the photograph remains meaningless unless I know where was it made, when was it made, by whom was it made, where was it published etc. etc. - we agreed on that.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
the photograph remains meaningless unless I know where was it made, when was it made, by whom was it made, where was it published etc. etc. - we agreed on that.
Good point.
The photograph, or video, at face value, can be misleading.
I'm reminded of a statistic.
LA cops who wear body cams receive 90% fewer complaints about police misconduct.
My INTERPRETATION: LA cops who wear recording devices are much more likely to follow procedure.
CONSERVATIVE INTERPRETATION: Citizens are filing 90% fewer FALSE COMPLAINTS.
Interesting.
What is important is what the people who are in such a situation believe, what others believe, whether this makes the truth of the recorded situation greater, less or the same compared to a non-recorded situation. Those police officers certainly feel more controlled when they would rather remain unobserved. Perhaps those police officers who do not object to this form of recording feel supported. Perhaps it motivates one to behave more authentically, the other to act more artificially. Depending on whether he forgets that he is wearing a body camera or is always aware of it.
On the side of the citizen, it is probably similar. If he thinks that his complaint would be supported by the video evidence, he will file it. If he has strong doubts, he won't.
It seems like a net positive, regardless of your preferred spin.
That how it looks.
Depends, if I trust statistics ;-)
Do you know the book "Freakonomics"? Very interesting, they talk about statistics.
they also have a radio program and probably a podcast
Man, you really have a video on everything - Haha! You are fast with digging the things out.
Photograph, video, painting, or drawing,