK are posts where someone attacks another poster. A good example would be your post.
You try to head off personal attacks but then make the comment "Russ, I know that reading is hard but give it a try". This coming from a moderator? That is a personal attack.
Here's a thought why don't we all go out and shoot some images, that's what this forums about.
I know I will be it's just to nice of a day not exercise my shutter finger and not the KeyBoard!
Sam,
I like your set, sorry never read the words.
I do wish you had posted bigger.
You try to head off personal attacks but then make the comment "Russ, I know that reading is hard but give it a try". This coming from a moderator? That is a personal attack.
Hardly a personal attack. Now if I had said that someone had made one of the most arrogant posts I have ever read that would have been a personal attack.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
While I do think this is fun and healthy, I do have some questions that have not been adequately answered.
I have read and reread my original post and have real difficulty in seeing bias. I feel less obligated to remain neutral in answering questions with regard to the original post. Please note we ALL have some form of bias, but I define bias as acting on ones predisposition without any regard to the facts. I try not to do that. perhaps more or less successful at different times.
How was my observations of the different people biased?
How was relating a conversation with a cameraman unsubstantiated or biased?
How is my description of Micheal Morre's arrival biased? I could use the same description of Sara Palin or Sean Hannity. Would that be more acceptable and unbiased?
My observation of Morre's physical condition and appearance was what I saw. How is that biased?
I also noted he was a powerful and experienced speaker holding the attention of the crowd. Is this also biased?
Now on to the photos.
I can't see bias in photos #1 through #6. If you do please articulate why.
Photo #7 This is my opinion based on the written sign. How is this bias?
Photo #8 This is could be bias based on his appearance, but I also spoke with him.
Photo #9 Describing him as a real radical is an opinion based on his own statements. The statement of not wanting to negotiate and advocating revolution are his words not mine. My statement of too many agreeing is my opinion based on the response to his speech. How is this bias? Would advocating revolution be non-biased?
Photo # 10 You will just have to take my word on this one or go ask him yourself.
Photo # 11 Fact
Photo # 11 I consider this to be fact based on my personal experience and never once hearing or seeing any evidence of drug use at a Tea Party event. How is this bias?
Russ I know that reading is hard but give it a try..
Sure, Harry -- and I quote: "You only have to read the Wall Street Journal or the NY Post to see the same biased journalistic coverage. You can go to the Washington Monthly to see similar biased journalism favoring the Occupy movement."
Maybe your own reading deficiencies keep you from noticing that in the WSJ and the NY Post the editorials are on the editorial page, while in the NYT and Washington Monthly most of the editorials are on the front page, posing as news.
Yes, Harry, editorials are biased. That's why in a decent newspaper they're identified as editorials or op ed. It's a question of honesty.
Hardly a personal attack. Now if I had said that someone had made one of the most arrogant posts I have ever read that would have been a personal attack.
So then what did you mean when you said.." Russ I know that reading is hard but give it a try"? This comes across as an insult to his intelligence or reading comprehension to me.
For someone to come into another posters thread and declare their photos on the same subject are better than the OP's photos sounds pretty arrogant to me.
While I do think this is fun and healthy, I do have some questions that have not been adequately answered.
I have read and reread my original post and have real difficulty in seeing bias. I feel less obligated to remain neutral in answering questions with regard to the original post. Please note we ALL have some form of bias, but I define bias as acting on ones predisposition without any regard to the facts. I try not to do that. perhaps more or less successful at different times.
How was my observations of the different people biased?
How was relating a conversation with a cameraman unsubstantiated or biased?
How is my description of Micheal Morre's arrival biased? I could use the same description of Sara Palin or Sean Hannity. Would that be more acceptable and unbiased?
My observation of Morre's physical condition and appearance was what I saw. How is that biased?
I also noted he was a powerful and experienced speaker holding the attention of the crowd. Is this also biased?
Now on to the photos.
I can't see bias in photos #1 through #6. If you do please articulate why.
Photo #7 This is my opinion based on the written sign. How is this bias?
Photo #8 This is could be bias based on his appearance, but I also spoke with him.
Photo #9 Describing him as a real radical is an opinion based on his own statements. The statement of not wanting to negotiate and advocating revolution are his words not mine. My statement of too many agreeing is my opinion based on the response to his speech. How is this bias? Would advocating revolution be non-biased?
Photo # 10 You will just have to take my word on this one or go ask him yourself.
Photo # 11 Fact
Photo # 11 I consider this to be fact based on my personal experience and never once hearing or seeing any evidence of drug use at a Tea Party event. How is this bias?
Sure, Harry -- and I quote: "You only have to read the Wall Street Journal or the NY Post to see the same biased journalistic coverage. You can go to the Washington Monthly to see similar biased journalism favoring the Occupy movement."
Maybe your own reading deficiencies keep you from noticing that in the WSJ and the NY Post the editorials are on the editorial page, while in the NYT and Washington Monthly most of the editorials are on the front page, posing as news.
Yes, Harry, editorials are biased. That's why in a decent newspaper they're identified as editorials or op ed. It's a question of honesty.
Russ the reporting in the WSJ and the NY Post (both Murdock publications) is slanted towards the right just as the reporting in the Washington Monthly is slanted towards the left and I'm not talking editorial pages or opinion columns.
The key point that I'm making that most PJ journalism today has a bias. Fox news is biased. MSNBC is biased. Biased journalism is an American tradition. When the US was founded most newspapers of the day were either Federalist publications or Republican publications. The Federalist papers would attack Jefferson and his followers and the Republican papers did the same to Hamilton and his supporters.
Sam posted some good pics of the demo and when measured on our current scale of biased reporting he barely nudged the meter.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
So then what did you mean when you said.." Russ I know that reading is hard but give it a try"? This comes across as an insult to his intelligence or reading comprehension to me.
For someone to come into another posters thread and declare their photos on the same subject are better than the OP's photos sounds pretty arrogant to me.
Jon, it meant that he had not read what I had written in the context of the thread. The post he was responding to had been directed at you and Richard.
I don't care if someone sounded arrogant to you. If they were let them know about in a PM. If you want to disagree about photographic merits or whatever go ahead but keep it civil and don't characterize other posters.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Jon, it meant that he had not read what I had written in the context of the thread. The post he was responding to had been directed at you and Richard.
I don't care if someone sounded arrogant to you. If they were let them know about in a PM. If you want to disagree about photographic merits or whatever go ahead but keep it civil and don't characterize other posters.
I apologize for coming across as characterizing another poster. I'm just saying telling someone I know it must be hard to read comes across as characterizing another poster. Just say "my warning was in the context of two posters getting in an argument, not about Sam's post. " Your added comment comes across as snarky because it wasn't needed to get your point across. When things get heated like this thread has become, it doesn't help when a moderator jumps in and adds to it.
I have been observing the threads about OWS and Sam's is one of the first ones that show the good, the bad, and the ugly. Because of that, Sam has been told he is biased, his pictures are less than they are because he actually expressed an opinion about the pictures, and it wasn't real pj work. I don't see any difference in what he did and than others who post only the good side that show it in a positive light. If only the good is shown, then it is propaganda as it shows a favoritism FOR something.
While I am not a Tea Party member, I agree with many of the ideas of the movement. I also see similarities with OWS. I think OWS is wrong in how it wants to fix the problem. I think those that are part of OWS that want to change the world should channel their passion in developing corporations and small businesses that create jobs for the people in the movement. They should run the companies in a way that lines up with their social values. If they want to help, create a company that gives healthcare to it's employees and gives all it's profits to charity. Show us what means to run a bank doesn't need a bailout and practices good lending procedures.
I have been observing the threads about OWS and Sam's is one of the first ones that show the good, the bad, and the ugly. Because of that, Sam has been told he is biased, his pictures are less than they are because he actually expressed an opinion about the pictures, and it wasn't real pj work. I don't see any difference in what he did and than others who post only the good side that show it in a positive light. If only the good is shown, then it is propaganda as it shows a favoritism FOR something.
...
Jon, I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way, but at least for myself, I have never claimed that Sam or anyone else should be unbiased. Every time a shutter is clicked, the shooter shows a bias. What I object to, is the biased captioning. That doesn't add to the impact of the photos.
I will give you a case in point: for me, of the original photos in this thread in question, of course we remember the Moore ones because it was pointed out so often, but the only one I remember is the caption that says something to the effect of "why would informed adults borrow money (to pay for higher education)" and not the image itself. In other words, the captions have such strong personal bias to them that they detract from the images. Now instead of looking at the image, my gut reaction is "but what about other factors such as that tuition has consistently risen above inflation rate since 1980s?" etc.
Russ the reporting in the WSJ and the NY Post (both Murdock publications) is slanted towards the right just as the reporting in the Washington Monthly is slanted towards the left and I'm not talking editorial pages or opinion columns.
Actually, there's a study that I'll have to try to re-locate that says that except for its editorial page the WSJ is biased more to the left than even the NYT. I find that awfully hard to believe, but I'll see if I can find the reference again. The study must have ignored editorials on front pages masquerading as news.
The key point that I'm making that most PJ journalism today has a bias. Fox news is biased. MSNBC is biased. Biased journalism is an American tradition.
Well Harry, speaking of reading deficiencies, way back at the beginning of my entry into this thread I said "If there's actually a person who believes there's a reporter of any political persuasion, or even no political persuasion, who's "unbiased," that person never learned to read effectively." What can I say?
Comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/occupy-protesters-disavow-oakland-violence_n_1074242.html
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Sam:
Firstly, my claim of "unsubstantiated" referred to the newsman, not you directly, other than you quoting him.
I have so much I would like to say in response but I'm about to hit the road for a trip to San Jose AND I want to not provide a knee-jerk response.
In the meantime...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/anthony-miller-resigns-giffords-threats_n_808116.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-muszynski/occupy-wall-street-and-th_2_b_1069383.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-reyeschow/tea-party-occupy-movement_b_1062824.html
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Sorry, you lump radical tea party members with the tea party movement. You can't have it both ways. Nice try though.
In regards to stuff like the 10 most offensive Tea Party signs, I find some of the OWS signs offensive as well and leave it at that.
But of course, for the most part, the responses were negative.
Let's see if I've got this straight. A few weeks ago somebody posted a picture of a fuzzy and unkempt guy who'd made himself up to fit the image of what, ever since Vietnam, a certain branch of our newsmedia have told us is the way veterans look. The poster identified the guy as a veteran. When I asked why he thought the guy was a veteran, several people jumped on my question and opined that no verification was needed. If a guy who looks like that calls himself a vet he must be a vet. We all know what vets look like. Now, all of a sudden, Sam's captions, which certainly are less questionable than a scruffy guy's military history, represent, in BD Colen's words, "obviously biased commentary" and require extensive verification.
Seems to me that on Street & PJ whether or not a "fact" requires verification depends on whether or not you like the "fact." If there's actually a person who believes there's a reporter of any political persuasion, or even no political persuasion, who's "unbiased," that person never learned to read effectively. BD Colen stated that "...one of the biggest problems our democracy faces today is that the word "fact" no longer has meaning." But BD needs to go back and review his history. That's always been one of the world's problems, not just "our democracy's" problem. If you really think that the amount of BS being thrown around has increased in your lifetime, you'd be well advised to find a good book about United States politics in the early 19th century and read it carefully.
So, cut the crap. Whether you agree with him or not, Sam did Street & PJ a real favor.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Yes, and U.S. let me know the first minute they thought I didn't too!
Never know where that friend and supporter may come from : http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/11/02/even-the-1-are-fed-up-with-wall-street/
The French and Indian War
The American Revolution
Chattel Slavery
The Civil War
Reconstruction
The Klan
The Spanish American War
The Great War
WWII
The Korean Conflict
Iran (Mossadegh)
The Bay of Pigs
Viet Nam
Chile
Grenada
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq Part Deux
Libya
Why would anyone think that violence is the way?
Now OTOH, is this forum the best to see Street/PJ? Hardly.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
I can't believe I just read someone tell another poster the forum is just fine without the input of the OP, and their own post about the subject is better. This gets an award for one of the most arrogant posts I have read.
I have attended a number of Occupy events and amazingly most of those folks were fairly sane and they had their share of loonies. Naturally the folks who don't agree with the Occupy folks focus in on the loonies and try to make them representative of the entire movement. The Occupy folks naturally take umbrage at this unfair characterization.
The major difference I've found in the two groups is the fact that I fit in so well with the Tea Party folks. Mainly because we are about the same age. The Occupy folks are a good bit younger. Despite Sam's comments both groups like the Constitution. The Occupy folks see it as a living document while the Tea Party folks view it as being written in stone. Fortunately our founders put in this amendment process so they anticipated that changes would be needed in the future. That's why women can vote and slavery no longer exists.
Now as for photography & PJ Sam took some pictures of a protest. Ole Russ loves it because he agrees with Sam's political position. Other folks don't like it because they don't agree with Sam's politics. As for it being journalism, it sure is. You only have to read the Wall Street Journal or the NY Post to see the same biased journalistic coverage. You can go to the Washington Monthly to see similar biased journalism favoring the Occupy movement. The litmus test for anything being PJ seems to be if the pictures and text supports one's politial positions.
All I know is that I spent a year in Vietnam with a Democratic prez and a year in Vietnam with a Republican prez, never noticed a difference. I lived through 8 years of Bush the second and three years of Obama and I haven't noticed any change in my life during those 11 years.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Really? I apologize for lowering your bar.
Why should whether "OP" (I know, lets call him.. Sam) matters in this? I am commenting on Russ' observation.
You sound angry too. Lets see your pictures :-)
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
You are projecting and you sound defensive.
That's called ironic? :-)
So, how are your photos? They look too much HDR to me, but I know some people like that stuff...
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
Just what does my photos or yours have to do with this thread like it's some kind of measuring contest?
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
What, exactly is the PJ part of Street & PJ supposed to do? When I first saw Street & PJ I assumed one of the things it would try to do is teach its members something about the difference between real street photography and personal shapshots, but it didn't take long for Richard to disabuse me of that idea.
One would think that if there's really a PJ component to Street & PJ, people like BD, who's an experienced journalist and teacher, would at least try to teach people trying to do photojournalism something about journalism, perthaps its limits and how to make it effective. After all, BD's billed as a "PJ artist in residence." Instead, he piles on along with the rest of the complainers. And now you want to cut off comments that point out the bias. Let's face it, Harry, if Sam's comments had come down on the other side of the political divide you'd have been cheering.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
From a totally uninformed/rookie perspective, I somehow managed to catch this line in Sam's first post. For me, that simple sentence, separated by breaks, set the stage on what I was about to view and framed the images for Sam's experience. I wasn't there, so his comments are the only artifacts I have to understand what he saw and came away with as far as images. The rest is up to me to figure out.
Regardless of political agendas, leanings, titles and such, I knew what I was going to view looking at the images as that of Sam's shooting that day. So what if politically we have both sides of the fence here? The fact (for me at least) is the images were prefaced with a statement that set the stage, the images were presented with Sam's observations, and are his alone for the series. This was made clear.
Most everything else downstream of the OP seem to be focused on fact or not, political agenda or not. We knew the presented images would be biased. That was fact and stated up front. So why all the hate, either direction?
Yeah, I'm new. I don't have a clue on what I'm doing most of the time. I fumble on simple stuff. Heck, look at my line under my name and you'll know my level of experience. But I have learned a tremendous amount from this sub-forum. So what did I learn with this thread? That Sam shot some good images in my book and presented me with a point of view from half-way across the country I don't get with MSM. I may or not agree with the point of view, yet it's opened my eyes for a point of view of which the decision is mine on whether to accept it or not. Without Sam's images and commentary, I wouldn't understand some of what's going on in Oakland. And that goes for ALL the others in here who have posted Occupy threads. Without your comment, be it fact or personal observation, I wouldn't have my horizons expanded as they have.
And isn't that what part of the whole thing is about - to expand our knowledge and get us to actually think on our own when presented with an image or three?
.
I indicated that comments about what was PJ were OK. What isn't OK are posts where someone attacks another poster. A good example would be your post.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
You try to head off personal attacks but then make the comment "Russ, I know that reading is hard but give it a try". This coming from a moderator? That is a personal attack.
Here's a thought why don't we all go out and shoot some images, that's what this forums about.
I know I will be it's just to nice of a day not exercise my shutter finger and not the KeyBoard!
Sam,
I like your set, sorry never read the words.
I do wish you had posted bigger.
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
Hardly a personal attack. Now if I had said that someone had made one of the most arrogant posts I have ever read that would have been a personal attack.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I have read and reread my original post and have real difficulty in seeing bias. I feel less obligated to remain neutral in answering questions with regard to the original post. Please note we ALL have some form of bias, but I define bias as acting on ones predisposition without any regard to the facts. I try not to do that. perhaps more or less successful at different times.
How was my observations of the different people biased?
How was relating a conversation with a cameraman unsubstantiated or biased?
How is my description of Micheal Morre's arrival biased? I could use the same description of Sara Palin or Sean Hannity. Would that be more acceptable and unbiased?
My observation of Morre's physical condition and appearance was what I saw. How is that biased?
I also noted he was a powerful and experienced speaker holding the attention of the crowd. Is this also biased?
Now on to the photos.
I can't see bias in photos #1 through #6. If you do please articulate why.
Photo #7 This is my opinion based on the written sign. How is this bias?
Photo #8 This is could be bias based on his appearance, but I also spoke with him.
