Why is that weird? The photo choice manipulates the reader impression just as they intend.
Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical"
Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical"
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?
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.