Check out this from the MediaNet Academy 2008...
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
'Images without depth'
At a recent conference, speaker Dr James Hanvey SJ used the phrase 'images without depth' in a discussion of values in a digital age, and it really struck a chord with something that has been on my mind recently.
'Images without depth' refers, it seems, to the transient and fleeting nature of images in the fast and free world of new media.
We grab images from google to brighten up a piece of text, or use some clipart to make a space look more vibrant. We can be tempted to use images to illustrate a point without taking on board the full value of those images.
Every image is in theory rich with depth and connotation, connected via references and resemblances which endow meaning and significance. Images are not shallow but speak of what lies at their source.
Yet with the need for quick eye catching content, especially on the web, we can so often ignore or forget this fact. Furthermore, the abundance of images and the ease of access make it all too tempting to pull up something that will 'do the job' without thinking our choices through.
After all, it will probably only by viewed for a few hours, until the next story takes its place. Who can be blamed for only giving passing thought to the image choice?
But what does that image really represent? What is it an image of? What are the implicit statements being made by that particular choice? - questions that shouldn't in my opinion, be ignored.
Not only do we run the risk of devaluing and trivialising the use images in the media (and elsewhere), but we also have ethical issues to face: have I done justice to the true depth of the images I have used? Do they help to tell the truth, or just to catch the eye and meet the deadline?
'Images without depth' refers, it seems, to the transient and fleeting nature of images in the fast and free world of new media.
We grab images from google to brighten up a piece of text, or use some clipart to make a space look more vibrant. We can be tempted to use images to illustrate a point without taking on board the full value of those images.
Every image is in theory rich with depth and connotation, connected via references and resemblances which endow meaning and significance. Images are not shallow but speak of what lies at their source.
Yet with the need for quick eye catching content, especially on the web, we can so often ignore or forget this fact. Furthermore, the abundance of images and the ease of access make it all too tempting to pull up something that will 'do the job' without thinking our choices through.
After all, it will probably only by viewed for a few hours, until the next story takes its place. Who can be blamed for only giving passing thought to the image choice?
But what does that image really represent? What is it an image of? What are the implicit statements being made by that particular choice? - questions that shouldn't in my opinion, be ignored.
Not only do we run the risk of devaluing and trivialising the use images in the media (and elsewhere), but we also have ethical issues to face: have I done justice to the true depth of the images I have used? Do they help to tell the truth, or just to catch the eye and meet the deadline?
Finding value in a sea of comment.
With every man and his dog able to set up a blog, or add their comment to Comment is Free (or to any other site), one of the new challenges for web users is sifting though the junk and finding valuable, interesting and reliable content.
In the past this job was done for us by the editors in newsrooms, equipped with the power to make judgements about what will and will not go into the very limited space of a newspaper or TV news slot.
In contrast the internet opens up a seemingly infinite space to get lost in. How do we avoid wasting our time on pointless content, or being sucked in to false stories? How do we get by in a new media world without the gatekeepers of old?
The BBC has recognised this problem, and are currently trying to market themselves as a 'trusted guide to the internet', but in some ways, I believe, the answer has been under our noses all along, and used already people by many (the 'web savvy') to navigate the endless pathways of the internet.
This (partial) answer is simple intelligent linking.
Blogs, as far as I know, were originally set up (as web logs) to allow friends to guide guide each other to good content through careful linking. In that way the rubbish is sifted out and the quality made accessible (or so the theory goes).
With a good network of friends and sources, all with a discriminating eye for content, web users can hope to be their own gatekeepers.
Easier said than done, but my advice is: keep linking and be selective!
In the past this job was done for us by the editors in newsrooms, equipped with the power to make judgements about what will and will not go into the very limited space of a newspaper or TV news slot.
In contrast the internet opens up a seemingly infinite space to get lost in. How do we avoid wasting our time on pointless content, or being sucked in to false stories? How do we get by in a new media world without the gatekeepers of old?
The BBC has recognised this problem, and are currently trying to market themselves as a 'trusted guide to the internet', but in some ways, I believe, the answer has been under our noses all along, and used already people by many (the 'web savvy') to navigate the endless pathways of the internet.
This (partial) answer is simple intelligent linking.
Blogs, as far as I know, were originally set up (as web logs) to allow friends to guide guide each other to good content through careful linking. In that way the rubbish is sifted out and the quality made accessible (or so the theory goes).
With a good network of friends and sources, all with a discriminating eye for content, web users can hope to be their own gatekeepers.
Easier said than done, but my advice is: keep linking and be selective!
Ethics in a shared media space.
Not all bad news...
It is easy to find tales of woe and long laments about the challenges to traditional values in the media brought on by the rapid rise of digital technology: 24 hour news rooms scrape around for a continual stream of edgy and exciting material, with little concern for anything as trivial as truth, or editorial responsibility; the flood of half thought out comments and blogs on the web drowns out intelligent and well researched analysis
However, there were a few notes of encouragement from speakers at a recent talk at the Churches' Media Conference, entitled Searching for Values.
Revd Dr James Hanvey suggested that, in fact, a world without extensive and fast media reporting would be a world of 'dis-truth and manipulation'.
We should be grateful, he argued, that we live in a world that can report on the Tsunami, on Zimbabwe, and on Guantanamo.
His point seems to be that we are better off having these stories told and risking some error and distortion, than living in an information vacuum, or worse, having 'facts' dripped down through some Ministry of Truth on high.
Better to have it a little messy, and accept the bad with the good, than to have no good at all.
A little while later, philosopher and journalist Julian Baggini stressed that many of the problems that arise through new media are just old problems in new cloths: we should not proclaim the decline of morals if they have been that way all along.
Whilst this may not seem like a message a hope, he was making a point that was stressed again later on by speaker Sarah Joseph: new technologies may give rise to new evils, but they also give rise to the potential for new good.
It is likely that many of the ethical and moral issues surrounding digital media are not new ones, and there is certainly a place for reflecting on all the positive potential caught up in this evolving area.
However, there were a few notes of encouragement from speakers at a recent talk at the Churches' Media Conference, entitled Searching for Values.
Revd Dr James Hanvey suggested that, in fact, a world without extensive and fast media reporting would be a world of 'dis-truth and manipulation'.
We should be grateful, he argued, that we live in a world that can report on the Tsunami, on Zimbabwe, and on Guantanamo.
His point seems to be that we are better off having these stories told and risking some error and distortion, than living in an information vacuum, or worse, having 'facts' dripped down through some Ministry of Truth on high.
Better to have it a little messy, and accept the bad with the good, than to have no good at all.
A little while later, philosopher and journalist Julian Baggini stressed that many of the problems that arise through new media are just old problems in new cloths: we should not proclaim the decline of morals if they have been that way all along.
Whilst this may not seem like a message a hope, he was making a point that was stressed again later on by speaker Sarah Joseph: new technologies may give rise to new evils, but they also give rise to the potential for new good.
It is likely that many of the ethical and moral issues surrounding digital media are not new ones, and there is certainly a place for reflecting on all the positive potential caught up in this evolving area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
