As almost everyone knows by now, various major daily newspaper published, on July 10, a photograph of four Iranian missiles streaking heavenward; then Little Green Footballs (significantly, a blog and not a daily newspaper) provided evidence that the photograph had been faked. Later, many of those same papers published a Whitman's sampler of retractions and apologies. For me it raised a series of questions about images.[1] Do they provide illustration of a text or an idea of evidence of some underlying reality or both? And if they are evidence, don't we have to know that the evidence is reliable, that it can be trusted?
Authenticity, in the broad sense of the word, is fundamental to litigation. It acts as a dynamic -- as the conceptual glue holding together the pieces of a case. As part of its most basic function, therefore, a jury constantly assesses authenticity. Once falsehood is detected, or truth perceived as misrepresented, a party's case unravels. Indeed, tribunals could not serve their function without an ability to assess whether proffered assertions are what they "purport to be."
Each type and piece of evidence must therefore be subject to a test for authenticity. The testimony of witnesses is a familiar example. Such evidence is examined for bias, for interest and for the human capacity to exaggerate or mislead, among other things. Cross-examination, including the comparison of testimony with records of various types, is the chief tool by which we probe witnesses, whose genuineness or authenticity is usually called "credibility."
THEORY - "Image and Artifact: The Photograph as Evidence in the Digital Age"
Image and Artifact: The Photograph as Evidence in the Digital Age
By Martha A. Sandweiss
The brief essays in this round table collectively explore how photographs can be used to understand the past. Their broad mix of voices-from the archivist and the historian, the photographer and the photographic subject-makes it clear that there is no one way to understand an image. Even a quick reading reveals interpretive tensions: the photographers' intentions clash with the ambitions of the subjects, and both appear at odds with the needs of the viewers, who bring to the image their own experiences and interpretive concerns. Despite their differences, the essays taken together pose two critical questions. What does a historian need to know to interpret a photograph as a historical document? And how stable are images as records of the past?
The photographer Simon Norfolk finds moments of beauty and wonder in the world's most forlorn landscapes. From Afghanistan to Auschwitz, Norfolk documents the imprints of war-sometimes physical, sometimes physic-on its surroundings. His book Bosnia: Bleed is an impressionistic testimony to the mass slaughter that accompanied the war in the former Yugoslavia. In particular, he focuses on the sites of "secondary mass graves," where the perpetrators tried to hide the evidence of their crimes. He writes, "They thought that, by intimidation and subterfuge, their dirty secrets could be preserved, held, trapped. Frozen."
note this is in 2 parts
1: the recorder (JP)
We begin this unit by exploring the idea of the photographer as a recorder of the world. This session investigates questions of photographic truth and objectivity; the nature of photographic evidence and the ethics of photographic manipulation. It examines photography's earliest history and how its properties and purposes have been imagined from the beginning.
Required reading:
Batchen, G. (1999) Burning With Desire: The Conception of Photography. Cambridge, Mass: MIT; chapter 1.
part 2
1: the recorder (JP)
We begin this unit by exploring the idea of the photographer as a recorder of the world. This session investigates questions of photographic truth and objectivity; the nature of photographic evidence and the ethics of photographic manipulation. It examines photography's earliest history and how its properties and purposes have been imagined from the beginning.
Required reading:
Batchen, G. (1999) Burning With Desire: The Conception of Photography. Cambridge, Mass: MIT; chapter 1.
Read the Report
After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.
-Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (USA-Ret.), preface to Broken Laws, Broken Lives
In PHR's new report, Broken Laws, Broken Lives, we have for the first time medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of men who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay. These men were never charged with any crime.
The ethical and real hazards of citizen journalism
People powered
People powered
Who is responsible for the risks taken by citizen journalists who become 'accidental' reporters in dangerous situations?
This was the excellent question asked by Slawek Kozdras, a Polish student, who was in the audience when I gave a talk at Cumberland Lodge to LSE Government scholars.
I was doing my usual schtick about how networked journalism could alter the terms of the political communications trade. I put up slides about activists in Burma, G20 protestors and other people using new media technologies to report where professional journalists can't go.
Slawek made a good point drawn from a fellow eastern European's work:
"I remember a story told in Kundera's Unbearable Lightness of Being. After the Soviet army stormed into Prague in 1968 the brave Czech people (as opposed to cowardly Czech politicians) were mocking the army, women were teasing with Russian soldiers, laughing at them, taking pictures with them knowing the Russians can't react. The paradox is that later on these pictures with people mocking Russians turned against the Czechs and served as evidence in trials."
ERROL MORRIS\nPublished: July 13, 2008\n\nNEWSPAPERS and blogs are once again filled with a story about a digitally altered photograph. A picture of missiles launched by Iran. A picture that purports to show four missiles being fired rather than the three shown in other photographs of the launching. Are we to infer that no missiles were launched? Or just three? Or maybe only two? Take several steps back. Are we being tricked into thinking that Iran is a bigger threat than it is?