WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.356 [Jingle] (University of London International Programmes) 00:00:09.083 --> 00:00:11.822 (The Camera Never Lies - Reportage) 00:00:11.822 --> 00:00:14.965 [Emmett Sullivan] Advertising and images, that's one thing. 00:00:14.965 --> 00:00:17.012 But as we've already talked about, 00:00:17.012 --> 00:00:23.984 politicians seem to be particularly concerned about their image, who they're standing next to, 00:00:23.999 --> 00:00:30.055 or in some cases, the publication's decision as to who they're standing next to. 00:00:30.055 --> 00:00:38.185 In April, 2009, the Israeli newspaper Yated Ne'eman 00:00:39.508 --> 00:00:48.457 took out of a collective photograph of the Israeli cabinet the two women members portrayed. 00:00:49.287 --> 00:00:56.363 It is put forward that this is a particularly orthodox newspaper 00:00:56.886 --> 00:01:02.261 and was not in itself supportive of female members of the cabinet. 00:01:02.600 --> 00:01:07.304 Nevertheless, for their own morals and for their own audience, 00:01:07.304 --> 00:01:11.352 they had chosen to manipulate an image which was more inclusive 00:01:11.936 --> 00:01:15.028 than perhaps they thought editorially appropriate. 00:01:15.720 --> 00:01:19.900 Now, continuing on the theme of politicians, something that I found quite amusing, 00:01:19.900 --> 00:01:24.450 having a Glaswegian father and many of my relatives up in Scotland. 00:01:24.450 --> 00:01:32.151 A photograph - again, 2009 - another collective photograph, in this case the Scottish National Party. 00:01:33.020 --> 00:01:36.178 It appeared in an SNP newsletter. 00:01:37.055 --> 00:01:41.718 What was described as an over-enthusiastic party member 00:01:41.718 --> 00:01:46.212 had chosen to doctor the image, but not in an obvious way. 00:01:46.212 --> 00:01:50.546 In, in the background, there were two pictures: 00:01:50.546 --> 00:01:56.063 one of William Wallace, the other of Robert the Bruce. Two great Scottish heroes. 00:01:57.001 --> 00:02:00.223 They had been digitally put into the image. 00:02:01.160 --> 00:02:06.730 The Scottish National Party leaders were in fact sitting in front of two photographs 00:02:06.730 --> 00:02:10.397 of the Queen and her husband Prince Philip. 00:02:10.397 --> 00:02:13.857 There was a certain symbolism there, that clearly, 00:02:13.857 --> 00:02:20.129 that one or two of the workers thought was too great to allow to go unedited or unchecked. 00:02:20.129 --> 00:02:22.593 An apology was offered later. 00:02:23.146 --> 00:02:29.383 For 2010, Fourandsix give an example of another political image 00:02:29.383 --> 00:02:30.752 which had been doctored. 00:02:30.752 --> 00:02:33.366 This one seems to be quite a mundane reason 00:02:33.366 --> 00:02:36.431 but it's not the only example we find of this. 00:02:37.999 --> 00:02:47.036 The state run Egyptian newspaper El Arham had digitally altered an image 00:02:47.036 --> 00:02:52.779 which showed President Mubarak walking with Israeli leaders, 00:02:52.779 --> 00:02:56.210 those from the US, the Palestine, and Jordan. 00:02:57.010 --> 00:03:03.631 What they did was move Mubarak, so that he was at the head of that little posse, 00:03:03.631 --> 00:03:05.639 rather than walking behind them. 00:03:05.639 --> 00:03:10.679 Their argument was, they wanted to show, figuratively, Mubarak's leadership 00:03:11.900 --> 00:03:14.796 on matters of Palestinian issues, 00:03:14.796 --> 00:03:17.293 even though the original composition of the photograph 00:03:17.293 --> 00:03:19.997 had him standing behind the other politicians. 00:03:20.812 --> 00:03:27.670 Now when it comes to identifying how close one politician is with a protester 00:03:27.670 --> 00:03:29.226 or another figure, 00:03:29.226 --> 00:03:35.257 the example that I'm going to give you from 2004 highlights a young Senator Kerry, 00:03:35.257 --> 00:03:39.358 John Kerry who ran for the American presidency in that year. 00:03:40.219 --> 00:03:43.845 In a photograph standing next to Jane Fonda, 00:03:43.845 --> 00:03:50.072 who during the Vietnam war became very outspoken about America's participation. 00:03:50.580 --> 00:03:54.588 Only problem is, they weren't actually there together at the same time. 00:03:55.280 --> 00:04:06.856 The photograph is a composite, showing Kerry from 1971 in New York 00:04:07.656 --> 00:04:12.249 and Fonda in Florida, in 1972. 00:04:12.249 --> 00:04:16.150 But the importance of conveying the image that John Kerry was 00:04:17.058 --> 00:04:23.336 as a forthright and important speaker for those of a more radical view 00:04:23.336 --> 00:04:25.081 during the Vietnam war 00:04:25.081 --> 00:04:27.686 led to this composite going-together. 00:04:29.441 --> 00:04:36.822 Whether it really does make a substantial change to the way we view this, I don't know. 00:04:37.561 --> 00:04:42.813 But, if you're looking at the way that you trust an individual, 00:04:42.813 --> 00:04:46.316 some staffers had made a decision for his campaign 00:04:46.316 --> 00:04:47.860 that this was going to look good. 00:04:49.375 --> 00:04:56.460 It's not just in the 70's or the 80's or the 21st century that who stands next to who 00:04:56.460 --> 00:04:58.793 is important in political advertising. 00:04:59.439 --> 00:05:01.500 Here is a photograph from 1939. 00:05:02.162 --> 00:05:06.127 It shows the Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King 00:05:06.127 --> 00:05:10.142 standing next to the Queen Mother, Elizabeth Bowse-Lyon. 00:05:11.864 --> 00:05:19.927 This doesn't look a terribly threatening image, except the King, George VI, 00:05:19.927 --> 00:05:21.801 had been removed from the image. 00:05:22.661 --> 00:05:30.383 It was an image which was used for publicity of Mackenzie King's reelection campaign, 00:05:30.383 --> 00:05:35.059 and it was felt that his stature, both physically and figuratively, 00:05:35.059 --> 00:05:38.692 was going to be enhanced by standing next to the Queen, 00:05:38.692 --> 00:05:41.233 rather than the Queen and her husband. 00:05:42.484 --> 00:05:46.021 (University of London International Programmes)