Printable View
What is that thing that makes peoples' perceptions (and judgements) so different after a picture or video is revealed/released?
Are the pros and cons equally weighted?
Have we become a society that can't decide right or wrong until there's a graphic youtube video posted?
Could you rephrase the question in youtube form?
GGT, aren't you the one in favor of making decisions based on emotions and not brute facts? What is the purpose of videos (and photos) if not to inflame emotions?
:p
Atrocities and injustices aren't a new concept by a long stretch.....but it seems to me that people can't be "outraged", or moved to action......until there's a camera capture. That's rather fucked up, IMO.
Fuck you, Loki. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Wouldn't you say that your perception might be because you only see what the camera captures, and therefore miss outrage/action/whatever that is off-camera?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No, not really. I wouldn't need to see video/CCTV from an elevator to know that someone was violently assaulted, and had physical injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
For that matter....I shouldn't need videos/pictures to call the police or begin an investigation. Should I?
Also, millions of people have been tortured and killed, but were not 'noticed' until a camera captured the event and posted it on the internet.
Even terrorist organizations seem to understand the "marketing value" of pictures/videos that hit the gut, better than the NFL does.
What's the old expression? Oh yes, a picture speaks a thousand words ...
People are, to varying degree, visual beings. Our sense of sight is our strongest and the one we rely upon the most in our day to day lives.
I've always been ... aware ... of a story in the media gathering much greater impetus and momentum once there is a picture attached to it. Helps people to identify with it more quickly and more strongly; seeing something gets to our core more directly than just reading about it.
Oh right, misunderstood the question, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
What Timbuk said, and I'd like to add that this isn't particularly new either. Pictures work, basically.
I think people recognize that witnesses are fallible and, whenever possible, want actual records.
All these records will be destroyed in The Flood.
"Seeing is believing"Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Its not really possible to believe the media these days so people reading a story won't put a lot of belief behind the words they read or hear. However if you put the ACTUAL event in front of them then they feel capable to make an informed decision when is nearly impossible w/o said evidence.
Right, sure pictures work because we're visual creatures....but with all the technology folks have, aren't we moving into new territory? We don't have to wait for the press (or photojournalists) to cover news or expose problems. All it takes is a youtube posting or twitter feed, or CCTV incidents put on the internet to light up social media, and public outrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Odd thing about this....is that traditional sources of information are lagging behind everyone-and-their-smartphone. :bulb: It's not enough to see pictures of injuries or wounds from a police dept. report or other 'official' news source before people will say, or think, something bad has happened.
Some of that is an attrition of the Press as investigative reporters or 'hard news' providers in the digital/information age, but it doesn't really explain how/why people remain comfortable using denial, averting blame, or avoiding responsibility.....unless or until there's a video? :confused:
Since most American folks still claim privacy is an important value and principle in an open and democratic society (while they're busy recording every aspect of daily life on their devices, uploading and downloading it all) it's become a true paradox. Americans often criticize the UK (as example) for having CCTV on every corner as a violation of "public privacy", and complain about governmental surveillance. We wince at realizing "our government" uses NSA, CIA, covert ops, black ops, etc. We complain when our own police agencies didn't have cameras on their lapels, helmets, or dashboards, but we also complain when they do.
I'm being honest, and admitting personal ambivalences and ethical conflicts. This just happens to be the thread where camera capture is the important variable in the discussion. Don't shoot me for asking.