I like this image from the New York Times Online because (a) it is a refutation of a digitally altered image that was published in major news outlets (e.g., the front page of the Chicago Tribune) across the world as a true record of an Iranian long-range missile test, which after all is a very serious matter indeed; (b) it highlights what sections of the image have been duplicated from other sections for the reader with an untrained eye; (c) it raises L.H. Oswald-on-the-cover-of-Life-type questions about the integrity and ‘honesty’ of all AP-grade images that purport to tell us the whole truth and nothing but, etc.; and (d) it draws attention to the fact that even if an image isn’t altered, just whose truth it tells and for what purposes are matters that ultimately remain unsettled.
The biggest questions this particular image raises for me are who photoshopped it and for what reason? What does an image of four rockets being fired accomplish that an image of three rockets does not? According to the New York Times, the Agence France-Presse reported that the fourth rocket “has apparently been added in digital retouch to cover a grounded missile that may have failed during the test.” But how are we, the news-reading public, knowing that newspapers worldwide were apparently fooled by the 4-missile image, supposed to believe that the ‘original’ 3-missile image has not itself been altered to include the failed fourth missile launcher? CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT! Could this whole charade be part of a western-media propaganda initiative intended to debunk (or insinuate the incompetence of) the Iranian military (although three out of four ain’t bad) and its own propagandist counterpart (because what dingus would realistically think that they could pass off as genuine an image whose parts were so obviously copied and pasted to Major Journalistic Outlets and have them publi– oh wait…)?
Here is the purported original:
And here's the one that almost made the presses but was cut at the last minute for reasons yet undetermined:
Your post brings up great questions, Stephen (or Steve? I forget which you prefer...Big S, maybe?). Berger mentions that when one tampers with a photograph, one is no longer practicing photography (96). But of course, that doesn't mean that one is no longer practicing visual rhetoric. In fact, the visual rhetoric seems to be projected with a very intentional premise.
ReplyDeleteThe orange outlines the NYTonline used is also interesting. It has kind of a football commentator meets teacher/corrector hybrid vibe, lending an air of authority to the image of demonstration. (I have to admit, without the orange lines, I might have been one of the schmoes who didn't notice the overlaps.)