Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] NYT Public Editor on Press Photography
From: abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)
Date: Sun Jul 3 09:54:20 2005
References: <13d.166816ea.2ff8dab5@aol.com> <4cfa589b05070223178cc0534@mail.gmail.com> <004501c57fda$429953f0$97ee4142@D1S9FY41>
 
I don't understand the use of "elitist" in this context. 

On 7/3/05, Seth Rosner <sethrosner@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> And there are at least two problems with the response of the Times editors:
> that NY Times readers will recognize the difference.
> 
> 1) it  makes quite elitist assumptions about the paper's readers and 2) it
> omits to consider how people with a different ideological point of view 
> from
> that attributed to Times readers will point to the misleading inferences as
> attempts to mislead deliberately Times readers into believing that these
> were real photographs of real torture.
Replies: Reply from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] NYT Public Editor on Press Photography)
 In reply to: Message from Afterswift at aol.com (Afterswift@aol.com) ([Leica] NYT Public Editor on Press Photography)
Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] NYT Public Editor on Press Photography)
Message from sethrosner at nycap.rr.com (Seth Rosner) ([Leica] NYT Public Editor on Press Photography)