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
That's a study I would like to read
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?
and your point would be?
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!"
Let's face it: The OWS kids who're complaining about having to repay college loans for educations they didn't get have a legitimate gripe. We've converted what once was a society based on practical knowledge and performance to a society based on credentials, and our kids are told that to succeed in life they have to have a college degree. But demand for people with degrees in women's studies, counseling, environmental studies and similar "disciplines" is what economists call "elastic." There's not much demand in normal times, and when the economy retreats, demand shrinks to nothing.
What we used to call "vocational" tracks are a different story. Take plumbing for instance. There's extremely "inelastic" demand for people who can unplug toilets and clear roots from your drains. There's always work for people who can do that effectively. Same thing applies to electricians, carpenters, etc. These kids need to learn how to use a pipe wrench.
It would be even harder to argue against the fact that the study's author's are right-wingers and that the study's findings and methodology have been questioned.
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!"
It would be even harder to argue against the fact that the study's author's are right-wingers and that the study's findings and methodology have been questioned.
Golly... Imagine that. Guess they should have been on Street & PJ. Nobody would have questioned their methodology or accused them of being "right-wingers." Right, Harry?
Golly... Imagine that. Guess they should have been on Street & PJ. Nobody would have questioned their methodology or accused them of being "right-wingers." Right, Harry?
What cameras do they use?
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!"
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.
The photos are clearly PJ, but the captions and comments stray away from PJ into opinion. True photojournalism leaves out the opinions of the photographer. If Sam wanted to sell these photos, the captions he provides would not be used by any legitimate news gathering organization. THAT's the issue. There's NO WAY you would find photos with loaded captions like this on the WSJ. You may occasionally find bad reporting, but usually such bad reporting is quickly quashed. For example, see the Daily KOS rebuttal to the PSB poll article in the WSJ.
Sam has strong opinions on this topic. I know first hand his politics and have had many discussions with him about issues of this type. I strongly support his right to his opinions, even when I strongly disagree with them. But if he wants to be taken seriously as a photo JOURNALIST he has to learn to keep his opinions to himself, both when he's carrying a camera and when he posts photos as PJ.
jc
JC Dill - Equine Photographer, San Francisco & San Jose http://portfolio.jcdill.com "Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
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.
Photojournalism is not supposed to include the photographer's opinions. Your point of view CAN be clearly articulated by what you choose to shoot (or not shoot), if you wish, but PJ captions should only include clearly substantiated facts, not opinions. That's the issue. For an example of what captions should say, look at these Occupy Oakland photos posted on Demotix.
JC Dill - Equine Photographer, San Francisco & San Jose http://portfolio.jcdill.com "Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
There are significant problems with this report - starting with the presumption that because it came out of UCLA it must be produced by a left-wing group. See:
SUMMARY: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias." But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.
JC Dill - Equine Photographer, San Francisco & San Jose http://portfolio.jcdill.com "Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Any quantitative study of this sort must take a complex idea -- in this case, "bias" -- and operationalize it into something that can be measured. But given its rather odd operationalization of "bias," it is perhaps unsurprising that the study's scheme leads to some categorizations no observer -- on the right or the left -- could take seriously, including the following:
* National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely.
* RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: "OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.") with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a "liberal" group.
* Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a "liberal" group.
* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.
* Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly "liberal."
* Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.
We leave to the reader the judgment on whether anyone could take seriously a coding scheme in which RAND is considered substantially more "liberal" than the ACLU.
JC Dill - Equine Photographer, San Francisco & San Jose http://portfolio.jcdill.com "Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Lets begin with answering my post #52. These are specific questions not pseudo intellectual commentary.
Please note this is not a newspaper or news organization. It's a forum. While I think some lee way here is acceptable I'm not sure I took any more than many of the purported news organizations and I know I took far less than many others.
Wikipedia states:
Timeliness — the images have meaning in the context of a recently published record of events.
Objectivity — the situation implied by the images is a fair and accurate representation of the events they depict in both content and tone.
Narrative — the images combine with other news elements to make facts relatable to the viewer or reader on a cultural level.
I can't recall seeing photojournalism images without some type of narrative whether it be a captioned image or connected to a more lengthy story.
Objectivity of an image is far more difficult to quantify. As an example I have a photo showing a marijuana cigarette and a pipe. Is that a fair and accurate representation of the events? In my opinion yes. I was there and based on my observations and the permeating smell of marijuana from one end of the park to the other I believe it's accurate.
Personally I think this is one of the best threads I have seen here. Look at the discussion. People are thinking (OK not all) but they are drawing lines in the sand supporting or condemning railing for or against, some thoughtful others not. Is this not what journalism is about?
Again, if your serious about condemning, please answer post #52.
