Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical"
Mainstream journalism will also do just fine.
Nonsense.
I don't know that I agree with it, but it's a valid opinion to have that mainstream is no better than elsewhere.
Would you include in 'journalism' very badly-written articles that are done by a writer collecting or reporting on sources (example: reporting on a tweet and its responses), while using horrific grammar and being very low-quality? You know the kind of link-bait 'articles' I'm talking about - I wonder if you would consider that part of journalism or not.
Mainstream media has FAR higher journalistic standards than independent media.
Major media sites have volumes of books that their reporters follow for their editorial process. AP has a style guide you can buy (and vet).
Independent media follow no such journalistic rules.
Never trust independent media. Mainstream corporate media is far more trustworthy, since they are a known known.
It's such a fallacy to assume that just because it's independent that it's more trustworthy, when the exact opposite is true.
So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two. It's what I have to do if I rely on the mainstream sources. It's been clear on a regular basis that their goal is to hold interest of specific demographics to keep them looking at ads rather than inform them. They're also very prone to self-censorship of anything that gets in the way of that due to cash flow.
That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources.
You know about the Theranos fraud because mainstream media, The Wall Street Journal - the largest newspaper in the country - thoroughly exposed them.
Did you thank mainstream media for their work?
This is not what the mainstream media does. What it does is start with the biases and goals of the organization that targets the beliefs and wants of particular viewers. The journalists will have run into this trying to get things by editors in the past. Then, they'll begin on their peace which may use any combination of sources to support its claims with little presented for alternative opinions. They even like to cite "anonymous sources" to push total bullshit. They'll then present the story.
Sometimes I see well-researched stories that cover most odds and ends. Most of the time I see them reporting whatever they saw or heard from one source with their own slant. The funny thing about your comments is that even most viewers of these organizations I run into know they're extremely biased. They'll say "What else do you expect from (Huffington Post or Fox News here)? They always push that (liberal/conservative) BS!" They just think the bias of their preferred outlet is correct most of the time. Of course, that's all the info they see too. ;)
So I take it you don't want to thank mainstream media for uncovering the Theranos fraud?
A media more independent from corporate and government interests would have less of these issues. Especially suppression. Then it's just a matter of gauging accuracy and bias of each.
You're welcome.
If you're reporting clear facts about something unambiguously bad, then it's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article.
is this all a male perception of a problem they fully do not understand and therefor think they know how its perceived by the opposite sex?
The question related to gender seems to be somewhat out-of-left-field
Of course it's important for the people in that process to be judicious and scrupulous about their handling of the facts so they can deliver material that provides reliable impressions. But showing unflattering pictures of people found to have done seriously unflattering things isn't some egregious departure from these requirements. Indeed, to the extent that a picture can say a thousand words, it's a useful - and generally appreciated - bit of data compression.
How would facts speak for themselves without being put into words by someone?
Photos, are not based on facts. There is no such thing as a 'neutral' photo - all photographs are editorialized. Timing, framing, composition, lighting, contrast are among the hundreds of variables that contribute to a photo. Most news organisation are well of this and they allow post-processing of photos (to different extents). I would say an unflattering photo goes well with an unflattering article.
The use FoxNews does of this photo-picking with President Obama or liberal politicians is much worse. Or check the tabloids, they're masters at that.
This one? Just fine. I also want to point out that the picture is all but an outtake. Photography agencies publish photos like this on their online collections all the time, they won't discard them. Exactly because they know outlets may pick them for a story where they would fit.
As a non journalist this is what I call manipulation.
...which presumably is almost entirely based on what they read or see in the media?
I can't see how looking crazy with wide open eyes and fake smiles correlates with "sales teams and marketing execs."
That's a completely gratuitous caricature.
Sometimes HN tries to be too clever and I don't mean to direct that at you but basically every sibling and cousin comment in this subthread.
HN Challenge: next Theranos thread don't upvote comments about CEO's appearance.
preaching to the choir
> It calls the trustworthiness of the entire rest of the article in question. (Although i guess it's kinda nice if it's done blatantly so you already know in advance the article is particularly untrustworthy.)
In a lot of ways it is subconscious, but not always. If you take a objective view and look at US Presidential 2016 race articles, you get a pretty good feel for the base opinion of the editors from the picture they use of the candidates.
Every news outlet has a prejudice, and I find the choice of images to be one of the easy ways to communicate that to you. If you look for it, you can gear your reaction to the information provided.
Yep. And I wonder what David Paul Morris [1] thinks of having his work used in this manner. It doesn't reflect well upon him as a photographer that's for sure.
1. It's part of the Bloomberg News catalog
2. It may have been published on Bloomberg's own stories of Theranos.
3. WSJ had to pay for the right to use that photo.
How would any of those things reflect badly on the photographer?
4. It's a horrible photograph that makes the photographer look incompetent.
In any case, it's not the publication's job to make someone look good or glamorous. It's not the most flattering photo of Holmes but it's not terribly off from what she normally looks like (in general, photos of someone while they're talking/eating aren't going to be ideal, in terms of attractiveness).
When I shot for Reuters (1996-2002) some of my most 'boring' images played all over the world and my favorite photos only occasionally made the wire. Did I look incompetent? I don't really care; My byline in The NY Times for a crap photo was much more valuable than the 'perfect' photo nobody sees.
Pro news photographers don't care; they aren't trying to audition to be your wedding photographer, they're chasing news and not giving a second thought to where some quick corporate headshot is running.
http://davidpaulmorris.com/Would be an interesting art project to collect them all together get people to rate the images on some scale and display a visual political gradient.
Thank you. I found that insightful. I must confess that I never noticed that before ( but I am not a people person )
It's not just founders, think about the pictures of Obama and O.J. where they were made blacker. Or the images of James Holmes or Saddam.
People will actually complain and threaten to kill the magazine editors if they don't make the 'bad guys' look evil enough; look at what happened with the Rolling Stone photo of the Boston Marathon bomber.
They weren't complaining about the saturation or hue.
I disagree with the dehumanization of people who do dispicable things (e.g. the Boston Bomber or Nazis) - they were not monsters but humans like you and I; only with very warped belief systems. There danger is that categorizing them as monsters will limit our understanding of how they come about and/or how to prevent this from recurring in the future.
On the issue of appearing on a magazine cover - I do not think the glamorizing was intentianal. Good-looking people dominate covers, and monster or not, the dude was good looking. Hitler was once Time magazine "Man of the Year" - they were not lionizing him, but only declaring he had made the greatest impact of the year.
If you keep an eye out for it, you may notice the same pattern.