This page was created as "digital hegemony". See Talk:Digital hegemony for the reasoning applied in renaming it to "photographic manipulations"
Sheesh, AI. Every story which has a photo can't be used to contribute to a useful article on how the manipulation of photographs, or manipulated digital images, can be used as a disinformation tool.
Just took a second look .. I think that the article which you deleted, M, is a PERFECT illustration of precisely how the manipulation is done .. Sorry to see that you disapproved. AI
It looked like an ordinary, un-manipulated, photograph to me. It wasn't? And what was the deception or disinformation? --M
M ... If you recall, you changed the name of this article, as mentioned above, and it appears to me that, with the name change, the focus has moved from hegemony to manipulation.
- The opening line now reads "Photographic manipulation as a tool utilized by propagandists is characterized by use of images to manipulate the minds of voters."
- The original opening line read "The term digital hegemony as a tool utilized by propagandists aptly describes, for lack of a better phrase, the recent phenomenon observed by James Donahue in his article Herding the Sheep: Using Images Of Bush To Manipulate The Minds Of Voters."
Placing the focus on manipulation, if I take you correctly in your last memo to me, is referring to manipulating the photograph, i.e. altering it. That has nothing at all to do with the meaning of digital hegemony or photographic manipulation in this context.
The manipulation is the manipulation of voter mindset, as the cover page most certainly does .... and Hecht aptly describes.
M .... I really dislike pissing contests ... and this one is totally unnecessary ... plus it gets my hackles up ... and places me in a defensive position.
Also, if, like others have mentioned, this is an open and free document, why do I feel as though I can submit and work on articles at will UNLESS my submission doesn't "fit" in with something I cannot even identify. Do I need approval prior to submission -- which I find myself frequently doing via posting on a TALK page and waiting for someone else to bring the leads/links into the article?
This wastes my time .... and ordinarily I would ignore this ... except that, in this case, I feel that the addition of Hecht's material to the article was apropro and that it's deletion was not.
If you feel that there are too many examples here .. well, I plead guilty to adding too many examples of Bushco attempts at digital hegemony.
If the purpose of this article is "the manipulation of voter mindset" than this whole affair is my great misunderstanding and I apologize.
It thought that was the purpose of the SourceWatch collection as a whole.
Please proceed. --m