The Link Between Photography And Censorship

For this essay the works of Robert Draper, author of “Why Photos Matter,” and Fred Ritchen, author of “Photography Changes the Way News is Reported,” will be analyzed. Though both deal with the topic of photography, their take on the matter is very different. While Ritchen is a photographer who writes on “what professional photographers will be doing in the future,” Draper is a writer for the National Geographic writing on how the photographers of the magazine share “a hunger for the unknown.” Both writers, however, write on the topic of photographers having a deeper understanding of their subjects, Ritchen due to research and practice, and Draper because the photographers “sit [with] their subjects, just listening to them.” In both essays the need for a deeper understanding of the

While Postman points out the literal meaning of photography is “writing with light”; the two are from completely different universes when it comes to public discourse (p. 71). Unlike typography, photography cannot offer assertions, make propositions and offers no commentary. As long as it is not an altered photograph, it has no choice but to be true (p. 73). Thus, the photograph is only able to capture a moment in time and does not have the ability to comment on that moment. Our author contends, where language presents the world as an idea, the photographs only option is to show the world as an object (p. 72). Whereas in language, the correct context requires consideration of what is said before and after, in photography there is no before and after, only the snapshot of time. Therefore, by its very nature photography is context-free (p. 73). As photography immersed itself in the American culture author, Daniel Boorstin called this “the graphic revolution.” Postman is unequivocal on the point that the traditional forms of information, news, and even reality itself received an impairment by this new focus on images. For examples, he cites billboards, posters and advertisements. He points to magazines Life, Look and several newspapers. The picture was the focal point, and the writing was forced to take a less dominate roll and sometimes done away with altogether (p.

The history of the world has undoubtedly been dominated by an endless struggle for power. However, after a brief glimpse into the pages of history it should not take long to realize that the trick to maintaining power lies in the control of information. Even the most fearsome military generals of the past acknowledge the power of the mind and ideas over lethal force. Former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once said “… [Ideas] are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, then why should we let them have ideas.” Stalin’s quote personifies the main concept of this literature review which will be discussing the history of government censorship and its effects that are

Although cameras are machines used to capture a moment, Ondaatje argues that they do not accurately portray a person’s essence and their true self. To know someone’s genuine character, one must interact with them, rather than only viewing them through “ground glass or tripod” or the stories told through another person’s perspective. “Ground glass” represents camera’s lenses, a filter altering reality to fit the desired perception of a moment. Cameras are machines that influence someone’s perspective, rather than providing the true nature. Readers typically view Western society as an unknown wild land with no laws, but is it really so? Ondaatje’s use of cameras as a machine questions this notion and shows that cameras and images are only a biased representation of someone and how they want to be perceived.

“She chose to live with it by looking, by seeing, by trying to know- by making an act of private witness.” Censoring images and artwork removes the right to see and know for oneself, a right all people should

Teju Cole, in his essay “Against Neutrality,” dissected the tones behind photography- which he believes are thought of as unbiased towards the subject. The power of words and of photos is crucial to Cole’s essay. He states that images can “make a grim situation palatable” because of the photographer’s craftiness in selection (Cole 1). To anyone who isn’t an experienced photographer these tricks can be hard to see but Cole provides further insight from the historian, John Edwin Mason. Expectantly, Mason sheds light behind the misconception on photography, how the “manipulation in photography isn’t really about Photoshop or darkroom tricks”, but the style, angle and other aspects of taking photos (Cole 1).

Quinn expresses a fundamental concern with the validity and objectivity of journalism with the coming of the digital age, and the increasing role that digital/information technology plays in media that reports or represents reality. Quinn begins his 2004 paper with the mention of the transition of non-digital/traditional photography into mainly digital photography with respect to journalism. More than just the changing of the photographic platform and format, Quinn notes the role that computer software that specializes in photographic manipulation in journalism. Early on, he contends, "Technical advancement has helped photojournalism be more effective in may ways, but has also created ethical challenges in making deception expeditious and less transparent." (Quinn, 2004, 1) The article explores this ethical quandary. Digital technology, photographic software, and digital manipulation are tightly integrated into modern photojournalism, among many other industries and fields. Quinn challenges readers to consider and explore the ethics of photographic manipulation and the implications upon perception. He presents the digital manipulation as having a positive and use; furthermore, that at this point in history and in the profession of photojournalism, it is unavoidable. Quinn clearly additionally presents the issue as loaded with negative ethical implications and

In this Time Magazine article, writer Fred Ritchen debates the merit of violent photos in media. He begins with the events that prompted him to write this essay. He lists “A recent slew of situations resulting in catastrophic violence and death” (Ritchen, p1). This grouping of events, ranging from disease to plane crashes, has brought to light again the question of what a journalist’s duty is in reference of how much of a horror to show and how much to keep from the public. Ritchen’s argument culminates to the fact that the space taken up by showing these horrors of war and similar atrocities could be better used to prevent further events.

In the essay, “The War Photo No One Would Publish”, by Torie DeGhett, explains the censorship of the current media. The essay depicts the Gulf War and during the war, an American photographer, Kenneth Jarecke, photographs an Iraqi man that was burned alive. Jarecke wanted to share his picture with the world, but the media would not show gruesome photograph during that time. After the war ended, different news channels in the United States published the photo, but it did not have the same impact it would have received if the war was still going on. On the Contrary, “We Are a Camera”, an essay written by Nick Paumgarten, illustrates Aaron Chase, a professional mountain biker sponsored by GoPro and his journey as he rode along a steep mountain

What would life be like without censorship? Though there might be upsides to it, such as more freedom of speech, it could also cause some problems. Not only would we be exposing children to many horrors of the world, we also would be doing nothing to prevent offensive and oppressive content in the media. Therefore, some censorship is necessary for all people; however, in most cases, we should be allowed access to most information in society.

Children’s innocence must be protected by censorship. The debate on whether censorship is beneficial to society often compiles to a few main reasons. Subjects like freedom of speech, women’s rights, and children’s innocence is brought into question when discussing censorship. It is an important debate because what is censored influences societal beliefs of what is right and wrong. It decides what truths are revealed publicly. Some people think censorship is beneficial because it supposedly protects children, but it is actually useless because it underestimates children’s tolerance, witholds information, oversexualizes women, and sugarcoats the truth.

However, the article does explore an opposing angle of citizen journalism in-depth where risks of phony photography are high. Undoubtedly, the business of news reporting will always exist, but does citizen journalism hinder the legitimacy of news by providing raw-footage rather than footage that is edited for accuracy? Has photojournalism turned into a commodity due to the ease at which photos and videos can now be captured? Or are we living in a digital age where citizens don’t require news channels to content curate anymore because raw-footage will be accessed through social media platforms anyway? These are questions that can only be answered with a deeper insight into the emergence of citizen-centered

Art is supposed for expressing feeling and the visualizing the feeling or thoughts of the artists. Censorship is the suppression of content, which is defined as harmful, politically incorrect or sensitive by the authority (cited in Merriam, n.d.). Art and censorship have been connected for a long period of time together. In the recent society, the censorship on artworks is one of the most severe issues when it comes to censorship and the problem happens internationally. Since every individual has the right to define what is acceptable for him/her or not, instead of the government or others, Art should not be censored. The censorship on Art may influence the freedom of Creativity‬ of the artist; the right of the general public to view different topics of artworks and censorship on political Art may affect the human rights and freedom of speech.

Photographs, drawings, cartoons and videos cover significant political matters. Photojournalists such as Lynsey Addario present critical political issues that affect the world today. In her book, It’s What I Do, she presents scenes surrounding the fall of prominent political leaders such as Muammar el-Qaddafi. The pictures on pages 4 and 5 of her book, for instance, show the struggles that the rebels went through in their quest to dethrone Qaddafi. She quotes Robert Capa, who once said, “ ‘ If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough’ ” (Lynsey 7) which shows that photographs are significant in the world of journalism. A video such as “Shouting In The Dark” reveals the heinous acts done by the government of Bahrain towards its own citizens. In the video, we see the brutal force used by the government to silence the peaceful protesters. People were beaten, shot, imprisoned, and killed.

The parameters of the term censorship have been changed and manipulated very much over the years. Television and movie ratings have become more lenient against violence and indiscretion because these things are now seen as entertainment. Is this appropriate for our youth? Should children be exposed to these images so early on? How does censorship in the media affect adolescents? Children are the future of our society and need to have some understanding of real world occurrences. Ultimately, censorship can only be determined by the parents. The media cannot filter every bit of controversial images. What rights does the media have in this situation? How are their First Amendment rights applied here? As an aspiring political science