Archiv der Kategorie: Meaning design

In this area it is all about meaning design ===> http://www.meaningdesign.com

A picture is worth a thousand (sometimes wrong) words

Over time we developed the conviction ‘Seeing is believing’. This means that one believes in the existence or truth of something, which one saw with the own eyes. Some are already convinced, when they learn about the seeing through second-hand. Images are an effective way to convey a message. There are rock paintings that already used the figurative representation thirty thousand years ago. As time went by the representations became more and more realistic. Today, we can participate in current developments even through moving pictures with original soundtrack and in real time. The picture is taken as proof. Many forget that the two-dimensional medium of a picture distorts reality with its perspective, frame and the moment of the taking. The consequence is that a picture says more than thousand words – sometimes even wrong ones.

Bildsagtmehralstausendworte

In the course of the Ukraine crisis the above photographs were taken in a meeting between Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Barack Obama. Different photographs of the meeting appeared subsequently in several newspapers. We still trust the journalists as the last bastion of objectivity. The ethos of journalists, to always spread objective truths, should actually lead to reliable news. Let’s forget the special cases of the controlled, non-military war correspondents (so called embedded journalists) and the quasi-state-run press, since they are obviously propaganda. The associated attempt of the historical manipulation already began with Caesar, continued with Charlemagne and the dictatorships of the twentieth century, until today.

Let’s focus on respectable journalism that spreads news to the best knowledge and belief. In order to define a limit, there are some non-binding rules.

  • On the one hand news should be confirmed by at least two independent sources
  • On the other hand balance should be ensured by the fact that both sides of a conflict should be reported.

You find further aspects here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards.

A picture cannot fulfill the two rules.

  • On the one hand a picture is naturally from one source, the camera.
  • On the other hand the picture represents just ONE cutout of the reality that represents only the fraction of a second.

For these reasons a picture is always one-sided and unbalanced.

If we now look at the scribbles, we see four pictures of the same meeting, which were taken within a few minutes. Each picture creates another impression. What are the reasons to select a picture for publication? By looking at the procedure, from taking a picture to publishing, we encounter many filters.

  1. Taking the picture
    Photographers are the first filter. They decide the point of view, the cutout and the moment of the capture. Usually they photograph several photos within a short period. Subsequently, they select the photographs that fulfill the technical requirements – the requested sharpness and brightness of the picture. Additionally, they select images with regular gestures and facial expressions. Eventually the picture shown above end up in the agencies or media,.
  2. Distribution
    An agency is a broker for pictures and news, e.g. Reuters, DPA, ITAR TASS. They buy photos and offer them together with the agency message. The agency is acknowledged as an official source for the media. If two agencies provide the same message, the first rule is fulfilled. This makes the news item to reliable news. The selection criteria for the images are thereby hard to comprehend. In any case the picture selection reduces the message to one defined point of view.
  3. Publication
    The media editors (print, on-line, TV) had their own reporters in former times. That way, they could distinguish themselves from other media providers. Nowadays you hardly find salaried photo reporters. The photos are mostly bought directly from the freelance photographer or an agency. The advantage of an agency is the bundling of the picture with the press release. For cost reasons only the pictures are bought that are eventually published. The editor determines the ‘proof’ for the article by selecting the images.

Eventually the observer decides on its impression. Now look at the sketches above and consider, which picture you would buy!

About the mentioned meeting, on February 9th 2015, different pictures were used in different publications. What impression do the individual pictures create? On the left above? On the bottom left? On the top right? On the bottom right? And what was the real atmosphere of the meeting? Who might know.
In any case, people decided with the selection of the image which impression should generated among the viewers. A picture is worth a thousand words that do not necessarily correspond to the truth.

Bottom line: The times of ‘seeing is believing’ are probably over. Each event has any number of pictures that do not clearly express the real happening. Even blurred mobile phone photographs are used today, in order to convey a message to the public that cannot be guaranteed by the two rules. There is no other choice than dealing critically with these ‘proofs’ and to always consider the possibility that the message is wrong – whether we are deliberately manipulated or not.

P.S.: Do you remember the posed politician photo of the Charlie Hebdo demonstration?

The vulnerability of meaning

We interpret at any time a situation that results from the context, a statement or a relationship. Different perspectives create automatically different interpretations (more here: http://www.memecon.com/perceptual-positions.html). Rarely it becomes as clear as on March 15th 2015. The Greek Minister of Finance Yanis Varoufakis was invited to participate via satellite in a German Sunday-evening talk show. There, he was confronted with a video, in which he was to have apparently stuck the middle finger towards Germany. On the basis of some aspects, the vulnerability of meaning becomes visible.

Varoufakis

Vulgar gestures produce much attention in the public – inconvenient for the one, who hangs at the finger; pleasantly for the critical rest. In Germany people know such cases from sports and politics.

Two videos form the basis for this blog post.

  • Video1 (in German here: http://ow.ly/Ld81d) shows the talk show with discussion participants in Berlin and, from Greece connected, Yanis Varoufakis. In a clip, that describes the past life of Yanis Varoufakis with some edited scenes, can be found in the broadcast from minute 23:39 to 26:13 (see below 1). The answer of Yanis Varoufakis, in which he denies the authenticity of the video, can be found from minute 26:16 to 26:52 (see below 2).
  • Video2 (in English here: http://ow.ly/Ld85F) shows the original recording of the meeting of his key note about his book „The global Minotaur“, in Zagreb, on May 5th 2013. The relevant cutout from the Q&A following his presentation with the mentioned gesture starts from minute of 40:20 until 40:36 (see below 3).

The producers of the talk show create with their presentation the impression that Yanis Varoufakis stuck the middle finger to Germany in his function as Greek Minister, which would have been a disrespectful affront. The following points underline the attempt of the television producers to inject negative meaning into this gesture.

  1. Günther Jauch, the host, assesses the clip at the beginning with the words „… the Germans are occasionally irritated, in which manner especially you… “.
  2. The clip produces an ambiguous impression with historical cutouts that are incomplete and torn out of context as well as were mounted in the wrong chronological order. The polarizing speaker in the off, who produces a logical, but apparently wrong context, amplifies this impression (see speaker in the clip text below 1).
  3. Günther Jauch underlines his assessment with the words „the middle finger for Germany..
  4. Günther Jauch often interrupts Yanis Varoufakis.
  5. The non verbal signals of the discussion participants are a further attempt to underline their assessment; e.g. the surprise of Günther Jauch, when Varoufakis denies the middle finger.
  6. The discussions are translated simultaneously by two interpreters. You can only hear the German translation and fragments of the answers of Varoufakis. We do not know, with which words the German parts were translated. It would be interesting to hear the actual statements.

Yanis Varoufakis reacts with a general statement „ I never stuck the middle finger“, which is obviously wrong. Or did he want to say that he did not stick the middle finger to Germany?

  1. He was appointed in the year 2015 as Greek Minister of Finance.
  2. The quotation „My proposal was“ is a suggestion for the year 2010.

The audience can make their own assessment after watching the two videos.

Result: So what drove the television producers to mount the quotations in such a way as if Yanis Varoufakis would have expressed himself disrespectfully towards Germany? We can only speculate about it. Visibly there is the attempt to deliver a certain meaning with the clip from Zagreb in the style of the “black channel” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_schwarze_Kanal. It would be desirable, if the public would not discuss in a populist style the middle finger, but the cheap shift of meaning in the “neutral“ public service media. In any case the vulnerability of meaning becomes visible.

Appendix

1) Clip text
Günther Jauch: „The Germans have the feeling that they already were solidary with Greece for a very long time. No country gave more billions to Greece than Germany. But all the more the Germans are occasionally irritated, with which manner especially you also acted towards our country. “

Cutout of the clip about Yanis Varoufakis:
Speaker: „Then the euro-crisis. Varoufakis writes articles, he gives interviews and makes videos, in which he explains the crisis.“
Varoufakis: „The rich made profits, but the poor had to fight like never.“
Speaker: „Varoufakis wants to give new self-assurance to the Greeks.“
Varoufakis: „Greece should simply announce that it is defaulting“
Speaker: „and stands for clear messages, particularly to Germany.“
Varoufakis: „stick the finger to Germany and say: Well, you can now solve this problem by yourself.“

Günther Jauch: „The middle finger for Germany, Mr. Minister? The Germans pay most and are by far most strongly criticized for it.

2) Answer Yanis Varoufakis
This video is wrong. That was doctored. I never did something like that. I am ashamed for the fact that one thinks that I am capable of such a video. I am sure, that you did not know it. But this is a fake. I never showed this finger. This is a faked video. Just like another one that is shown in Greece, where I allegedly stretched out my hand to a foreign politician and withdrew it at the last moment.

3) Original text Zagreb
“My proposal [in early 2010 added by M.L.] was that Greece should simply announce that it is defaulting – just like Argentina did – within the Euro, in January 2010, and stick the finger to Germany and say: Well, you can now solve this problem by yourself.” [The bold parts were broadcasted in the talk show.]