When I first came to write this blog, I was tempted to write a piece defending staging shots or swapping sound. After all, if journalism's obligation is to the truth, why would recreating a situation in a truthful manner be bad?
Think about what journalists regularly do. Their stock and trade is gathering information from a variety of sources and retelling what they think happened, as their information tells them it happened. If journalists are given carte blanche to do this with the written word, why is doing this in a graphic form wrong?
I think the difference comes down to the level of credibility people give each form. With words, the source of them is obvious, coming from the reporter and sources, and people are used to some level of skepticism that what they're being told may not be how it actually happened.
Yet with visual images or sounds, their ability to convince is greater, since if an image of something is shown or a sound, it seems to actually be coming from what is seen or heard. The viewer/listener is easily led to believe that what is being shown is how it actually happened, even if it is a recreation, since recreations so easily match "the real thing". Thus, if something is actually inaccurate, the damage to the truth is greater, since more people will be deceived. If someone just read or heard someone say an inaccurate recollection of events, they have their greater incredulity to protect them from believing BS.
My favorite part of these readings was the Poynter piece's notes regarding how music, effects, lighting or editing can be deceitful. This is one of my greatest concerns, how these tricks influence how a subject is perceived subliminally, and I don't think this has been studied enough, given how fuzzy and hard to discern the impact of these tricks is. I hope more research and cogitation can help give a clearer understanding of the effects of these tricks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment