Hayduke
31st August 2002, 09:50
I came across the website
( http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/cs...2101/false.html (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html) )
It deals with the edit of photos by stalin, a way he destroyed evidence. By editing photos he could change the past.
And who controls the past controls the future.
Here an example:
" Leon Trotsky was a close friend of Lenin, and shared his idealistic ideas about the communist state. In the following photograph he can be seen together with Lenin. "
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig1.jpg
" The next image is nearly identical, however Trotsky is removed from it. "
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt1.jpg
" The historical reason for this alteration is that Stalin eventually began to see Trotsky as a threat and labeled him an "enemy of the people". After he was deported from the Soviet Union in 1929, Trotsky critisized Stalin's leadership, arguing that the dictatorship Stalin exercised was based on his own interests, rather than those of the people. This contributed substantially to Trotsky's removal from photographs and history. ".
------
But we all know that Stalin used propaganda to keep his power, but now comes the sick part of it all. It does happen in todays magazines. Here's an example:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/ojcovers.gif
" The Newsweek cover is the original mugshot, whereas the Time cover is digitally manipulated. O.J.Simpson's face is darker, blurrier and unshaven3. The photographer that manipulated the picture said that he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling"3. It is here that the ethical issues arise. News photographs should either be authentic or not be published at all. Any manipulation distorts the truth. It is clear that on the cover of Time, O.J.Simpson looks more sinister than he does on the cover of newsweek. The photographers intention to make the cover more compelling failed miserably, since the matter raised so much discussion. This goes to show that best intentions are often not good enough and that ethical principles should be applied when decisions are made.
-------
The site also explains that there as companies that will remove unwanted people from photos, imagine that if local are able
to do so much things with photos, what the secret services can do ? This really makes me sick.
Bas
( http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/cs...2101/false.html (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html) )
It deals with the edit of photos by stalin, a way he destroyed evidence. By editing photos he could change the past.
And who controls the past controls the future.
Here an example:
" Leon Trotsky was a close friend of Lenin, and shared his idealistic ideas about the communist state. In the following photograph he can be seen together with Lenin. "
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig1.jpg
" The next image is nearly identical, however Trotsky is removed from it. "
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt1.jpg
" The historical reason for this alteration is that Stalin eventually began to see Trotsky as a threat and labeled him an "enemy of the people". After he was deported from the Soviet Union in 1929, Trotsky critisized Stalin's leadership, arguing that the dictatorship Stalin exercised was based on his own interests, rather than those of the people. This contributed substantially to Trotsky's removal from photographs and history. ".
------
But we all know that Stalin used propaganda to keep his power, but now comes the sick part of it all. It does happen in todays magazines. Here's an example:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/ojcovers.gif
" The Newsweek cover is the original mugshot, whereas the Time cover is digitally manipulated. O.J.Simpson's face is darker, blurrier and unshaven3. The photographer that manipulated the picture said that he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling"3. It is here that the ethical issues arise. News photographs should either be authentic or not be published at all. Any manipulation distorts the truth. It is clear that on the cover of Time, O.J.Simpson looks more sinister than he does on the cover of newsweek. The photographers intention to make the cover more compelling failed miserably, since the matter raised so much discussion. This goes to show that best intentions are often not good enough and that ethical principles should be applied when decisions are made.
-------
The site also explains that there as companies that will remove unwanted people from photos, imagine that if local are able
to do so much things with photos, what the secret services can do ? This really makes me sick.
Bas