I chose picture #7, in this photograph a british soldier seems to be looking after Iraqi refugees and asking them to take cover.
This image first appeared in April 2003 on the front page of the Los Angeles Times shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
A soldier was cropped and pasted in a photograph of a refugee camp.
The way I see it, this photograph was manipulated for two reasons, the first reason is that they did not have a good picture of the ally troops doing something humanitarian during the invasion. The second reason is that the photograph portrays the invading countries as the good guys and it serves as excellent PR if you are promoting the war.
The manipulation was harmful because it deceives the public of what the army is really doing in the invaded country. It is dishonest and it defends the argument that going to war was a good choice, which proves that someone is covering the truth from the public.
5 comments:
i agree, i think thats harmful
I agree with your reasons why the picture was manipulated. This is a good example of how changing photos up can be harmful.
Most serious, and I would continue that although the artist may have found this version of the photo to be more aesthetically pleasing, the photo has lost all authenticity and believability. And that can't be helpful to a news organization.
So is it bad if pictures have a political biases? You have great points and I agree with you.
I agree that this altered picture is harmful, espically this is related to the poltical topic, and convey the wrong message to the public.
Post a Comment