Say Cheese!
August 26, 2008 7:18 PM Subscribe
wonderful but in what sense, what way have they changed the world?
posted by Postroad at 7:27 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by Postroad at 7:27 PM on August 26, 2008
This is why atrocities are history.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:29 PM on August 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:29 PM on August 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
As quoted in the Dead on the Beach photo, "words are never enough . . . words do not exist to make us see, or know, or feel what it is like, what actually happens.”
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:38 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:38 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
I love how "Buchenwald camp" has Google Adwords for "Scottish Family Ancestry". Blech.
Monetizing the images on the site linked to in this FPP is the nadir of banality and of bad taste.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:44 PM on August 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
Monetizing the images on the site linked to in this FPP is the nadir of banality and of bad taste.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:44 PM on August 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
Agreeing with the squick factor. This is a bunch of iconic photographs deliberately assembled, not for their intrinsic value, but to fetch eyeballs and sell adwords.
posted by yhbc at 7:46 PM on August 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by yhbc at 7:46 PM on August 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
How depressing is our state of affairs that most of the memorable photos are also the most horrific. I can't tell if I should be awed by the power of the photo, or just saddened by their context.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:47 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:47 PM on August 26, 2008
This is a bunch of iconic photographs deliberately assembled, not for their intrinsic value, but to fetch eyeballs and sell adwords.
Of course many of these photos were originally taken for magazines and newspapers, which exist primarily to sell ads.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:50 PM on August 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
Of course many of these photos were originally taken for magazines and newspapers, which exist primarily to sell ads.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:50 PM on August 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
Where were you when a photo of a bullet going through an apple was taken?
I was at the dry cleaners.
posted by mattoxic at 7:51 PM on August 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
No time to look at them properly, will have to come back to them. But thank you for posting, they look interesting, and I have only seen about a quarter of them before (the 5 year old mother is picture unbelievable*). Some of the comments on the site are pretty juvenile, though.
*well, almost unbelievable.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:53 PM on August 26, 2008
*well, almost unbelievable.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:53 PM on August 26, 2008
Those 9/11 photographs still make my stomach turn. (So did taking a friend from out of town down to 'ground zero' a couple months ago.)
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:56 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:56 PM on August 26, 2008
How depressing is our state of affairs that most of the memorable photos are also the most horrific. I can't tell if I should be awed by the power of the photo, or just saddened by their context.
Well, it's only one person's selection. If you ever have a chance to see the annual World Press Photo finalists, there's an equal mixture of horror & uplifting photos.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:57 PM on August 26, 2008
Well, it's only one person's selection. If you ever have a chance to see the annual World Press Photo finalists, there's an equal mixture of horror & uplifting photos.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:57 PM on August 26, 2008
Some of those comments make youtube comments look like....I don't know what.
posted by marxchivist at 7:58 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by marxchivist at 7:58 PM on August 26, 2008
Geez. Just take the photos for what they are. Look at them, not whatever is surrounding them
You have to filter how you look at any website these days. Big deal.
These are just amazing photographs, ads or no ads. Besides, how else would you see them if not in magazines and newspapers? Or online forums with pop ups and banners?
These photos affected the people who saw them; they cause an emotional response. Several of them changed or encouraged public opinion on different events (The shooting of the viet kong helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam War). That's what makes them important.
posted by photomusic86 at 7:59 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
You have to filter how you look at any website these days. Big deal.
These are just amazing photographs, ads or no ads. Besides, how else would you see them if not in magazines and newspapers? Or online forums with pop ups and banners?
These photos affected the people who saw them; they cause an emotional response. Several of them changed or encouraged public opinion on different events (The shooting of the viet kong helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam War). That's what makes them important.
posted by photomusic86 at 7:59 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
This is one of the very rare times that a website is better served with a 1-photo-per-page list layout. This is all too much to take on at once.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:03 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by iamkimiam at 8:03 PM on August 26, 2008
Yeah marxchivist between the images and the comments, I've lost all faith in this existance . . . all over again.
posted by nola at 8:05 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by nola at 8:05 PM on August 26, 2008
Does anyone have a link to the picture of a man laying in a hospital bed dying (or dead) of AIDS and his family is around him comforting him? The man had a beard and looks haggard. That photo moved me greatly and I see it periodically, but I can never find it and I don't know the photographer or much else about the context.
