A disrespectful crop?
Does this photograph look disrespectful to you? Some readers of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution thought it was. Looking for a different take on the usual photo of the Veterans Day parade in downtown Atlanta, photographer Elissa Eubanks cropped the photo as she shot to focus on just the salute given by Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, the parade's grand marshal. (That's "marshal" with one "l" for those of you who remember the usage test!)
Some readers, however, thought the crop was disrespectful. In a column about the photo, A-JC public editor Angela Tuck quoted one reader as writing "Showing only his THREE STARS, and the tips of his fingers ... is a far cry from showing the real leader of the brave young men and women who are serving ... in harm's way." But Bert Roughton, the newspaper's managing editor for print, who selected the photo, said he thought the image provided a fresh take on an annual event. "Every media cover these events and present basically the same images all the time," he was quoted by Tuck as saying. "The challenge for us every day is to somehow distinguish our printed newspaper from Web sites, TV news, other newspapers and even collective memories. At times we present a different take on a familiar theme just to get readers to take a second look."
What do you think?
10 comments:
I don't understand why a photo would be cropped that way in the first place. You don't crop a person off at the joints or neck, why would you crop at the nose? I'm not sure if it's disrespectful (but I'm not one of those that is easily offended by anything). I just think it looks sloppy and unprofessional.
I understand the comment by managing editor Burt Roughton about how his newspaper must distinguish itself by publishing a picture different than the rest of the papers. I think it was a risky idea and definitely pushes the envelope, but in the end, it gives readers something to discuss and it stirs a lot of conversation, which in turn, I think makes it effective.
On the other hand, I could see how people would be offended by the picture. I think a cropped version of the picture would be more effective if there was something in the background that was of importance, as opposed to just a yellow, out of focus background which takes up space and is not interesting. To me, it almost looks like it was an accident to be cropped that way, but I am not offended by it.
I also think that people close to the subject (or the idea of military, veterans, etc) would be more offended. If this was the man's family, friends, or even soldiers of veterans anywhere in the country, they might question why this man was being cut off and find it disrespectful.
Eubanks' attempt on a different type of photo from the Veteran's Day parade in downtown Atlanta was a big failure in my opinion. She was trying to focus in on the salute, but instead presented an image that looked sloppy and incomplete and left the viewer wondering about it rather than being able to understand the message behind it. She was afraid of producing the same, mundane image from the parade, but instead offended many and produced something that looked like an unfinished product. If she wanted her focus to be on the salute, she could have done that while still keeping the face of the lieutenant in tact. She should have cut the image at the neck and deleted the green space in the background to produce a focused and effective photo.
Having a brother who has just returned from Iraq a second time, I can sympathize with people who might distinguish this as a disrespectful crop. To me, this is kind of the equivalent of cropping out half of the American flag. People like tradition when it comes to the military and serving our country and in my opinion, you can't really mess with that for the sake of art and a good photo.
I also think that people who serve in the military that are risking their lives should have their whole picture in a photo not just the top as a sacrifice to establish a unique art on the page.
I personally am not offended with this, but I do see why people would be. The paper did however accomplish what is set out to do as Tuck says, "that's precisely why I think the photograph worked. It made you take a double take and reflect on the importance of the day." Also, to play devil's advocate, the fact that the paper has run several articles on this General does make the excuse for such cropping a little more understandable.
All in all though, I agree with Amanda that the picture does look more sloppy than make the article stand out and in general, pictures dealing with the military and our country should be left as is.
This is a disgraceful job by Burt Roughton, as well as his photographer for thinking this works. Here is a man who has dedicated most of his life to lead our young men and women into conflict- for our good and for the good of our country (hopefully). In repayment, we can't even run a representative photo of the man?
Not only was the shot disrespectful in my eyes, it was an ugly shot. It is horribly unbalanced and wastes precious newspaper space that could've been filled by an ad or more text.
Although some readers of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution thought this crop was disrespectful, I disagree.
I think that it is definitely an unconventional way to take a photo of the Veterans Day parade in downtown Atlanta.
But I think it is interesting that Eubanks decided to just focus on the salute given by Lt. Gen. Russel Honore.
I think if anything it emphasizes the importance of unity in the army and the dedication the armed forces show to the country. Plus, his eyes show his sincerity.
I agree with Bert Roughton, the newspaper's managing editor. As an editor, I feel that it can be discouraging year after year when photographers come into the office with the same photo to capture annual events. It's refreshing to see a new shot.
It got me to take a second look and that was the point.
Cropping this photo was effective in capturing the essence of Veterans Day. Showing only this man's fingers, dark glasses and three stars masks his identity, but also makes him a symbol for everyone serving in the military.
I commend Bert Roughton's decision to feature the photo in their newspaper. While the crop of the photo, cutting of the entire body and half the face of the Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, is controversial, it is also new. And isn't that our job as journalists, especially with annual events, or events that every other media source is covering -- to get a different spin on the story or to showcase it in an unexpected way. Unfortunately in this case, its an issue of balancing military respect with avoiding mundane illustrations. Is that something seen in other situations in journalism -- jeopardizing what's safe for what will draw more attention.
In the end, I highly doubt the Atlanta-Journal Constitution had any bad intentions when selecting this photo. And I also don't feel they abandoned their respect for the military or this officer. Why should it be right for the newspaper to disregard artistic rights and integrity, just so they avoid pushing the envelope?
Post a Comment