A picture can say a thousand words, but sometimes pictures by themselves can be ambiguous and can have profoundly different meanings in different contexts. Take for example two pictures taken shortly after hurricane Katrina devastated the southern part of the United States. Two pictures of similar situations, survivors obtaining food and supplies are given strikingly different connotations depending on the captioning. In this sense, the media has a ton of power. They have the power to, decide what gets reported, what slant or angle is represented and ultimately shape public opinion. Sometimes this "slant" can cause a lack of objectivity which can have profound effects on the reader's response. In this example the reader, seeing two similar pictures and two different captions is lead to the assumption that the editors of the publication view this situation as "looting" for an African American where in the picture with two Caucasian's the act is referred to "looking for food". The author of this article "Ralli" describes the difference as being merely definitional but because we have the aspect of race added to the equation this mere "oversight" becomes an argument about race and stereotype rather than mere definition.
I believe that the editors and photographers are responsible for this misunderstanding. Regardless of whether their intent to portray African Americans in a degratory manner or not was the intention, these picture have no pretext to them, therefore when deciding on the wording of these situations one must be socially conscious about their decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment