Manipulation...Right or Wrong?

In today’s media, majority of photographs in magazines, television, advertisements are retouched to make them look “better” and more appealing to the public eye. I had recently red an article in a book and it had asked how do you think photo manipulation/retouching affects a woman personally. I think that the kinds of manipulated images that were mentioned in the article can affect a woman’s esteem and self comfort. By changing the features on a woman to make her look more “appealing” makes the women feel not as beautiful and more self conscious of their personal features that in reality are extremely beautiful but they don’t see it that way. Why would someone change something that is already beautiful? I feel as if photo manipulation can become a little too much when that are cutting gout things such as arms, legs and chests, but when they are changing things such as the texture or tones of the image to make it look softer or more clear then I believe that’s fine because it’s nothing too drastic. Although before any photo manipulations are done, I believe that there should be a sense of permission from the ‘model’ that the photo is of to change any certain characteristics in the photo itself. If a photo has been changed, it should state somewhere on the photo itself that there has been changed made and this is not the original photo so that people are aware.


The OJ Simpson dispute is a perfect example of whether or not photo manipulation is appropriate. OJ’s mug shot that was posted on the front cover of News Week and Time magazine had caused some controversy because of the major differences between the exact same photo. Time magazine had altered the photo to change the images mood/appearance for a different feeling, but is what they did right? At the time the managing editor of time magazine, James Gaines, was asked why he had done it because many people felt as if it wasn’t appropriate. James Gaines has said that “The harshness of the mug shot-the merciless bright light, the stubble on Simpson’s face, had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon of tragedy. The expression on his face was not merely blank now; it was bottomless. This cover with the simple, nonjudgmental headline ‘An American Tragedy,’ seemed the obvious, right choice.” When I look at both photo’s beside each other, the differences are so dramatic. The original photo on the cover of News Week with no photo alternations, is more appropriate because it shows the actually feeling and emotion that is being shown from OJ’s expressions. However on Time magazine the alternations more or less seem to make you feel bad for him, it makes him look sad and in great need of help, and the headline “An American Tragedy” to me doesn’t fit. What’s the American Tragedy? The fact that he possibly is a ex-famous football star murderer? Or the fact, that his family had been murdered? It seemed as if they spent more time trying to focus on how OJ looked and felt in the magazine rather then the death of his family and whether or not he had done it. I don’t believe that photo manipulations in news events is appropriate because it’s altering the story then, but as for photo manipulation in ads to make them look more creative/artistic, that shouldn’t be a problem as long as they have permission from the person that is having their photo taken.

Much Music - Personal Response

Our media trip to the CHUM building and live television production (Much on Demand) had its positives and negative. I felt as if the trip was spent mostly waiting for things, and a lot of the other audience members as well as some staff were just rude. Once we had finally gotten inside and sat down in the area in which the show takes place, it was a chance for me to see what goes on and what behind the scenes looks like. When the show began to start, we had met the director. I had no idea that he was going to have to tell people to clap and cheer, so to me now when I watch the show, it kind of seems fake. I found that in the beginning when the director was telling people to clap and what not that people did as he said, but as the show went on and he continued to ask it was like people were getting annoyed and didn’t clap and cheer as much. Also when the show was going on I noticed a few different people with video camera’s recording the film, for me it’s hard to understand which one is actually going on T.V. live and why were there so many! Also on the show when there is music being played and the videos, I couldn’t tell who was doing it. I tried looking around but just couldn’t see them. I think maybe if we had gotten a tour before the show that would have been a little more enjoyable so that I’m not sitting there the whole show wondering how someone is doing what, when, why, where and how! When the show had gone to a commercial break, it was nothing that I would have expected. The director and Matte Babel did not seem to get along that well, no one was really listening to the director, also some of the hosts such as Leah Miller seemed really stuck up and rude because she barely took time to socialize with the crowed such as Tim D and Matte did. Things had also seem to be really unorganized, and for a show that’s being done live you think it would be, but when you are unable to locate one of your television hosts for when the commercial’s about to be over, that’s not too well managed. I personally thought the trip would have been a little different then what I had experienced. Parts of it were enjoyable but other parts weren’t as enjoyable, and now seeing things that happen when the show isn’t on air, really just annoys me now because it seems all fake and the female hosts just seem extremely stuck up which I would have never of guessed by seeing them on television. I think that the trip to MTV which we were originally told we were going on would be more enjoyable, not only because I watch that channel more but many students who had gone on the MTV trip said that they enjoyed it a lot more then Much Music.

What If All Voices Were Silenced

The back and forth controversy that media holds specific responsibilities is inevitable, and now the question is should media represenatives be able to announce publications in the form of politics? Personall, I don't believe so, but they are. Politicians try to frame issues and events to influence the "spin" that the media will give to their story, such as Miss Jessica Lynch and her "heroic" fairytale story. It's not fare that the media has the power to influence the public opinion when the media itself is based on politics therefore sending a "redirected" media feed/message and not allowing the public to know the accurate truth. This minimizes our freedom to believe and speak upon situations.

Now freedom of speech implies that we are able to inherent human right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear of punishment or censorship. So why don’t we all just speak our minds, we’re able we? Apparently not. Natalie Maines had decided to speak her mind on the President of the United States, George Bush, at the time that 9/11 had been taking place. Natalie had said “I am ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas”. Is that wrong of her to say how she feels to the public? To her fans? I personally don’t think so. Freedom of speech is suppose to allow you to speak freely of what you feel and believe and not have any consequences. Natalie however had many consequence. The Dixie Chicks, one of the most famous girl groups ever, was banned from many radio stations, they couldn’t play, they were threatened, they lost many fans, they couldn’t go out without being called names, even television broadcasters were calling them names such as “bimbos” and saying that “they should be slapped around”. In what state of mind would anyone think that this is okay, to treat an equal who was only following something that she knew was okay to do, like they should be six feet under? And then later to find out that what she was saying about the war and what he was doing was true, so all of this controversy was created over something that was eventually seen true by the public eye. Freedom of speech is free, and our society should really show and reflect upon that.