posted by Falconetti at 8:16 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by Falconetti at 8:16 PM on August 26, 2008
Looking at some of those photos makes me ashamed to be a human, I wish I was a butterfly.
posted by BrnP84 at 8:18 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by BrnP84 at 8:18 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure how exactly some of these photos "changed the world". I mean, did 9/11 change the world? Sure. Did a photo of 9/11 change the world? Not really.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:23 PM on August 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:23 PM on August 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
Falconetti, do you mean this photo of David Kirby by Therese Frare?
posted by lemuria at 8:27 PM on August 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by lemuria at 8:27 PM on August 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
And man, I'm sorry, but your post title is just terrible.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:27 PM on August 26, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by iamkimiam at 8:27 PM on August 26, 2008 [5 favorites]
Thanks lemuria, that is indeed the photo I was thinking of.
posted by Falconetti at 8:31 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by Falconetti at 8:31 PM on August 26, 2008
The comments on that 5-year-old mother photo look like they came straight from 4chan. Congrats, internet, you made tehloki feel bad.
posted by tehloki at 8:33 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by tehloki at 8:33 PM on August 26, 2008
Great Post.
Very simple, and to me 'Best of the Web'. These are some very moving images, some familiar, many not, that I wouldn't have come across otherwise. Thank you.
posted by matty at 8:49 PM on August 26, 2008
Very simple, and to me 'Best of the Web'. These are some very moving images, some familiar, many not, that I wouldn't have come across otherwise. Thank you.
posted by matty at 8:49 PM on August 26, 2008
On the first link, there is a photo described as Iranian men dressed as women and firing guns. On the third link, the same photo is described as representing Iranian women learning how to fire guns.
Which is right?
posted by Ms. Saint at 8:57 PM on August 26, 2008
Which is right?
posted by Ms. Saint at 8:57 PM on August 26, 2008
God, the guy's commentary in the "more #2" link is so utterly inane it almost takes away from the awesomeness of the pictures. "Her eyes are incredible." Really, dumbass?
posted by nasreddin at 9:02 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by nasreddin at 9:02 PM on August 26, 2008
Shemales. They're Iranian shemales.
posted by livingdots at 9:04 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by livingdots at 9:04 PM on August 26, 2008
Some good, some great photos, but very few of them 'changed the world'. I agree with the above -- without context, presented in this manner, this is just a ploy to gain ad revenue. Not best of the web.
posted by modernnomad at 9:05 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by modernnomad at 9:05 PM on August 26, 2008
They're women.
posted by Falconetti at 9:06 PM on August 26, 2008
posted by Falconetti at 9:06 PM on August 26, 2008
Photos That Changed Affected America
ftfm
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:53 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
ftfm
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:53 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
does anyone know the truth about this one?
it seems to be a fraud but my natural distrust of both sides of that particular conflict makes me suspicious of any claims as to its veracity or lack thereof.
posted by klanawa at 10:12 PM on August 26, 2008
it seems to be a fraud but my natural distrust of both sides of that particular conflict makes me suspicious of any claims as to its veracity or lack thereof.
posted by klanawa at 10:12 PM on August 26, 2008
So are all of these photos really in the public domain?
posted by geekyguy at 10:21 PM on August 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
posted by geekyguy at 10:21 PM on August 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
empath's link is worthy of an FPP all by itself.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:22 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:22 PM on August 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
If they are women, that says alot about how the newspeople shape our point of view. "..the steps Iranian fighters would take to mingle in with innocent people. "
Secondly, most of the literature about the dying sudanese child Highlights the death of the photograher and colleague. The same disposition that led to the child's death in the first place. If she died. The very fact that no one bothered to find out what happened to her and that the photographer became a rockstar spells it. Pat yourselves on the back...you deserve it.
posted by Student of Man at 10:48 PM on August 26, 2008
Secondly, most of the literature about the dying sudanese child Highlights the death of the photograher and colleague. The same disposition that led to the child's death in the first place. If she died. The very fact that no one bothered to find out what happened to her and that the photographer became a rockstar spells it. Pat yourselves on the back...you deserve it.
posted by Student of Man at 10:48 PM on August 26, 2008
does anyone know the truth about this one?
Those who were there that day. And maybe not even all of them.
empath's link is worthy of an FPP all by itself.
Or two.
See also: the 52 most influential photographs.
acro: Schumann's leap came before that of Peter Fechter. Maybe he didn't believe his fellow guards would shoot.
posted by dhartung at 11:54 PM on August 26, 2008
Those who were there that day. And maybe not even all of them.
empath's link is worthy of an FPP all by itself.
Or two.
See also: the 52 most influential photographs.
acro: Schumann's leap came before that of Peter Fechter. Maybe he didn't believe his fellow guards would shoot.
posted by dhartung at 11:54 PM on August 26, 2008
Geez. Just take the photos for what they are. Look at them, not whatever is surrounding them
You have to filter how you look at any website these days. Big deal.
I have a specific problem of using pictures taken from the Holocaust to sell online advertising.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:06 AM on August 27, 2008
You have to filter how you look at any website these days. Big deal.
I have a specific problem of using pictures taken from the Holocaust to sell online advertising.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:06 AM on August 27, 2008
I take it you were morally offended by, let's say, Schindler's List as well? Appropriating images & stories from the Holocaust to make money, pretty much the same thing?
posted by Lemurrhea at 1:04 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by Lemurrhea at 1:04 AM on August 27, 2008
This bit from empath's link made me cry: Immediately after their plane touched down in the village of Ayod, Carter began snapping photos of famine victims. Seeking relief from the sight of masses of people starving to death, he wandered into the open bush. He heard a soft, high-pitched whimpering and saw a tiny girl trying to make her way to the feeding center. As he crouched to photograph her, a vulture landed in view. Careful not to disturb the bird, he positioned himself for the best possible image. He would later say he waited about 20 minutes, hoping the vulture would spread its wings. It did not, and after he took his photographs, he chased the bird away and watched as the little girl resumed her struggle. Afterward he sat under a tree, lit a cigarette, talked to God and cried. "He was depressed afterward," Silva recalls. "He kept saying he wanted to hug his daughter."
Did carrying the whimpering girl to the feeding center not strike him as a good idea™?
posted by dabitch at 2:40 AM on August 27, 2008 [4 favorites]
Did carrying the whimpering girl to the feeding center not strike him as a good idea™?
posted by dabitch at 2:40 AM on August 27, 2008 [4 favorites]
*tries to favorite geekyguy's question multiple times*
Because I find the google-ads on this as distasteful as many others, and you can bet none of the photographers are seeing a dime of it either.
posted by dabitch at 2:45 AM on August 27, 2008
Because I find the google-ads on this as distasteful as many others, and you can bet none of the photographers are seeing a dime of it either.
posted by dabitch at 2:45 AM on August 27, 2008
An earlier post on this theme for those who are interested.
posted by TedW at 3:01 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by TedW at 3:01 AM on August 27, 2008
Peter Fechter was not a border guard, but a bricklayer.
posted by Pendragon at 4:53 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by Pendragon at 4:53 AM on August 27, 2008
dhartung: I now see you meant Schumann was a border guard, sorry.
posted by Pendragon at 4:56 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by Pendragon at 4:56 AM on August 27, 2008
"Did carrying the whimpering girl to the feeding center not strike him as a good idea?"
Completely agree. I loathe the way in which journalists and photojournalists put up a big front about not interfering with individuals, only reporting, while back at HQ their papers bang away at the political paranoia of the day.
Thus 5 year olds are left to die of starvation while newspapers endlessly bang the drum about evil immigrants or invading Iran.
posted by athenian at 5:43 AM on August 27, 2008
Completely agree. I loathe the way in which journalists and photojournalists put up a big front about not interfering with individuals, only reporting, while back at HQ their papers bang away at the political paranoia of the day.
Thus 5 year olds are left to die of starvation while newspapers endlessly bang the drum about evil immigrants or invading Iran.
posted by athenian at 5:43 AM on August 27, 2008
Agreed, dabitch. But it also seems a bit difficult to accuse Kevin Carter of insensitivity:
"Two months after receiving his Pulitzer, Carter would be dead of carbon-monoxide poisoning in Johannesburg, a suicide at 33. His red pickup truck was parked near a small river where he used to play as a child; a green garden hose attached to the vehicle's exhaust funneled the fumes inside. "I'm really, really sorry," he explained in a note left on the passenger seat beneath a knapsack. "The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist."
posted by vacapinta at 5:50 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm going to soil my hands to say this, but if you are true to the role of being only a documenter of an event, then you cannot participate in the event. If he had saved the girl, then he saved the next, then he saved the next, he would become part of the struggle, and his photographic vision risks becoming biased by becoming part of that struggle. I'm throwing up a little in my mouth as I type this, for I could not be that dedicated, but I can understand the line and why some videographers / filmmakers / photographers try to observe it.
posted by cavalier at 5:53 AM on August 27, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by cavalier at 5:53 AM on August 27, 2008 [2 favorites]
Or, as vacapinta pointed out, you could try to observe the line and then kill yourself for being consumed with the guilt and pain of not becoming part of the struggle. Um, zing.
posted by cavalier at 5:54 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by cavalier at 5:54 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
As I get older, I am increasingly jaded. It's not very often that I get a real body blow of shock, disbelief and nausea anymore.
So thanks for that picture of Medina.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:01 AM on August 27, 2008
So thanks for that picture of Medina.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:01 AM on August 27, 2008
Holy cow! Niagara Falls frozen too.
I just visited the falls a week or so ago, and looked at a lot of pictures of it while I was there (which is kind of strange in a way I guess), but I've never seen this picture before.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:09 AM on August 27, 2008
I just visited the falls a week or so ago, and looked at a lot of pictures of it while I was there (which is kind of strange in a way I guess), but I've never seen this picture before.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:09 AM on August 27, 2008
I take it you were morally offended by, let's say, Schindler's List as well? Appropriating images & stories from the Holocaust to make money, pretty much the same thing?
Yes. Shoah is really the only appropriate way to portray the Holocaust in film.
Look, I don't want to derail this thread, so please MeMail me if you would like to discuss. But at the very least, the link is not "best of the web", and is merely someone appropriating content in order to make some money via Adwords.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:15 AM on August 27, 2008
Yes. Shoah is really the only appropriate way to portray the Holocaust in film.
Look, I don't want to derail this thread, so please MeMail me if you would like to discuss. But at the very least, the link is not "best of the web", and is merely someone appropriating content in order to make some money via Adwords.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:15 AM on August 27, 2008
The Biafra picture in the first link is actually taken from the second link (Life photos site), it would appear.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:28 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by stinkycheese at 7:28 AM on August 27, 2008
Wow, those were depressing. Kittens and puppies to the rescue!
posted by LordSludge at 8:23 AM on August 27, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by LordSludge at 8:23 AM on August 27, 2008 [2 favorites]
Excellent link, but I have to disagree with those who dismiss the notion that none of these photos changed the world. Of course they did. Some of these photos exposed lies that everything was alright with the world and there was no problem. Many snapped enough people out of their slumber and made them demand changes. Powerful people were made to be held accountable for their actions. Wars were triggered or stopped. The idea that we were living in a just world was proven to be false. An ugly side was revealed and people pretending to be white knights were proven to be anything but.
The Kennedy Assassination shook the American people -- the feeling invulnerability wasn't shattered, but it was shaken. What if his assassination wasn't on tape -- would it have been seen the same? Absolutely not -- it's the difference between hearing that someone died, seeing their body after the fact, and actually witnessing their brutal death -- each has a different effect on us as individuals -- but take a collective and you have altered the course of events -- directly and indirectly.
But some of those changes were subtle, but no less potent. They changed certain people whose life course went in a completely different direction -- and it may have taken decades, but there were changes that altered things in a different way.
We can be numb to the changes going around us, but just because you don't see it, does't mean the changes aren't there.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:36 AM on August 27, 2008
The Kennedy Assassination shook the American people -- the feeling invulnerability wasn't shattered, but it was shaken. What if his assassination wasn't on tape -- would it have been seen the same? Absolutely not -- it's the difference between hearing that someone died, seeing their body after the fact, and actually witnessing their brutal death -- each has a different effect on us as individuals -- but take a collective and you have altered the course of events -- directly and indirectly.
But some of those changes were subtle, but no less potent. They changed certain people whose life course went in a completely different direction -- and it may have taken decades, but there were changes that altered things in a different way.
We can be numb to the changes going around us, but just because you don't see it, does't mean the changes aren't there.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:36 AM on August 27, 2008
I'm going to soil my hands to say this, but if you are true to the role of being only a documenter of an event, then you cannot participate in the event.
I'm thinking that girl needed to be fed more than we needed a documentary about her suffering. And that this is a false dichotomy. In such extreme circumstances, you should not just walk away from your own humanity if there is something (such a small something) you can do. Art is worth nothing next to the life of that one little girl.
posted by emjaybee at 11:25 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm thinking that girl needed to be fed more than we needed a documentary about her suffering. And that this is a false dichotomy. In such extreme circumstances, you should not just walk away from your own humanity if there is something (such a small something) you can do. Art is worth nothing next to the life of that one little girl.
posted by emjaybee at 11:25 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
What, no Challenger explosion?
posted by katillathehun at 11:33 AM on August 27, 2008
posted by katillathehun at 11:33 AM on August 27, 2008
Thanks for the post.
The owner of that site would be well-served by disabling comments... stupidity galore.
posted by Pantengliopoli at 11:39 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
The owner of that site would be well-served by disabling comments... stupidity galore.
posted by Pantengliopoli at 11:39 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
This isn't technically a double, but it is quite familiar, because we have already seen a metafilter post that links to an eerily similar site.
This is a transparent attempt to drive up ad revenue by displaying famous pictures, lifting content from other sites, and sloppily pasting them together with a bunch of ads. Hell, look at the very first one ("Afghan Girl") - they didn't even bother to change the font when they lifted content description from another site.
The fact that the pictures and accompanying stories are powerful does not negate the fact that this site is a lazy, sloppy, shameless ad farm.
posted by googly at 3:24 PM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
This is a transparent attempt to drive up ad revenue by displaying famous pictures, lifting content from other sites, and sloppily pasting them together with a bunch of ads. Hell, look at the very first one ("Afghan Girl") - they didn't even bother to change the font when they lifted content description from another site.
The fact that the pictures and accompanying stories are powerful does not negate the fact that this site is a lazy, sloppy, shameless ad farm.
posted by googly at 3:24 PM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just want to pop in to say how happy I am that there are captions to go along with these, unlike the Olympic photo post the other day, which still has me scratching my head at some of the pics.
The comments, though -- why why why would you even attempt to read them? Has Youtube not taught us all the lesson by now?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:08 PM on August 27, 2008
The comments, though -- why why why would you even attempt to read them? Has Youtube not taught us all the lesson by now?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:08 PM on August 27, 2008
OK, I'm going to amend my opinion. This is a complete piece of shit website. Its poorly written and designed, and is so obviously an ad-generating piece of crap that I can't believe anybody here takes it at face value. I decided to go back and actually research it a bit, and here's what I found. I picked a few photos at random and followed up a bit.
The Boston Fire.
Text is lifted, uncited, completely from here.
Afghan Girl.
Lifts one paragraph of text, uncited, from here.
Lunchtime atop a Skyscraper.
Text lifted, uncited, from wikipedia.
Starving Child Stalked by Vulture.
Photo credited to "Kevin Carte" not Kevin Carter. Text is poorly written and incorrectly states that he committed suicide 3 months after taking the shot; he actually committed suicide more than a year after, as could be verified by even a cursory look at the wikipedia entry that the site links to. (Actually, it doesn't link to wikipedia - it links right back to itself).
I could go on, but I needn't. Its a crap site.
posted by googly at 5:54 PM on August 27, 2008 [6 favorites]
The Boston Fire.
Text is lifted, uncited, completely from here.
Afghan Girl.
Lifts one paragraph of text, uncited, from here.
Lunchtime atop a Skyscraper.
Text lifted, uncited, from wikipedia.
Starving Child Stalked by Vulture.
Photo credited to "Kevin Carte" not Kevin Carter. Text is poorly written and incorrectly states that he committed suicide 3 months after taking the shot; he actually committed suicide more than a year after, as could be verified by even a cursory look at the wikipedia entry that the site links to. (Actually, it doesn't link to wikipedia - it links right back to itself).
I could go on, but I needn't. Its a crap site.
posted by googly at 5:54 PM on August 27, 2008 [6 favorites]
I can't believe anybody here takes it at face value.
I like the pictures and was grateful for the captions. I didn't notice any advertising, but I basically see through that stuff. What's not to take "at face value"?
I get the complaints but I don't understand your particular comment at all.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 6:14 PM on August 27, 2008
I like the pictures and was grateful for the captions. I didn't notice any advertising, but I basically see through that stuff. What's not to take "at face value"?
