[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So he’s human. How’s that a story?

It’s not a story, it was a joke.

Rough crowd tonight.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

It’s not a story, it was a joke.

Rough crowd tonight.

Sorry, my comment was meant in support of your earlier comment (“You lost me.”).

Do you have an idea what the link to the Fauci story was about?

[subego]

No.

I’m trying to put it in the context of what I said.

Single frame of Biden holding a finger above his lip in thought. Internet falsely says he’s digging for gold. Okay, got it.

Single frame of Fauci smiling about his new boss. Internet correctly says he’s smiling about his new boss.

I’m clever enough to see the similarities, but not so much I can draw a conclusion.

[subego]

Along the lines of what I think we’re talking about, I love this clip here…



When I first saw this it looked so damn much to me like Bannon is recoiling in horror, but the mundane reality is he’s taking out his reading glasses.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Along the lines of what I think we’re talking about, I love this clip here…



When I first saw this it looked so damn much to me like Bannon is recoiling in horror, but the mundane reality is he’s taking out his reading glasses.

Yeah, good catch.
A lot of the clips that are floating out there and that are supposed to show that e. g. Joe Biden is senile or some such are not just taken out of context, but also fake.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Laminar got it right… it looks like he’s picking his nose.

I don’t get what follows about the Internet and the Fauci story.

„Still photos do not necessarily represent what actually happened.“

[subego]

What was really happening in the Fauci photo?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What was really happening in the Fauci photo?

You could very likely have captured a photo of him smiling under Trump and frowning under Biden. They're picking still frames to support a narrative they want to be true.

The same thing happened at the inaugurations - they showed photos of presidents at their own inauguration very solemn, feeling the weight of the upcoming term. That was contrasted with photos of those same people at the inauguration of their successor, smiling, laughing, happy the burden is gone. Supporting a narrative. You could easily pick still photos to support the opposite.

They showed photos of Barack and Michelle close and holding hands and feeling loving, and those were contrasted with Melania looking cold and distant.

You could take two photos of the same event and put one on CNN and the other on Fox News, talking about what a cold, uncaring relationship the enemy president has with his wife.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It’s not a story, it was a joke.

Rough crowd tonight.

Maybe people are just tired of substance-free fake news attacks on presidents, so an "LOL BOOGERS" joke isn't going to land.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You could very likely have captured a photo of him smiling under Trump and frowning under Biden. They're picking still frames to support a narrative they want to be true.

There are quotes from him, in the article, where he’s says why he’s happy.

Now I guess it’s my turn to mention this example is a really roundabout way to make your point.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now I guess it’s my turn to mention this example is a really roundabout way to make your point.

"Partisan news sources can pick and choose still photos to drive the narrative they want, here are two examples" seems pretty straightforward to me.

[subego]

To me, there is a self-evident distinction between examples where the narrative being driven exactly matches reality (Fauci) versus examples where the narrative being driven is unambiguously false (Biden).

Likewise, if one wishes to demonstrate the perils of this practice, to me, the latter self-evidently better serves the purpose. In fact, the latter serves the purpose so well, and the former so poorly, the decision to choose the former might lead the audience to think the perils aren’t the point.

Of course, I would like to reiterate I wasn’t pushing a narrative, but making a booger joke.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You could very likely have captured a photo of him smiling under Trump and frowning under Biden. They're picking still frames to support a narrative they want to be true.

The same thing happened at the inaugurations - they showed photos of presidents at their own inauguration very solemn, feeling the weight of the upcoming term. That was contrasted with photos of those same people at the inauguration of their successor, smiling, laughing, happy the burden is gone. Supporting a narrative. You could easily pick still photos to support the opposite.

I think those are two slightly different issues: the first issue is to choose an ambiguous photo that suggests something happened that did not actually happen. A similar category are photos that make the subject look particularly good or bad — you can take you favorite actor/actress/top model, film them and find frames where they look ridiculous and perhaps even ugly. (You can see tons of “halo photos” where some circular lighting source looks like a halo.)

The second is that pictures in publications are chosen to reflect and set the mood and tone of the article. I think the two inauguration photos are a good example: generally, we know that the Obama’s have a much closer and more loving relationship than the Trumps. Also, from what we know, Melania was not happy that Trump won the election. So the first picture represents this difference in relationships between the two presidential couples. You could object that my characterization is not accurate, but as a technique to reinforce the message of the story, I don’t find that objectionable or manipulative. That’s how images are used, and why we often say that an image says more than 1,000 words.

As always there are cases which are borderline. But as a rule of thumb, if the photos mainly support the story, then your objection is likely with the narrative in the story rather than the picture. If the photo becomes the story, you really need to be careful. There are a few cases where photos are the story, e. g. Melania’s “I don’t care. Do you?” coat, which she wore on a visit to a facility for children who have crossed the border; or George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo. In both of these cases, the subject chose the narrative: it is not as if all of Melania’s other coats were at the dry cleaners that day and she only had one that made her look like a giant butthole. Ditto for President “Mission Accomplished”, ultimately that was President Bush’s choice.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

To me, there is a self-evident distinction between examples where the narrative being driven exactly matches reality (Fauci) versus examples where the narrative being driven is unambiguously false (Biden).

Right.
I think it is still ok if I weaken your point and just require that the photo matches the narrative of the story. You are free to disagree with the photo, but if it is merely a reflection of the story, you actually just disagree with the story.

Originally Posted by subego 

Likewise, if one wishes to demonstrate the perils of this practice, to me, the latter self-evidently better serves the purpose. In fact, the latter serves the purpose so well, and the former so poorly, the decision to choose the former might lead the audience to think the perils aren’t the point.

In a way, what you describe, I think, is how much substance a story has. If it is just a mood piece with little substance, a few pictures can puff it up, but they cannot disguise if the lack of substance of a story.

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course, I would like to reiterate I wasn’t pushing a narrative, but making a booger joke.

I think jokes can be an exception, too. As usual, good jokes are often edgy and rely on exaggeration and a bit of distortion. Ultimately, though, Biden picking a booger out of his nose isn’t a very good joke in isolation. (At least to me, your taste may vary.)

[subego]

I agree nose picking isn’t funny in isolation.

Much funnier when done in front of world leaders… hey-ooooooooo!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Also, from what we know, Melania was not happy that Trump won the election.

I'm fascinated in an actual source for this. It was definitely a narrative that was going around, "She never wanted to be First Lady." Is there anything out there other than media conjecture that actually supports this?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm fascinated in an actual source for this. It was definitely a narrative that was going around, "She never wanted to be First Lady." Is there anything out there other than media conjecture that actually supports this?

I looked back and it seems the main source is Michael Wolff, and his claims have been repeated by reputable news outlets. I’m not sure whether they have done independent fact checking. I definitely remember this story, but since the Trump Presidency has overloaded my brain, I cannot recall whether other people have done independent reporting on it.

However, I find this is consistent with reporting now that Melania Trump doesn’t want his husband to run again in 2024. During her four years as First Lady I never got the impression she liked her duties and the expectations, but that’s of course subjective. And it is also how I e. g. interpreted her “I don’t care” coat: it wasn’t directed at the kids in the detention centers, but I thought it was aimed at an audience of one, her husband. Perhaps she didn’t want to do what was expected of her as a First Lady that day, her husband told her she had to/, and this was her way of showing it?

[Thorzdad]

Apparently, Russia carpeted phosphorus bombs on Bakhmut yesterday.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Apparently, Russia carpeted phosphorus bombs on Bakhmut yesterday.

The Wagner group is apparently too lazy to carry unused ammo back home. Better waste everything on a meaningless target.