231–240 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As an editor, given this as your only photo choice, what caption would you write? I would just not include a photo at all.
As a reader, I want to have a sense of scale of the tower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Artist renditions' are used for space news, criminal descriptions, etc. maybe not such a crazy idea here.
Sure, for high profile things. This is the daily news and a mild curiosity which is hardly worth the resources. Show a picture of a similar model tower, annotate it as such, and I have now have a sense of the difficulty in cutting it down.
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…
As you say, it also waits until a reader notices factual mistakes, the other ones just slip through. Last point, you don’t have any backing to conclude that their mistakes are honest, and not the result of intent of bias. Given their bias is always in the same direction, I do not believe for a second that The Guardian isn’t putting its thumb on the scale when they only reproduce the part of scientific studies that goes in their editorial direction, conveniently leaving the rest unsaid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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 t…
Now, the abysmal nature of name brand corporate history videos is another matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a world of difference between an old free-standing Long Lines tower and the straight-and-narrow guyed tower that actually disappeared, just as there is also a world of difference stature between Roseanne Barr and Gwen Stefani.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but each of those thousand words has negative value when they're simply wrong.
Wow. My feeling is that metal theft is getting out of control. If the news reporting on it is to be trusted, cases are in fact rising. Thieves have probably always hit junkyards and stolen wire, but now there seems to be more and more infrastructure hit as well. The oddest aspect of this is that scrap steel isn't even worth that much. How many tons could that be? Let's say it's 400 tons, that's maybe $100k. And it se…
As a reference: A 10-foot section of Rohn 45G weighs about 70 pounds. 200 feet of 45G is thus about 1,400 pounds -- less than a ton.
(I do not know if this particular tower was Rohn 45G or something else that may be heavier -- I only know that it was a guyed tower, and that (when guyed) 45G can be stacked beyond 200 feet.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it have to be stealthy? Even if they did it in broad daylight, announcing their presence with a loudspeaker, "We are taking this tower." Would I, a random bystander care? For all I know, they were contracted by the owner. Definitively someone else's problem.
you can look up historical data about what aircraft were where at what time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As an editor, given this as your only photo choice, what caption would you write? I would just not include a photo at all.
As a reader, I want to have a sense of scale of the tower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
Drachinifel is pretty darned knowledgeable. I imagine its not that easy to get enough footage of some American WWII destroyer that is NOT a Fletcher class, (as a made up example), to fill out an entire 45 minute narration. And there's a shit ton of work that goes into a video that long for a solo creator. Now, the abysmal nature of name brand corporate history videos is another matter.
Not doing so is exactly the same as the Hollywood thing; focusing on the narrative rather than the actual teaching, which seems to me psychotic behavior for anything purporting to teach. If you’re misrepresenting the image of the object for narrative convenience, the immediate question is how much of the other material has been butchered for that same convenience? The priorities are out of order.
It’s a violation of viewer trust, and it’s only acceptable in the sense that the viewer often doesn’t know they’ve been tricked… because they were viewing it for the precise reason that they don’t have the knowledge to differentiate between a truth and a lie on that subject