Once you start paying attention to this, it can no longer be unseen. If they don’t like someone, they’ll use a bad picture of them and vice versa. It’s a good tell even if the article itself seems neutral.

  • obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    19 hours ago

    There was a very high profile case of this when Jill Greenberg bragged about intentionally duping John McCain into standing in unflattering light during a shoot for a profile piece in the Atlantic during his presidential campaign. She lit him from below with hard light to look old and and creepy. His team was clearly not that media savvy.

    The atalantic disavowed her actions and I think apologized.

  • Godnroc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s an old trick relating to this; if you want someone to look foolish use a picture with their mouth wide open. If you want then to look dignified, use a picture with their mouth closed or smiling.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    But what if that person is bad and stupid? Is anti-Trump news “biased”? To me (and most of the world) it’s just common sense.

    • Perspectivist@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Anti-anything in journalism is still bias, even if you think it’s common sense. Bias just means the outlet has a consistent slant or preference - it doesn’t automatically make them wrong.

      That’s why it’s useful to notice bias. If Fox News and the New York Times - outlets with very different biases - both criticize Trump for the same thing, that convergence makes the criticism harder to dismiss. Recognizing bias doesn’t mean ignoring the point; it helps you weigh it more accurately.

      • oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think the point was more along the lines of “what if the person you’re reporting on always looks bad, do you need to go out of your way to achieve ‘balance?’”

        • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s definitely part of what I meant. A mistake (not only in my opinion) many European media outlets made wrt far-right populism.

    • myplacedk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Then represent the person like that, but not worse.

      Plenty of people in history is presented as pure bad, but reality is more complex.

      For example, we know Adolf Hitler as one of the worst people in history (at least here where I live). But he did a lot of good for Germany. At the time, this is what he was known for, and that is why he was popular enough to be democratically elected.

      But if we only know him as a purely bad person, we will not recognize the next Hitler before it’s too late. We will see a person doing good stuff, but with signs that too many people will ignore.

      There’s also the idea that when you do good, you deserve to be recognized for that, no matter what else you’ve done. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but also to encourage more of that.

    • stinky@redlemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      don’t shame people for trying to teach journalistic integrity. I’d honestly consider deleting this comment.

      • 7uWqKj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Seriously, you mean there are people who didn’t figure that out by themselves? People above voting age anyway? Wow, that explains a lot of the things going on around the world these days …

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          Who cares how they came by the information? The important thing is that they know it. If you gatekeep by saying “I figured it out for myself; you had to be taught” then you’re losing supporters who would have sided with you. It’s not practical. What problem are you trying to solve? It feels like you’re angry and throwing a tantrum.