I get the complaints but I don't understand your particular comment at all.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 6:14 PM on August 27, 2008
I think I recall the Kevin Carter thing already being hashed out here before. He couldn't do anything, there simply was no food. Even at the relief stations they were over capacity and the people were starving there instead of the middle of nowhere. This all from memory of what someone else posted. So what I'm getting at is if you're going to make such assertions of superiority maybe you should get the full back story first? Here's what i found:
Yep. If I remember correctly, at the nearbye famine relief section there were dozens of people dying every hour. Had he brought the girl to the center, it would probably not have helped her.
Nonetheless, it's impossible not to want that little girl's last moments on earth to have been an experience of compassion, rather than bewilderment and abandonment.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:28 PM on March 5, 2006 [+] [!]
posted by P.o.B. at 3:15 AM on August 28, 2008
Yep. If I remember correctly, at the nearbye famine relief section there were dozens of people dying every hour. Had he brought the girl to the center, it would probably not have helped her.
Nonetheless, it's impossible not to want that little girl's last moments on earth to have been an experience of compassion, rather than bewilderment and abandonment.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:28 PM on March 5, 2006 [+] [!]
posted by P.o.B. at 3:15 AM on August 28, 2008
I like the pictures and was grateful for the captions. I didn't notice any advertising, but I basically see through that stuff. What's not to take "at face value"?
I get the complaints but I don't understand your particular comment at all.
Well, let me see if I can be a bit clearer:
This site takes images, some of which are in the public domain and some of which aren't, and aggregates them. This, in itself, is not a bad thing, provided that the site adds value in one of several ways:
(1) It aggregates them in a unique, original, thoughtful, or useful way.
(2) It adds some kind of original content, such as novel or informative captions, commentary, or helpful interface.
(3) It brings the content to people who otherwise might not have seen it.
But the site doesn't do any of these things. Specifically:
(1) It is just a list of famous pictures, and its single apparent filter - that they "changed the world" - is laughable at best. A number of these aren't even "pictures at all - e.g., the 911 attacks and JFK assassination. Famous events? Yes. History-making pictures? No. And how did the frozen Niagara Falls picture change the world?
(2) It adds almost nothing original. The captions are stolen from other sites, and the ones that aren't obviously stolen are factually incorrect and extraordinarily poorly written. The interface is nothing special, and is designed to maximize ad revenue. The pictures themselves are seldom of particularly good quality.
(3) It brings absolutely no new content to anyone, merely replicating a number of other sites in form and content.
The site presents itself as an original, novel aggregation of "photos that changed the world." If you believe that - if you take it at face value - you will overlook the fact that it is not novel, it is not original, it blatantly steals content, and it isn't even a collection of photos.
posted by googly at 3:10 PM on August 28, 2008
I get the complaints but I don't understand your particular comment at all.
Well, let me see if I can be a bit clearer:
This site takes images, some of which are in the public domain and some of which aren't, and aggregates them. This, in itself, is not a bad thing, provided that the site adds value in one of several ways:
(1) It aggregates them in a unique, original, thoughtful, or useful way.
(2) It adds some kind of original content, such as novel or informative captions, commentary, or helpful interface.
(3) It brings the content to people who otherwise might not have seen it.
But the site doesn't do any of these things. Specifically:
(1) It is just a list of famous pictures, and its single apparent filter - that they "changed the world" - is laughable at best. A number of these aren't even "pictures at all - e.g., the 911 attacks and JFK assassination. Famous events? Yes. History-making pictures? No. And how did the frozen Niagara Falls picture change the world?
(2) It adds almost nothing original. The captions are stolen from other sites, and the ones that aren't obviously stolen are factually incorrect and extraordinarily poorly written. The interface is nothing special, and is designed to maximize ad revenue. The pictures themselves are seldom of particularly good quality.
(3) It brings absolutely no new content to anyone, merely replicating a number of other sites in form and content.
The site presents itself as an original, novel aggregation of "photos that changed the world." If you believe that - if you take it at face value - you will overlook the fact that it is not novel, it is not original, it blatantly steals content, and it isn't even a collection of photos.
posted by googly at 3:10 PM on August 28, 2008
Heartbreaking. Very real and honest photos.
posted by CharlotteSarah at 4:31 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by CharlotteSarah at 4:31 PM on August 28, 2008
Your Grandmom Banged Two Of Those Construction Workers Who Ate Lunch On That Skyscraper
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:59 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:59 PM on August 28, 2008
« Older So, you've probably heard of Songfight... | Larry Summers lays it out for the next President Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:25 PM on August 26, 2008