Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yeah, I was wondering if it was an "elitist assumption" or an assumption that the readers themselves "are elite." But I generally write off just about any opinion when the "elitist" word comes up, so I didn't wonder too long :-) But I went to Harvard, so what the hell do I know? LOL ROTFL But back on topic, the possibility of a photograph being misinterpreted as a more "factual" than illustrative photo is always a real issue. Sure, why not? Just think of all the sensationalist headlines and copy that passes for "news," even in the relatively dry business press and industry trade rags. Maybe moreso there, because it's so dry to begin with :-) Scott Adam Bridge wrote: >I don't understand the use of "elitist" in this context. > >On 7/3/05, Seth Rosner <sethrosner@nycap.rr.com> wrote: > > >>And there are at least two problems with the response of the Times editors: >>that NY Times readers will recognize the difference. >> >>1) it makes quite elitist assumptions about the paper's readers and 2) it >>omits to consider how people with a different ideological point of view >>from >>that attributed to Times readers will point to the misleading inferences as >>attempts to mislead deliberately Times readers into believing that these >>were real photographs of real torture. >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >