Interesting, the perspective that the "vulnerable" Trump is more authentic (or in AI-speak, not fake) than the "powerful" one. Both images are strong, both storytelling. Aren't both part of the narrative of the event?
When you have to choose only one photo for an article which one you’ll choose ? The one just after the rifle fired or the one he had the time to think and react to the cameras ? The more human side or the more politician side ? It is an editorial choice . I must say I like the wpp choice that comes from a larger choice of photos and better sense of a global view
In this digital/internet age with unlimited space, the choice of one photo does not need to be made. Even in a traditional newspaper, given the news event, editors would no doubt devote more than one picture to it.
Do you think anyone who had just been shot would have the presence of mind to think about how to best show himself for the cameras? That's hard to imagine, even for Trump.
Photography is interpretive. Trump is known as a performer—look at him handing out French Fries for a few minutes in a McDonald’s to belittle Kamala Harris’s actual employment there, or posing in a garbage truck as a rebuke to an unfortunate characterization by Biden—so there is a choice to be made in selecting a photograph that shows him performing for his admirers or looking vulnerable and afraid.
Featuring his performative gesture is one choice; another is to show him as disoriented and requiring support. These are critical choices that affect an election. World Press Photo’s award to a photo that does not privilege his performance argues for an alternative version, one that is less spectacular but recognizes the seriousness of the nearly successful attempt on his life.
Journalists interpret, and choosing the version that best represents what occurred is their responsibility. The fist-in-the-air photograph should also be published, but as an ancillary image, not the primary one. I hope this helps…
All politicians are performers, granted, some better than others – I think both candidates' performances proved that in this past election. But there is a big difference between a premeditated act and a reaction to a sudden act of violence. For the latter, any presumption of the subject's intention on the part of an editor (for instance) is just that, a presumption. It is true journalists interpret, but with this comes the responsibility to choose pictures with minimal bias.
As you noted above, if we are just looking at the importance, quality and impact of a photograph, the fist picture wins; that is obvious from its wide dissemination before people had too much time to scrutinize whether it was too advantageous to the subject. It is a strong image, no matter who is in the photo. That should be the main criteria if we are going to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity.
A cover is a cover even in the digital age. It's the editorial choice that gives you the first impression and defines the event even if you put more photos of it. Many medias decided to open with a different photo.
As I'm not in Trump's mind I can't reply to your question...
I'm not sure what you mean as a cover, especially in the modern age, where information is no longer funneled through limited sources (a preferred option in that this former method of dissemination was subject to numerous abuses). In the end, this means it's left to the individual disseminator and consumer to perceive and decide what they want to take from the images.
If one cannot get inside the head of the subject, then it is reasonable to conclude that both images, though different, are truthful and valid.
Let me know if you would open an article about Nazism in WWII germany with one of these photos. Their truthful and valid but do they depict your vision behind the story ? It's about the message of an event, that lasts much more than 1/125 s, that you want to convey. Just that.
Not sure how we got from hard news photographs of an attempted assassination of a future president to what looks like Third Reich propaganda photos. Apples and oranges, though I suppose you could make the argument that all photographs, in the wrong hands, have the potential of being propaganda. But whose hands are wrong and who are right? The role of "right" has traditionally fallen to a few in the media (at times in cahoots with others in power) making that decision for the many. One thing for sure is that media dissemination as we once knew it is a thing of the past, fueled by a technology that allows otherwise. It's a tangled web for sure, but it beats turning back.
Interesting, the perspective that the "vulnerable" Trump is more authentic (or in AI-speak, not fake) than the "powerful" one. Both images are strong, both storytelling. Aren't both part of the narrative of the event?
When you have to choose only one photo for an article which one you’ll choose ? The one just after the rifle fired or the one he had the time to think and react to the cameras ? The more human side or the more politician side ? It is an editorial choice . I must say I like the wpp choice that comes from a larger choice of photos and better sense of a global view
In this digital/internet age with unlimited space, the choice of one photo does not need to be made. Even in a traditional newspaper, given the news event, editors would no doubt devote more than one picture to it.
Do you think anyone who had just been shot would have the presence of mind to think about how to best show himself for the cameras? That's hard to imagine, even for Trump.
Photography is interpretive. Trump is known as a performer—look at him handing out French Fries for a few minutes in a McDonald’s to belittle Kamala Harris’s actual employment there, or posing in a garbage truck as a rebuke to an unfortunate characterization by Biden—so there is a choice to be made in selecting a photograph that shows him performing for his admirers or looking vulnerable and afraid.
Featuring his performative gesture is one choice; another is to show him as disoriented and requiring support. These are critical choices that affect an election. World Press Photo’s award to a photo that does not privilege his performance argues for an alternative version, one that is less spectacular but recognizes the seriousness of the nearly successful attempt on his life.
Journalists interpret, and choosing the version that best represents what occurred is their responsibility. The fist-in-the-air photograph should also be published, but as an ancillary image, not the primary one. I hope this helps…
All politicians are performers, granted, some better than others – I think both candidates' performances proved that in this past election. But there is a big difference between a premeditated act and a reaction to a sudden act of violence. For the latter, any presumption of the subject's intention on the part of an editor (for instance) is just that, a presumption. It is true journalists interpret, but with this comes the responsibility to choose pictures with minimal bias.
As you noted above, if we are just looking at the importance, quality and impact of a photograph, the fist picture wins; that is obvious from its wide dissemination before people had too much time to scrutinize whether it was too advantageous to the subject. It is a strong image, no matter who is in the photo. That should be the main criteria if we are going to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity.
A cover is a cover even in the digital age. It's the editorial choice that gives you the first impression and defines the event even if you put more photos of it. Many medias decided to open with a different photo.
As I'm not in Trump's mind I can't reply to your question...
I'm not sure what you mean as a cover, especially in the modern age, where information is no longer funneled through limited sources (a preferred option in that this former method of dissemination was subject to numerous abuses). In the end, this means it's left to the individual disseminator and consumer to perceive and decide what they want to take from the images.
If one cannot get inside the head of the subject, then it is reasonable to conclude that both images, though different, are truthful and valid.
Do you know the book "Nein, Onkel – Ed Jones and Timothy Prus" ? (https://archiveofmodernconflict.com/nein-onkel-ed-jones-and-timothy-prus/)
Let me know if you would open an article about Nazism in WWII germany with one of these photos. Their truthful and valid but do they depict your vision behind the story ? It's about the message of an event, that lasts much more than 1/125 s, that you want to convey. Just that.
Not sure how we got from hard news photographs of an attempted assassination of a future president to what looks like Third Reich propaganda photos. Apples and oranges, though I suppose you could make the argument that all photographs, in the wrong hands, have the potential of being propaganda. But whose hands are wrong and who are right? The role of "right" has traditionally fallen to a few in the media (at times in cahoots with others in power) making that decision for the many. One thing for sure is that media dissemination as we once knew it is a thing of the past, fueled by a technology that allows otherwise. It's a tangled web for sure, but it beats turning back.