|
|
|
|
|
|
by TeMPOraL
858 days ago
|
|
|
> In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo. I did not read the article and immediately think, "Oh yeah, random tower in the middle of nowhere USA, this is for sure a picture of that tower". Perhaps just me.. Yeah, I'd assume it's just you. My default assumption for a photo next to a piece of text is that the two are directly related, in particular the photo being the subject of the text. Okay, so maybe they wanted to have a photo, but there's no way to frame this that makes the journalist or the outlet look good. Intentionally or not, choosing a wrong photo is still screwing with readers' perception of reality. |
|
|
> Okay, so maybe they wanted to have a photo, but there's no way to frame this that makes the journalist or the outlet look good. Intentionally or not, choosing a wrong photo is still screwing with readers' perception of reality.
Doing a search for how other news websites reported this story, only the CNN used the "correct" image. A few others used different images without even giving context it was a different tower. A few of the other ones are certainly more egregious, not labelled at all..
Other/wrong image:
https://www.fox9.com/news/radio-tower-stolen-wjlx-alabama
https://nypost.com/2024/02/11/news/alabama-radio-station-wjl... (about a minute into the top clip, there is B-roll with generic radio tower images)
https://boingboing.net/2024/02/09/200-foot-radio-tower-stole...
Actual image:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/08/us/stolen-transmitter-radio-t...
No image:
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/someone-stole-a-jasper-radio...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/09/radio-...
> Okay, so maybe they wanted to have a photo, but there's no way to frame this that makes the journalist or the outlet look good. Intentionally or not, choosing a wrong photo is still screwing with readers' perception of reality.
Choosing a "wrong" photo that is CLEARLY labelled, I don't agree with this opinion. I find that hypercritical. Seemingly we simply disagree.