Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

al.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 259 posts

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#221

Post by wly_cdgr »

dageshi wrote: post #207
wly_cdgr wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question is moot because I would just do my job to the minimum acceptable standard of competence by sourcing a picture of the actual tower

How and where would you source it from? The tower is gone, there's likely no public domain images of it, no stock images of it, so where do you get a picture of it?

See, that'd be my job as a photo editor. To know the answer. That's the job. That's what makes it a real job when actually done right. Any high school age intern can find a picture of a random radio tower.

If you can't meet that standard, don't run a photo, or don't run the story. The world won't come to a standstill because a partisan rag from a provincial backwater didn't run a filler item about a wacky heist halfway across the world.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#222

Post by plasticchris »

rapjr9 wrote: post #141
cf100clunk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly that tower was of galvanized steel, so if the mystery adbuctors had knowledge of welding or metallurgy (no idea if that was the case) they'd know that plasma cutters would be toxic overkill unless they knew how to paint/paste where they cut. Portable chop saws would do just fine. I witnessed pros take down a radio tower by remote-controlled chop saws cutting the guy wires sequentially.

Off topic, but why are there no remote control chain saws? Seems silly to stand next to an engine driven chain that could fly off at any time.

There are - a sort of tracked vehicle with an arm that can chop down a tree, hold it, and scrape off the small limbs before stacking the log.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#223

Post by AnarchismIsCool »

healsdata wrote: post #205
HPsquared wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much "economic" activity goes towards satisfying arbitrary requirements such as these.

"arbitrary"

Eh, there isn't really a modern reason to operate like this. If you ever deal with the FCC you'll find a lot of their rules are fairly dated and weird.

All that said, in terms of economic waste and lost opportunity, this isn't the hill I'd die on.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#224

Post by dredmorbius »

1over137 wrote: post #215
fbdab103 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a reader, I want to have a sense of scale of the tower.

Of course. The scale is 200 feet, as described in the article. Maybe you want it in football fields?

Smoots.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#225

Post by mistrial9 »

1over137 wrote: post #209
seadan83 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single example of one inaccuracy many years ago is not evidence for (at least as far as the Guardian is concerned): "The media did not really care much about accuracy then, and its even worse now." To say that, you would also need to know the actual accuracy rate of media over time. I don't think anyone really knows that without perhaps having done a PhD thesis on the topic. What's more, good media publishes citati…

>In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo. God forbid they just write their article with no photo at all. Better to use a wrong one apparently.

this captures a meta-observation very well.. a "PhD" worth of knowledge is needed to discern, but publishing a stock photo for a news item is incentivized to be a moment's decision. Compare and contrast to "any idiot can ask hard questions that take days to reply correctly to" .. there is a power asymmetry at work in the public eye. Guideropes and economic assumptions disappearing into a sand-storm of digital information.

basically, not looking good for the future of reliable media

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#226

Post by dageshi »

wly_cdgr wrote: post #221
dageshi wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How and where would you source it from? The tower is gone, there's likely no public domain images of it, no stock images of it, so where do you get a picture of it?

See, that'd be my job as a photo editor. To know the answer. That's the job. That's what makes it a real job when actually done right. Any high school age intern can find a picture of a random radio tower. If you can't meet that standard, don't run a photo, or don't run the story. The world won't come to a standstill because a partisan rag from a provincial backwater didn't run a filler item about a wacky heist halfw…

In other words, you don't know how practical or not it is to find a picture of the tower and your opinion on the subject is worthless.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#227

Post by fbdab103 »

1over137 wrote: post #215
fbdab103 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a reader, I want to have a sense of scale of the tower.

Of course. The scale is 200 feet, as described in the article. Maybe you want it in football fields?

A picture is worth a thousand words. 200 feet tall and how thick are the bars? How many? Could I do it with a hacksaw or would I need a more intense torch? I want to visualize perpetrating the crime.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#228

Post by TeMPOraL »

sandworm101 wrote: post #186
jackfoxy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more and more a problem, not just with images. Even most of the higher quality (better researched) Youtube channels are fast and loose about using irrelevant stock footage to go along with their narration. Of course the channels with AI voice-over are universally terrible at this. I know a lot of this is content creators have limited access to good visual content. A naval historiographer I follow will show, f…

>> A naval historiographer I follow will show, for instance, ship photos or archival video that is not exactly the ship or event he is describing. It isn't about money or resources. Even the biggest budget Hollywood productions regularly pass off incorrect ships in full understanding that most viewers cannot tell a sloop from a brig. Sometimes it is about cost or practicality, but more often it is about which ship co…

Which, in my books, invalidates either as a learning resource.

I mean, as a viewer, if I spot a naval historiographer routinely using wrong footage, then how certain can I be they're not also playing fast and loose with what they're saying? After all, the only piece of clear evidence that I have points towards them not caring.

As for what "comports with audience expectations", maybe this is an extreme position, but to me, intentionally choosing something incorrect but more recognizable is gaslighting at scale - it reinforces the misconception in those already exposed, and introduces it to those new (usually young) to a topic.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#229

Post by TeMPOraL »

seadan83 wrote: post #199
graemep wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my earliest memories of something in the newspapers was, as a teenager, finding out a picture in The Guardian was of any entirely different conflict, more than a decade earlier, albeit in the same country. The media did not really care much about accuracy then, and its even worse now.

A single example of one inaccuracy many years ago is not evidence for (at least as far as the Guardian is concerned): "The media did not really care much about accuracy then, and its even worse now." To say that, you would also need to know the actual accuracy rate of media over time. I don't think anyone really knows that without perhaps having done a PhD thesis on the topic. What's more, good media publishes citati…

> In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo. I did not read the article and immediately think, "Oh yeah, random tower in the middle of nowhere USA, this is for sure a picture of that tower". Perhaps just me..

Yeah, I'd assume it's just you. My default assumption for a photo next to a piece of text is that the two are directly related, in particular the photo being the subject of the text.

Okay, so maybe they wanted to have a photo, but there's no way to frame this that makes the journalist or the outlet look good. Intentionally or not, choosing a wrong photo is still screwing with readers' perception of reality.

Re: Someone stole a Jasper radio station’s 200-foot tower, owner says

#230

Post by TeMPOraL »

brookst wrote: post #191
flaminHotSpeedo wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The caption is infuriating: > "A different radio tower, which has presumably not been stolen"

Why is that infuriating? It’s accurate, acknowledges the suboptimal photo choice (or availability), and has some humor. As an editor, given this as your only photo choice, what caption would you write?

It's mocking. It's like a subtle middle finger to those who suspected something here makes no sense and decided to look more carefully at the photo.

Like others said, I too would choose to not include any photo at all - there's no way to frame inclusion of a wrong photo as something good.

Post reply on HN