Photo #9 Describing him as a real radical is an opinion based on his own statements. The statement of not wanting to negotiate and advocating revolution are his words not mine. My statement of too many agreeing is my opinion based on the response to his speech. How is this bias? Would advocating revolution be non-biased?
Photo # 10 You will just have to take my word on this one or go ask him yourself.
Photo # 11 Fact
Photo # 11 I consider this to be fact based on my personal experience and never once hearing or seeing any evidence of drug use at a Tea Party event. How is this bias?
Sam
Sure, Harry -- and I quote: "You only have to read the Wall Street Journal or the NY Post to see the same biased journalistic coverage. You can go to the Washington Monthly to see similar biased journalism favoring the Occupy movement."
Maybe your own reading deficiencies keep you from noticing that in the WSJ and the NY Post the editorials are on the editorial page, while in the NYT and Washington Monthly most of the editorials are on the front page, posing as news.
Yes, Harry, editorials are biased. That's why in a decent newspaper they're identified as editorials or op ed. It's a question of honesty.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
So then what did you mean when you said.." Russ I know that reading is hard but give it a try"? This comes across as an insult to his intelligence or reading comprehension to me.
For someone to come into another posters thread and declare their photos on the same subject are better than the OP's photos sounds pretty arrogant to me.
I have the same questions too.
Russ the reporting in the WSJ and the NY Post (both Murdock publications) is slanted towards the right just as the reporting in the Washington Monthly is slanted towards the left and I'm not talking editorial pages or opinion columns.
The key point that I'm making that most PJ journalism today has a bias. Fox news is biased. MSNBC is biased. Biased journalism is an American tradition. When the US was founded most newspapers of the day were either Federalist publications or Republican publications. The Federalist papers would attack Jefferson and his followers and the Republican papers did the same to Hamilton and his supporters.
Sam posted some good pics of the demo and when measured on our current scale of biased reporting he barely nudged the meter.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Jon, it meant that he had not read what I had written in the context of the thread. The post he was responding to had been directed at you and Richard.
I don't care if someone sounded arrogant to you. If they were let them know about in a PM. If you want to disagree about photographic merits or whatever go ahead but keep it civil and don't characterize other posters.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I apologize for coming across as characterizing another poster. I'm just saying telling someone I know it must be hard to read comes across as characterizing another poster. Just say "my warning was in the context of two posters getting in an argument, not about Sam's post. " Your added comment comes across as snarky because it wasn't needed to get your point across. When things get heated like this thread has become, it doesn't help when a moderator jumps in and adds to it.
I have been observing the threads about OWS and Sam's is one of the first ones that show the good, the bad, and the ugly. Because of that, Sam has been told he is biased, his pictures are less than they are because he actually expressed an opinion about the pictures, and it wasn't real pj work. I don't see any difference in what he did and than others who post only the good side that show it in a positive light. If only the good is shown, then it is propaganda as it shows a favoritism FOR something.
While I am not a Tea Party member, I agree with many of the ideas of the movement. I also see similarities with OWS. I think OWS is wrong in how it wants to fix the problem. I think those that are part of OWS that want to change the world should channel their passion in developing corporations and small businesses that create jobs for the people in the movement. They should run the companies in a way that lines up with their social values. If they want to help, create a company that gives healthcare to it's employees and gives all it's profits to charity. Show us what means to run a bank doesn't need a bailout and practices good lending procedures.
Jon, I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way, but at least for myself, I have never claimed that Sam or anyone else should be unbiased. Every time a shutter is clicked, the shooter shows a bias. What I object to, is the biased captioning. That doesn't add to the impact of the photos.
I will give you a case in point: for me, of the original photos in this thread in question, of course we remember the Moore ones because it was pointed out so often, but the only one I remember is the caption that says something to the effect of "why would informed adults borrow money (to pay for higher education)" and not the image itself. In other words, the captions have such strong personal bias to them that they detract from the images. Now instead of looking at the image, my gut reaction is "but what about other factors such as that tuition has consistently risen above inflation rate since 1980s?" etc.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
Actually, there's a study that I'll have to try to re-locate that says that except for its editorial page the WSJ is biased more to the left than even the NYT. I find that awfully hard to believe, but I'll see if I can find the reference again. The study must have ignored editorials on front pages masquerading as news.
Well Harry, speaking of reading deficiencies, way back at the beginning of my entry into this thread I said "If there's actually a person who believes there's a reporter of any political persuasion, or even no political persuasion, who's "unbiased," that person never learned to read effectively." What can I say?
www.FineArtSnaps.com