The Daily Kos, is the largest progressive community blog in the United States. It is not a news organization. It is not unbiased.
The first article I went to with images was written by a OWS volunteer and this images was posed with the caption, and you want to site this blog / forum as a legitimate news source while condemning my post where I clearly stated I was going to voice some opinions?
And where were the police officers? Why, marching with the protesters! New York City and other OWS sites, take notice!
As for being taken seriously, I actually don't care. I will continue to voice my opinions when and where I choose. It's still America. I will however try to differentiate between fact and opinions. I believe I did so in my original post. I will try and be accurate and civil.
But if you think my original post was so bias and terrible please respond to my questions in post #52.
The Daily Kos, is the largest progressive community blog in the United States. It is not a news organization. It is not unbiased.
I cited (not "sited") the KOS article because the article raises serious methodological issues with the poll and the WSJ article. Instead of dismissing/smearing the KOS article based on the "bias" of the site, try addressing the issues the article raised. I quoted several of these issues which I personally believe are legitimate issues with the PSB poll and with the WSJ article you cited. For example: Do you agree or disagree that it's poor journalism to refer to a poll where 3% and 4% who said they supported a certain action and then spin this in the article into "a large majority" who support that action?
IMHO, this is not good journalism - no matter who published it, WSJ, KOS, FOX, CNN, PBS, doesn't matter.
Do you really believe the WSJ was providing good journalism to publish an article that badly mis-interpreted the poll results?
The first article I went to with images was written by a OWS volunteer and this images was posed with the caption, and you want to site this blog / forum as a legitimate news source while condemning my post where I clearly stated I was going to voice some opinions?
When an OWS volunteer posts something, it's not likely to be serious journalism either. Is THAT who you strive to emulate in your work? I though you had higher standards. That's what my comment here is about, not just doing what someone else does (badly) but doing it right, to the highest standards.
You can voice opinions all you want, you just can't then call it photoJOURNALISM. Opinions have no place in journalism, except on the OpEd page. To avoid confrontation, you should decide which approach you want to take. When you elect to take an un-impartial approach to your captions it is entirely unreasonable to then expect others to seriously consider your work as photoJOURNALISM.
As for being taken seriously, I actually don't care. I will continue to voice my opinions when and where I choose. It's still America. I will however try to differentiate between fact and opinions. I believe I did so in my original post. I will try and be accurate and civil.
Voice your opinion all you want, but don't expect anyone else to consider the results as JOURNALISM. That is my point. As a group, these are great photos. Some of them are Really Great Photos.
Could have been Great PhotoJOURNALISM too, if you had been journalisticly professional in your captions and left out the opinions, sticking solely to facts.
JC Dill - Equine Photographer, San Francisco & San Jose http://portfolio.jcdill.com "Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
But if you think my original post was so bias and terrible please respond to my questions in post #52.
Without specifics it's all blather.
I did respond directly to a few of the things you said post #52, I quoted it in my reply #73 (I think that's the right reply - I quoted 2 of your numbered items from #52). You have not replied to the issues I raised. Why are you chiding me when I've already done exactly what you suggest, and you haven't replied to it?
JC Dill - Equine Photographer, San Francisco & San Jose http://portfolio.jcdill.com "Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Quote: Originally Posted by Sam
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.
Photojournalism is not supposed to include the photographer's opinions. Your point of view CAN be clearly articulated by what you choose to shoot (or not shoot), if you wish, but PJ captions should only include clearly substantiated facts, not opinions. That's the issue. For an example of what captions should say, look at these Occupy Oakland photos posted on Demotix. __________________
The question was how is this biased. I already stated the caption was my opinion. This is not an answer to the question but a comment on providing opinions. Please note this is a forum not a news organization.
As for the examples on Demotox..... these are some of the worst photographs I have seen. As to the factual nature of the captions. The caption is the same for every photo and does not accurately describe what is going on in the individual image.
Quote: Originally Posted by Sam This is my opinion based on the written sign. How is this bias?
Sam, I saw your pictures without the captions and thought that they were great for showing several aspects of what was going on there, including the different walks of life there. However, I find it puzzling that you believe stating your opinion in the caption does not indicate bias, since bias is an opinion. I think the pictures show little, if any bias. But the comments including your opinions most certainly constitute bias.
From Reference.com:
bias: belief in one way; partiality. Synonym: viewpoint. Antonym: impartiality.
opinion: belief. Synonyms: inclination, slant, viewpoint. Antonym: reality, truth.
I don't have any problem with you holding your opinion, and I doubt most anyone else here does either. But overt opinions don't really go hand-in-hand with true photojournalism...they're great for editorial, but they aren't facts.
But I don't want you to miss that I think your photos by themselves do an excellent job at showing the facts of what you saw. I also found your observations (opinions) and those of the camera man quite interesting! Thanks for posting!
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Again some of the things written and posted are my opinion. I stated as much.
After some off line conversations I am beginning to see why some conclude bias. I seem to define bias differently than the word appears to be used here.
Wikipedia: Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Bias can come in many forms.
With regard to image #7 The caption is clearly an opinion. I don't see bias or dogmatic thinking here. I can't see demanding what you want for free after the fact a valid alternative to paying what you commuted to pay. You may disagree of course.
The point of the comments have achieved my goal. You along with others have thought, responded for or against and created a good discussion on the subject of photojournalism.
Again this is not a news organization. I would be more careful in choosing my words if working as a photojournalist. I would gladly categorize my OP as a combination of facts and opinion.
Sam
NOWHERE have I miss led or stated anything as fact that wasn't a fact.
Since this bro ha ha started I have begun to pay attention to photos and captions in news articles. While some are neutral many others include personal comments with regard to what the photo is showing. Not all accompanying articles are neutral ether.
Comments
... and if WSJ is more left than NYT, clearly there's a bias in that study :-)
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
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!"
And yes, I agree there's something wrong with that study -- on the very face of it. Got to try to find it again.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
www.FineArtSnaps.com
What we used to call "vocational" tracks are a different story. Take plumbing for instance. There's extremely "inelastic" demand for people who can unplug toilets and clear roots from your drains. There's always work for people who can do that effectively. Same thing applies to electricians, carpenters, etc. These kids need to learn how to use a pipe wrench.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
www.FineArtSnaps.com
It would be even harder to argue against the fact that the study's author's are right-wingers and that the study's findings and methodology have been questioned.
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!"
Golly... Imagine that. Guess they should have been on Street & PJ. Nobody would have questioned their methodology or accused them of being "right-wingers." Right, Harry?
www.FineArtSnaps.com
What cameras do they use?
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!"
www.FineArtSnaps.com
The photos are clearly PJ, but the captions and comments stray away from PJ into opinion. True photojournalism leaves out the opinions of the photographer. If Sam wanted to sell these photos, the captions he provides would not be used by any legitimate news gathering organization. THAT's the issue. There's NO WAY you would find photos with loaded captions like this on the WSJ. You may occasionally find bad reporting, but usually such bad reporting is quickly quashed. For example, see the Daily KOS rebuttal to the PSB poll article in the WSJ.
Sam has strong opinions on this topic. I know first hand his politics and have had many discussions with him about issues of this type. I strongly support his right to his opinions, even when I strongly disagree with them. But if he wants to be taken seriously as a photo JOURNALIST he has to learn to keep his opinions to himself, both when he's carrying a camera and when he posts photos as PJ.
jc
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Photojournalism is not supposed to include the photographer's opinions. Your point of view CAN be clearly articulated by what you choose to shoot (or not shoot), if you wish, but PJ captions should only include clearly substantiated facts, not opinions. That's the issue. For an example of what captions should say, look at these Occupy Oakland photos posted on Demotix.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
There are significant problems with this report - starting with the presumption that because it came out of UCLA it must be produced by a left-wing group. See:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200512220003
SUMMARY: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias." But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
More from the MediaMaters analysis:
Any quantitative study of this sort must take a complex idea -- in this case, "bias" -- and operationalize it into something that can be measured. But given its rather odd operationalization of "bias," it is perhaps unsurprising that the study's scheme leads to some categorizations no observer -- on the right or the left -- could take seriously, including the following:
* National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely.
* RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: "OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.") with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a "liberal" group.
* Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a "liberal" group.
* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.
* Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly "liberal."
* Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.
We leave to the reader the judgment on whether anyone could take seriously a coding scheme in which RAND is considered substantially more "liberal" than the ACLU.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Well, I'm sure that "operationalizing" anything must lead to strange results, JC.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Please note this is not a newspaper or news organization. It's a forum. While I think some lee way here is acceptable I'm not sure I took any more than many of the purported news organizations and I know I took far less than many others.
Wikipedia states:
- Narrative — the images combine with other news elements to make facts relatable to the viewer or reader on a cultural level.
I can't recall seeing photojournalism images without some type of narrative whether it be a captioned image or connected to a more lengthy story.Objectivity of an image is far more difficult to quantify. As an example I have a photo showing a marijuana cigarette and a pipe. Is that a fair and accurate representation of the events? In my opinion yes. I was there and based on my observations and the permeating smell of marijuana from one end of the park to the other I believe it's accurate.
Personally I think this is one of the best threads I have seen here. Look at the discussion. People are thinking (OK not all)
Again, if your serious about condemning, please answer post #52.
Sam
The Daily Kos, is the largest progressive community blog in the United States. It is not a news organization. It is not unbiased.
The first article I went to with images was written by a OWS volunteer and this images was posed with the caption, and you want to site this blog / forum as a legitimate news source while condemning my post where I clearly stated I was going to voice some opinions?
And where were the police officers? Why, marching with the protesters! New York City and other OWS sites, take notice!
As for being taken seriously, I actually don't care. I will continue to voice my opinions when and where I choose. It's still America. I will however try to differentiate between fact and opinions. I believe I did so in my original post. I will try and be accurate and civil.
But if you think my original post was so bias and terrible please respond to my questions in post #52.
Without specifics it's all blather.
Sam
I cited (not "sited") the KOS article because the article raises serious methodological issues with the poll and the WSJ article. Instead of dismissing/smearing the KOS article based on the "bias" of the site, try addressing the issues the article raised. I quoted several of these issues which I personally believe are legitimate issues with the PSB poll and with the WSJ article you cited. For example: Do you agree or disagree that it's poor journalism to refer to a poll where 3% and 4% who said they supported a certain action and then spin this in the article into "a large majority" who support that action?
IMHO, this is not good journalism - no matter who published it, WSJ, KOS, FOX, CNN, PBS, doesn't matter.
Do you really believe the WSJ was providing good journalism to publish an article that badly mis-interpreted the poll results?
When an OWS volunteer posts something, it's not likely to be serious journalism either. Is THAT who you strive to emulate in your work? I though you had higher standards. That's what my comment here is about, not just doing what someone else does (badly) but doing it right, to the highest standards.
You can voice opinions all you want, you just can't then call it photoJOURNALISM. Opinions have no place in journalism, except on the OpEd page. To avoid confrontation, you should decide which approach you want to take. When you elect to take an un-impartial approach to your captions it is entirely unreasonable to then expect others to seriously consider your work as photoJOURNALISM.
Voice your opinion all you want, but don't expect anyone else to consider the results as JOURNALISM. That is my point. As a group, these are great photos. Some of them are Really Great Photos.
Could have been Great PhotoJOURNALISM too, if you had been journalisticly professional in your captions and left out the opinions, sticking solely to facts.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
I did respond directly to a few of the things you said post #52, I quoted it in my reply #73 (I think that's the right reply - I quoted 2 of your numbered items from #52). You have not replied to the issues I raised. Why are you chiding me when I've already done exactly what you suggest, and you haven't replied to it?
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Originally Posted by Sam
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.
Photojournalism is not supposed to include the photographer's opinions. Your point of view CAN be clearly articulated by what you choose to shoot (or not shoot), if you wish, but PJ captions should only include clearly substantiated facts, not opinions. That's the issue. For an example of what captions should say, look at these Occupy Oakland photos posted on Demotix.
__________________
The question was how is this biased. I already stated the caption was my opinion. This is not an answer to the question but a comment on providing opinions. Please note this is a forum not a news organization.
As for the examples on Demotox.....
If this is good photojournalism I will pass.
Sam
Sam, I saw your pictures without the captions and thought that they were great for showing several aspects of what was going on there, including the different walks of life there. However, I find it puzzling that you believe stating your opinion in the caption does not indicate bias, since bias is an opinion. I think the pictures show little, if any bias. But the comments including your opinions most certainly constitute bias.
From Reference.com:
bias: belief in one way; partiality. Synonym: viewpoint. Antonym: impartiality.
opinion: belief. Synonyms: inclination, slant, viewpoint. Antonym: reality, truth.
I don't have any problem with you holding your opinion, and I doubt most anyone else here does either. But overt opinions don't really go hand-in-hand with true photojournalism...they're great for editorial, but they aren't facts.
But I don't want you to miss that I think your photos by themselves do an excellent job at showing the facts of what you saw. I also found your observations (opinions) and those of the camera man quite interesting! Thanks for posting!
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Again some of the things written and posted are my opinion. I stated as much.
After some off line conversations I am beginning to see why some conclude bias. I seem to define bias differently than the word appears to be used here.
Wikipedia: Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Bias can come in many forms.
With regard to image #7 The caption is clearly an opinion. I don't see bias or dogmatic thinking here. I can't see demanding what you want for free after the fact a valid alternative to paying what you commuted to pay. You may disagree of course.
The point of the comments have achieved my goal. You along with others have thought, responded for or against and created a good discussion on the subject of photojournalism.
Again this is not a news organization. I would be more careful in choosing my words if working as a photojournalist. I would gladly categorize my OP as a combination of facts and opinion.
Sam
NOWHERE have I miss led or stated anything as fact that wasn't a fact.
Since this bro ha ha started I have begun to pay attention to photos and captions in news articles. While some are neutral many others include personal comments with regard to what the photo is showing. Not all accompanying articles are neutral ether.