[Grovenet] Fwd: Oh NO, not Flat Fatima!

Thu Aug 17 10:21:02 PDT 2006

A writer might write, "A teddy bear, covered with slime and gore, was found
in the rubble, surely torn from its little owner's grip just as the life was
torn from the child's body by the collapsing building..." How is that
different from moving a toy to a more photogenic spot for an image? And
then, some photogs might reason that if everyone knows there were toys that
have been removed, why not add one for effect since they are not handy now?
Does the fact of doing that communicate anything different from the sobering
thought that young lives were, indeed, crushed out in that rubble? 

The reporter is always part of the story, no matter how we'd like to think
otherwise. 

I don't want to deflect the discussion, but the flag raising on Iwo was not
(I say again, NOT) staged for photographer Rosenthal. 

There were two flags raised. First a tiny one that was handy to signal that
the mountain top was in American hands, and a second larger one ordered by
an officer since the first was so small. "Grip and grins"? Bullets were
still flying. It was important to signal the ships and troops below that
there were Americans at the top. And the cacophony of toots and whistles
from the fleet surrounding the island and the cheers of soldiers still
ducking enemy fire below was testimony to the morale boost it provided in
that long and ghastly battle. 

Photogs heard about the second, larger battle ensign ordered raised and
that's why the cameraman was there to capture that image. But to suggest
that it was staged for the benefit of a photographer is completely untrue
from the accounts I've read by those who were there. It's akin to saying the
second airliner was flown into the WTC so the media could get a good shot of
the actual impact. That may be WHAT happened, but that doesn't mean it's why
it happened. 

The story of the Iwo flag is all over the 'net. For one source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq87-3l.htm

This goes back to my earlier point about how the way in which a story is
told can communicate an untruth, or at least reflect the reporter's bias
about what actually happened.

For example, it's a little hard to come up with a reason why General
McArthur sloshed ashore a dozen times when he landed in the Philippines
other than to make sure the photogs got a good image, so the story that he
was concerned that it be properly documented and so repeated the act many
times is probably true. I believe the General or his aides even bore that
out. It was, after all, the culmination of a long struggle on his part to
make good on his promise. Does the fact that he did it many times while the
cameras whirred and clicked deny the fact that he did it? 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Steven
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:20 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: RE: [Grovenet] Fwd: Oh NO, not Flat Fatima!

Well, then I guess I am on another side. I don't believe that mickey has any
place in the photographs. The raising of the flag is akin to 'grip n grins'
or the gold shovel photos at ground breakings. But people posed as dead
bodies or a single damaged building passing as a whole town by moving the
debris around is a lie. I remember a few years ago a PDX reporter got in hot
water for 'standing in flood water' when she really was on her knees in very
little water, there was no flooding. I worked with many reporters who would
not allow things to be staged. Just the same, I never took the embedded
reporters stories as anything but staged photo ops. I was vastly excited by
the technology to do the live bits from the front. Just as many people
believe GW lost the election, or that the WTC was taken down with
explosives; photos by the likes of this photographer have a damaging effect
on reality. The guy did much more than throw some toys in shots. I read an
article last week where they had the original shots with the time stamps in
the data showing how things that were supposedly happening all at once were
actually hours apart. Or that a photo of someone in an ambulance had them in
the rubble in a shot taken later. A trashed car that appeared in several
shots as if they had been pushing it around to different areas. Propaganda.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
Behalf Of allnutt
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:48 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Oh NO, not Flat Fatima!

I disagree.  He was making  a very good point.
There has been some discussion here about staged photos (the flag at Iwo
Jima). Similarly, some photos are better when items that don't belong are
added as well. A good example is when a penny is photographed next to
something small. The penny and the item are usually totally unrelated but it
gives perspective. A clean teddy bear or Mickey/Minnie Mouse in a pile of
dirty rubble may be used for comparison purposes as well. I doubt that
people who see a clean toy in the middle of muck really believe it was found
that way.  War is hell and toys for comparison are not the same kind of
doctoring that gets photographers fired.

Are you trying to explain to me why it  is okay to make something up when
your name Is Rove?  ; )

Katie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Grovenet] Fwd: Oh NO, not Flat Fatima!

> Aw, heck. Now you blew it. Eric was trying to explain to me why it is 
> OK to make something up when your name's not Rove. :)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com 
>> [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
>> Behalf Of allnutt
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:02 PM
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>> Subject: Fw: [Grovenet] Fwd: Oh NO, not Flat Fatima!
>>
>>
>>
>> 2nd try........
>>
>>
>>  Whoa a bit there.
>>  Doctoring photos is wrong but I interpreted Steven's original post a 
>> bit  different.
>>
>>  I felt that Steven Flat Fatima post was merely an example to 
>> illustrate the  explanation of where the Flat Fatima phenomenon 
>> started, not necessarily as
>>  an endorsement of what the article stated.  When the question
>> started out
>> as
>> What is Flat Fatima?  Steven seemed to say, here is a video of how Flat
>> Fatima is used.
>>
>> Maybe it is just me, but you both appear to be arguing the same side 
>> of the coin, more or less.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>> Katie
>>
>>
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Eric Canon" <canonmetals at yahoo.com>
>> > To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:13 AM
>> > Subject: RE: [Grovenet] Fwd: Oh NO, not Flat Fatima!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet