Close Reading Questions for
Ephron’s “The Boston Photographs” (655-660)
PART
I: Definitions
1.
Morbid
2.
Voyeurs
3.
Ombudsman
4.
Righteous indignation
5.
Puritanism/Puritanical
PART
II: Answer TWO of the following as usual...
1.
In Ephron’s essay, she opens not with a description of the image, but with
three paragraphs of context. How does this influence how we read the
images (which we don’t see until we turn the page) and do we need to know this
to appreciate them?
2.
Why was the response to these photos so negative throughout the country?
Are these photos “sensational” and “voyeuristic”? Or do you agree with
Ephron herself, who writes, “That they disturb readers is exactly as it should
be: that’s why photojournalism is often more powerful than written journalism”
(660).
3.
Much of this essay is actually a critique of newspaper editors and their
“puritanical” audience. What is her essential argument, and what does she
worry these people might “miss” if the censure pictures such as the Boston
Photographs?
4.
Why does she argue that photos are not "news" and by using them as
news, they are made false? Would Morris agree with her about this use of
context? Why or why not?
1. Morbid - gruesome
ReplyDelete2. Voyeurs - A person who watches other people in a sexual manner.
3. Ombudsman - a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies.
4. Righteous indignation - anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way
5. Puritanism/Puritanical - very strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so; rigidly austere.
1. With Ephron opening with the context of the pictures that we have yet to see we get set a set idea of what is going to be in the picture and we already have a feeling for the pictures. We did not need her context to appreciate the pictures. In some ways we might even appreciate it more without her context, but when we saw the pictures after she gave us the context we were not as surprised to see what was happening in the pictures than we would have been otherwise. when I did turn the page and saw the pictures I did not expect it to be of a person or people falling. I thought it would be a person running away from a fire and getting hit by something because of the wording of the last sentence of the first paragraph.
2. I believe the public's response to the pictures was justified because at that time pictures like that were very scarce and disturbing. I also completely agree with Ephron on the fact that it should disturb the public and that it should be published for that reason because it is very rare to see something like that. A few people stated that it was voyeuristic, but I don't see how they came to that conclusion when the scene being depicted is not sexual in any way what so ever.
Great responses/details! But remember that voyeuristic doesn't have to be sexual in nature; it can be taking pleasure in any private moment, and death is a very private moment.
Delete1. Morbid- gruesome; grisly.
ReplyDelete2. Voyeurs- the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively.
3. Ombudsman- a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies.
4. Righteous indignation- retribution, retributive justice; anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way; anger without guilt
5. Puritanism- extreme strictness in moral or religious matters, often to excess;
Puritanical- very strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so; rigidly austere.
Q. 1.
The opening to Ephron’s essay is rather interesting. Instead of opening with her own option or even the picture she is referring to later in the essay, she gives us the words of the actual photographer. With this point of view being put into place in the very beginning, Ephron helped sway the reader to the photographer’s side. The person behind the camera had no intention of taking the images of the woman’s last moments but simply was taking images of a close call that had turned into a final call. Even though the images where taken it wasn’t twisted or miss used until it fell into the hands of the media.
Q.2
A column with out a image is something that has no face. When given an image to see, the reader doesn’t have to imagine what the person looked like. They actually see the person. Being so, the images of the woman and the child falling is much like what Ephron said. If the woman and child both lived, the news paper would have received great reviews much like “That is fantastic they lived that fall!” or “Amazing! This is living proof of God’s hand at work.” but instead the woman died and the child lived. Making readers want to despise something, so they take it out on any of the social media sharing the story.
Excellent responses and ideas here; you can use many of these in your paper assignment!
DeleteJenna Rose Demastus
ReplyDelete1. Morbid- appealing to an unnormal or unhealthy interest
2. Voyeurs- a person who enjoys seeing the pain of others.
3. Ombudsman-an official appointmented to investigate an individual's complaint
4. Righteous indignation -morally right anger provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment
5. Puritanism/Puritanical-practicing strict religious or moral behavior
Q1.The context makes me think of a morbid movie something unrealistic and dreadful. Having this background influences my thoughts kg makes me cringe knowing that these people died that there wasn't a trampoline waiting to catch them. I believe we defiantly need this background to appreciate the photos. In modern day movies use scenes such as these photos to grasp a watchers attention giving them background shows us that they are real.
Q2. The responses were negative because they remind the reader that death is a common thing. No one wants to see someone just about to die seeing makes believing it all that easier. I agree with Ephron it's suppose to be disturbing and more powerful. When reading a news article it's easy to pass it off as fiction just because it's too painful to believe. When seeing the photo it's a whole other ballpark you can't deny that it happened especially so back when it was taken.
Yes, great responses--the picture s can't be denied or even ignored. They linger in the memory in a way that mere words cannot.
DeleteAndrew Jordan Nickell
ReplyDeleteMorbid- gruesome; violent
Voyeurs- watching something or someone doing sexual acts, while getting gratification from it
Ombudsman- government official who investigates other officials because of private citizen complaints
Righteous indignation- retribution; anger without guilt
Puritanism/Puritanical- extreme moral and religious strictness
Q1- Because of the context at the beginning of the essay, we begin to form an image in our head. We take the details and make them into what we see based on what we read. I think we do need the context. Without it, we may just glance and say oh that was sad. However, with the story behind the photo, we understand that it was at first a successful rescue mission, but it ends terribly. The ladder falls and the mother falls to her death. The child falls, but lands on his mother and lives.
Q2- I think they reacted negatively, because they thought they were using the deaths to get publicity. They said they invaded the privacy of death and that is was cheap sensationalism. If you read the context, you find out that the pictures were taken because they thought it would be a successful rescue mission. The photographer referenced in the essay even says she turned so she wouldn't see them fall and hit the ground. I agree with Ephron. The pictures show people what they don't want to see. It shows them the gruesome reality that this mother and child were being rescued and then the mother fell to her death. People are offended to easily sometimes.
Great responses; no matter what the initial reason, the pictures remain important because of what they DO show, even if we would prefer not to see them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKarina Tarpey
ReplyDelete1. Morbid- an abnormal interest in disturbing or unpleasant subjects
2. Voyeurs- a person who enjoys seeing the pain or distress of others
3. Ombudsman- an official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints about maladministration.
4. Righteous indignation- a reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment, insult or malice
5. Puritanism/ Puritanical- strict religious or moral behavior
Q1:
I think Ephron gives us so much context, without a visual of the pictures, so that we can view the pictures as the readers in the 1930s saw them. She wanted us to know exactly what we were looking at. She wanted to make sure there was no doubt in the context of either of the three photos. As she said on page 659, "...had she survived the fall, no one would have protested, the photos would have had a completely different effect. Equally as obvious, had the child died as well-or instead- Sieb would have received ten times the letters and calls that he did." only the captions make a difference to the readers. to know that this poor girl, not even in her twenties, with her whole life ahead of her, died instants after the photos were captured. People know that life is precious and fleeting, but we do not like to be reminded of that, especially with visuals.
Q4:
She argues that these photos are not news because death happens all the time. Death and accidents are news in and of themselves, but the victims are rarely, if ever, portrayed in their final moments such as this woman is. The newspapers could have printed other pictures surely of this fire and the dead woman. written just what happened to her, and called it good. They were proud of the spectacular sequence of photos and how they were taken at just the right time. People know that pictures, with context, are worth a thousand words, and that is why those photos were printed as "news". I believe that Ephron would absolutely agree with Morris that these pictures are not true because of the context given.
Great responses: the context is everything here, at least in the public's response. Would they have objected without the story? Are the pictures, themselves, so horrid/tawdry? The "truth" is in the picture itself, and ultimately, not the event that surrounds them (the same is true for authors--an author is no longer the dominant authority on a work once they write it; at that point, it becomes open to interpretation, whatever he/she felt about it).
DeleteMorbid – an abnormal an unhealthy interest in disturbing and unpleasant subjects. Ephron uses this word to describe how the readers may not like what they are reading but are strangely enthralled by it.
ReplyDeleteVoyeurs – a person who enjoys seeing the pain of others. How the one reader wrote in and said they might as well have exposed her completely for what they were doing was violating her privacy.
Ombudsman – official appointed to investigate complaints against maladministration. The newspapers had a man in this position to confirm that the public’s complaints or opinions were well founded.
Righteous indignation – a reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment.
Puritanism/Puritanical – practicing or affecting strict religious or moral behavior. Referring to how most people want the news to be biased and only show the good side of things.
Q.1
Before we even see the images we begin to form the beginnings of a picture or two in our mind, even if we do not do so willingly, and when we see the pictures we can appreciate how meaningful they are. Pictures like this are not ones that we can just create a story about, they deserve to have their story told and for their impact to be fully driven home. Because of what we know before we look at the photos, we can look at them and know exactly what is happening, or what will happen, and not be left guessing or hoping for a happy ending.
Q.2
Most of the bad media comes from the fact that people do not want confirmation that they will die, and that they cannot do anything about this. These photos could have been taken rights outside of their house, or even worse, it might have been their house, and that is why many readers were scared and angry about this. Others believed that it was just plain rude or an invasion of her privacy which needed to be respected since she had died.
I don’t necessarily believe that the photos are particularly voyeuristic or that they are something that would make the front page of newspapers today. They are just showing life, plain and simple, and putting emphasis of the fact that we as humans do not live forever. I think that if someone is disturbed by these three pictures then they just are, and someone else just as easily could have no reaction at all. It is all subjective to the person looking at them.
Great response: as you suggest, the pictures aren't universally upsetting or objectionable as pictures. With the context, more people might be disturbed. But in the end, we can't see a picture with the required context; the picture is simply the picture that WE see.
DeleteHayden Blakemore
ReplyDelete1. Morbid- Something that is cruel or abnormally disturbing.
2. Voyeurs- A person who enjoys seeing others in distress or pain.
3. Ombudsman- an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities.
4. Righteous indignation- Rightful, or justifiable anger or annoyance provoked by unfair treatment.
5. Puritanism/Puritanical- The belief that the catholic church need to be “more pure” so they broke off and started a new religion in the “new world” that is now today focused mainly on the old times of Queen Elizabeth I.
1. This context influences us to feel sorrow for the lives that were lost in the fire on the house. Take the very first paragraph, just another ordinary day taking pictures. Snapping away, she doesn’t realized what is going on till it’s almost too late for her to look away. After that she begins to give more detailed information about the young ones that died in this tragedy. We need to appreciate how she used the context before we saw the pictures because it gave us a really big perspective on it that we wouldn’t have gotten just by looking at the pictures with no context beforehand.
3. Her essential argument is that these photographs actually make a statement about death that most viewers didn’t like. One of the letter-to-the-editors the newspapers received actually stated that is was “invading the privacy of death” and so on and so forth. I, for one, actually believe that it should not have been posted worldwide like it was and definitely not on the front page. As the child of a newspaper owner, I know for sure that it could have been grounds to be sued, because its defaming the dead and no one asked the relatives of the dead if these pictures could be ran or not. Truly this is defaming the dead. As for the “miss” with the censured pictures, some people might not get what they are attempting to get across to the readers. Also it may end up causing the photos to reveal something they had not seen before.
Great response--I like that you take the side/perspective of the newspaper owner. Back then, suing was less of an issue, but today it is unavoidable; they simply couldn't be printed. But the question is: are the objectionable as pictures or for how they illustrate a story? We see more than one story in these images, which complicates an easy answer to this question.
DeleteGarrett Dimmitt
ReplyDelete2. The reason this pictures got such a negative response was because it was an invasion of privacy. Yes, one could claim they are just capturing the news in a very descriptive way and painting a very vivid picture with a photo of this stature. How every if is morally wrong. This picture although sensational is extremely voyeuristic. I say this because yes, it makes you feel a certain way and makes your emotions arouse. However, this picture was taken when people were not aware. The lady that died in this photo will forever be remembered as the lady that fell to her death with her skirt flying up. It's not that a newspaper shouldn't but picture of dead corpses in the newspaper, it's that how she died and the photo that was taken disgraced her. When you see a photo like this it grabs your attention and makes you feel a certain way. Articles are meant to display a vivid imagine in your mind. What way to do this than to add context to a picture that will give you clues and detail to what actually happened.
4. Photos are a tricky subject to talk about, but if you really look deep into a photo and really think about what a photo can accomplish its easy to see what it does. It creates gossip. People read or listen to the news, people see a intriguing picture. No matter how heart warming or provocative it is the picture will be talked about. Now this is fine unless its on a tender harsher subject such as death. If you die of a unnatural cause, you will be talked about. Sometimes not in a respectful way. Pictures are a powerful tool and can be used positively, but nine times out of ten they are not. That is why they should not be used in the news. I don't know if Morris would agree with the statement that is made, but their opinions are similar. Morris thinks that without context you have no proof of what is going on.
Ephron thinks that pictures aren't news because the story often gets twisted which is basically becomes gossip. There are certain images that do not need to be displayed which is why even though extremely persuasive are false and misleading.
Great responses: pictures are tricky because they're art, not information, and not history/news. They can represent history or news, and can give information, but they are also their own 'thing.' So they can be used in positive or negative ways, or can simply be enjoyed in their own right. And should any art be censored because some people dislike it?
DeleteGarrett Dimmitt
ReplyDelete1. Morbid - gruesome
2. Voyeurs - watching someone in secret. Often times for sexual content.
3. Ombudsman - a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies.
4. Righteous indignation - anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way
5. Puritanism/Puritanical - very strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so; rigidly austere.
Jamison Elston
ReplyDeleteMorbid: Gruesome or disturbing
Voyeurs: A person who enjoys seeing others in pain
Ombudsman: Government official that investigates complaints about maladministration.
Righteous indignation: believing that it is okay to feel anger
Puritanism/Puritanical: being overly strict about moral or religious matters
2. The responses of this photo were so negative because people don't like to see pictures related to death; they get disturbed by that kind of stuff. I agree with Ephron's opinion. Pictures like this evoke more emotion out of people, getting more responses from it and giving it more attention.
3. Ephron's argument is that pictures do a great job of evoking emotion and getting point's across, versus written articles that just don't do most stories justice. If they censor pictures like that, then using photographs would be no more effective than just writing about it. People seem to relate better to pictures like this, they catch their attention more and let them connect a little more emotionally to the situation.
Good responses: if we censored these pictures, less people would know or care about the story. The point of photojournalism is to connect people to the world, and these images do that, for good or ill.
DeleteMorbid- Horrifyingly terrible, Depressing.
ReplyDeleteVoyeurs- Enjoys seeing others suffer
Ombudsman- Government official that takes care of lack or poor administration.
Righteous Indignation - The belief in which one thinks it is okay, or normal to feel anger
Puritanism/Puritanical - Being strict about ones self, or another's religious beliefs, and/or background.
Q2: This photo obtains the response that it gets because it is depressing. If you were alive and lived in that specific area, chances are you knew who died on a personal level. No one wants someone that they know personally to die. Think of this photo as an ugly truth. While most people do colorful, and optimistic photos or paintings, this is what is really in the background. Our world is filled with death and destruction, and the sad part is, we cause it for hopes of peace and happiness. I agree with Ephron on how photojournalism cause more of a uprising than the written word does now. Pictures like these hit home, and make the person think, as they look at the picture, "what If this happened to me?"
Q4. As we have discussed in class here as of late, photos without direct labels, or descriptions can be taken out of context. We can use context to come up with some spectacular story, when really all that happened is some old lady fell asleep with a cigarette lit. The point being without written documentation, or a statement from the fire department, people create a much bigger story than what really happened, or they create rumors. "Johnny!!!! Did you know that there was a gas leak?! yeah the fire trucks just so happened to be driving down the road when suddenly BOOOM!!" Without written word or actual news, people exaggerate what happened to make life more interesting.
Great responses--they create personal connection and responsibility. Pictures mirror reality in a way no other art form can quite match, and therefore are the most important way to make the past (even the recent past) come to life.
DeleteFaith Armstrong
ReplyDeleteMorbid – gruesome
Voyeurs – person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others
Ombudsman – official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration
Righteous indignation – reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment
Puritanism/Puritanical – English Protestants in the 16th and 17th century
2. The response was so negative because we don’t see photos like those every day. They are offensive to people, and disrespectful. No one wants to see a photo of someone who is about to die. I don’t know that they are “sensational” or “voyeuristic”? There is nothing quite sensational about the photos. There is, however, a disturbing effect. There is also nothing necessarily “voyeuristic” about them either. If it was a voyeuristic photo, it would be about something done in private, but if someone is falling from building that isn’t private. I do agree that the photos disturb people, but I don’t know that that is how it should be. I mentioned in class that it depicts reality and the things that really do happen in reality, but I don’t think that we need to be “disturbed” over it. I think there is a difference between informing someone about what is going on in the world, and disturbing them about it.
4. Death, which is depicted in these photos, happens all the time. If it’s something that happens all the time, then it is not news. I think she sees them as being made false because it would be considered something new and of importance. Not that death is not of importance, but it is something we face every day, therefore, it is not new. I think Morris would agree because anyone could add any context to the photo, especially in a newspaper.
Great responses--you make a nice distinction between private and public here as well. Anyone could have seen this happen, and maybe we need to see it publicly on a larger scale. So would you consider these images more informative or disturbing? Where would we draw the line? :)
DeleteAdria Abella Villafranca
ReplyDeletePART 1:
1) Morbid: gruesome; grisly; horrible.
2) Voyeurs: a person who has an exaggerated interest in viewing, esp. furtively and habitually, persons who are disrobing, engaged in sexual activity, etc.; peeping Tom.
3) Ombudsman: a public official appointed to investigate citizens' complaints against government agencies or officials that may be infringing on the rights of individuals.
4) Righteous indignation: retribution, retributive justice; anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way; anger without guilt.
5)Puritarism: any member of a Protestant group in England and the American colonies that in the 16th and 17th cent., wanted to make the Church of England simpler in its services and stricter about morals.
PART 2:
1. In Ephron’s essay, she opens not with a description of the image, but with three paragraphs of context. How does this influence how we read the images (which we don’t see until we turn the page) and do we need to know this to appreciate them?
In my opinion, Ephron give us a context to situate the image. This context influences in our point of view and help us to understand the situation. When we read the description of the image, we create a virtual image that we will contrast with the real picture. Anyone can think that the woman and the guy that are falling down could survive or they are jumping to a “mat”. But no, tin this tragedy the woman died and the boy survived. If you receive a context about one image, you can understand what the photograph would express with the photo.
2. Why was the response to these photos so negative throughout the country? Are these photos “sensational” and “voyeuristic”? Or do you agree with Ephron herself, who writes, “That they disturb readers is exactly as it should be: that’s why photojournalism is often more powerful than written journalism” (660).
I think that the response to these photos was so negative throughout the country because the photo was about one woman who died a few second later. This situation can cause a commotion to the people who are reading the news. These pictures aren’t “sensational” and “voyeuristic”, these photos are shocking. Finally, with this sentence, Ephron said that one picture can contain more information than a text written by a journalist. One image has many different meanings according to the eye of the beholder.
Great responses--very detailed use of the text to complicate these questions. Very thoughtful!
DeleteHunter Robinson
ReplyDeletePart1:
1. Morbid- Gruesome
2. Voyeur- Person spying on another's secret acts
3.Ombudsman- A middle man between the people and the government who investigates corrupt government officials or complaints against the government.
4. Righteous Indignation- Justifiably angry
5. Puritanism- Protestant group in early America that were very strict and didn't believe in having fun.
Part 2:
Q1. I think that the story behind the pictures should be told first so we can get a better understanding of the situation and know what's going on. Without the text to help us we could jump to conclusions and not even know the story behind it. so the paragraphs before the pictures help us comprehend the photos just a little bit better.
Q2. I think that the publicizing of these photos are very disrespectful to the dead. The only reason journalists take pictures like this is just to get a reaction and sell papers. I don't approve of pictures like that, because of that fact that these are the last moments before they died and those are sacred. whenever someone dies nowadays they will show a past photo of the deceased where they look respectable. they don't show a picture of them getting killed or mutilated they show respect and that photo is very disrespectful to the deceased.
Good ideas, but try to connect the more with the essay: while we need to know the context in order to understand the controversy, why doesn't Ephron totally agree with this? And why wouldn't she agree with the idea that we are disrespecting the dead? Bring in the essay a little more so I can see you responding to it.
DeleteMacy Ellis
ReplyDelete1. Morbid- gruesome; grisly.
2. Voyeurs- the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual things, or something out of curiosity, especially secretively.
3. Ombudsman- a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies.
4. Righteous indignation- retribution, anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way; anger without guilt
5. Puritanism- English Protestants in the 16th and 17th century
1.
The introduction to this essay are words from the author. Ephron uses her essay to sway the readers attention to form the same opinions as the photographer did. Whoever took this picture had no intention of acting in a morbid way, or trying to ruin her career or the way people thought of him/her. There was a fire, and he did his job by capturing that moment; it just turned out to be the last few seconds of someones life before they died.
2.
I do agree that these pictures were "voyeuristic" and "sensational" in a way. I think they could be taken wrongly in many peoples' eyes, but you just can't look at it that way. The journalist was doing his job, and it just so happens that the fire escape broke. In some ways, it is also morbid in seeing people take their last breathes, but sometimes death can be a message, and be used for the good in some situations.
Good responses--just be careful that your definitions help you understand the essay. "Puritanism" isn't just the English Protestants, it's a way of looking at the world, which is how Ephron characterized many of the people who hated the images.
DeleteAmber Simpson
ReplyDeleteMorbid – suggesting an unhealthy mental state or attitude.
Voyeurs – a person who obtains sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively.
Ombudsman – a person who investigates and attempts to resolve complaints and problems.
Righteous indignation – to be justifiably angry.
Puritanism/Puritanical – extreme strictness in moral or religious matters, often to excess.
Q1.) As we read the three opening paragraphs, we visualize the event as if it was happening right before us. If the pictures were shown to us right off the bat, we probably would fail to pay close attention to the first two photos because the third is so devastating; it may catch your eye first. The three paragraphs before the pictures do help us appreciate the photos better because we get a full understanding of what is going on. Now, we realize there was a fire, the firefighter tried his hardest to save the woman and child, the fire escape broke, and the woman and child fell. The only thing that isn’t clear in these photos is the outcome. Did they both die? Did they both survive? We wouldn’t know without some kind of context stating so. That’s also where the opening paragraphs help out the reader/viewer. It shows the mother doing her best to save her child.
Q2.) The response throughout the country was so negative probably because the photos were disturbing. Seeing a picture of a person right before they die is kind of personal. So, yes, I would say these photos are voyeuristic. It makes you wonder what their last thoughts were. Looking at a picture that has such a strong, painful story behind it is hard. It’s hard to grasp the fact that that was the last moment captured of them alive and that they had to die in such a horrible way. Seeing pictures such as these, or like the ones from 9/11, just make you relive the event. Pictures should not be edited from what truly happened. History should not be changed, visually, just because it is disturbing. If you don’t want to look at the footage, don’t look it up.
Great responses: they are voyeuristic in a sense, since we want to look and look because it's sort of forbidden. And yet, I think they inspire us with something larger than lust or excitement: they make us reflect on our own mortality and the ills of our society. So maybe that's what makes them great pictures and worthy of looking at?
Delete