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.
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.
You sure?
I mean, some people can’t be helped.
The reverse is true of pictures of sports folk, who are almost always pictured with their mouths open in celebration.
There used to be a saying here (UK) along the lines of “the back page of a newspaper always has a picture of a man with his mouth open” and that’s why. Sports at the back. Almost always men’s sports. Main picture was usually some leading point scorer celebrating.
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.
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.
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.
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?’”
That’s definitely part of what I meant. A mistake (not only in my opinion) many European media outlets made wrt far-right populism.
No shit Sherlock
don’t shame people for trying to teach journalistic integrity. I’d honestly consider deleting this comment.
You can also just not say anything when you don’t have anything to say.
Says the guy who posts about what everyone else has known since like forever 🤣
Oh, get off your high horse.
Actually now that i think about it, I’ve never done this in person… to the grocery!
This makes me happy! But please, do share your results.
Do it! It’s so much fun! I also recommend trying different sodas to find which one has a more volatile reaction! It was one of the most fun science experiments ever!
Ad hominem
You’d be surprised at the amount of things you don’t know because you never minded it that some people think it’s obvious.
