Hard to believe it was 45 years ago yesterday.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Kent_State_massacre.jpg

I only ever recall a brief side blurb in some school books about Kent State. They were always very vague about what happened, if it was mentioned at all. It wasn't until I started doing self-research that I finally figured out what happened that day, and it's quite sad.
And to those who say "that could never happen here," well, it did happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCS-g3HwXdc

The Kent State Massacre Photo and the Case of the Missing Pole (http://petapixel.com/2012/08/29/the-kent-state-massacre-photo-and-the-case-of-the-missing-pole/)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EeF_GZFyv6Q/UYVqazak_NI/AAAAAAAAHzc/dbeRCLWSpZQ/s1600/kent-state-then-now.jpg

The Kent State Massacre Photo and the Case of the Missing Pole (http://petapixel.com/2012/08/29/the-kent-state-massacre-photo-and-the-case-of-the-missing-pole/)

I've never noticed that. Thanks for the info.

The Kent State Massacre Photo and the Case of the Missing Pole (http://petapixel.com/2012/08/29/the-kent-state-massacre-photo-and-the-case-of-the-missing-pole/)

Martin,
I guess I'm a little slow, but what's the point? I Understand what was done but I don't understand the significance. I have tried to read something sinister into it, but it just doesn't work for me.
Thanks,
C. T.

Martin,
I guess I'm a little slow, but what's the point? I Understand what was done but I don't understand the significance. I have tried to read something sinister into it, but it just doesn't work for me.
Thanks,
C. T.

it's an issue of journalistic integrity. one of the current issues with digital photography is that images are routinely manipulated by the media. while the alteration of the iconic kent state image was likely done for aesthetic reasons, news images are altered, cropped, color corrected, etc. in order to advance a particular narrative. when an image is altered, it loses some of its value as documentary evidence. while it's more of a problem now, it's interesting (to me, at least) that this was occurring 45 years ago. -M

it's an issue of journalistic integrity. one of the current issues with digital photography is that images are routinely manipulated by the media. while the alteration of the iconic kent state image was likely done for aesthetic reasons, news images are altered, cropped, color corrected, etc. in order to advance a particular narrative. when an image is altered, it loses some of its value as documentary evidence. while it's more of a problem now, it's interesting (to me, at least) that this was occurring 45 years ago. -M

It goes much farther back than that, and deeper, to the beginning of and to the core of the question of what is photography, image making in general and journalism. Here's a book you might like: http://www.amazon.com/Print-Legend-Photography-American-Western/dp/0300103158 (I have a minor in art history with an emphasis on history of graphic communication and photography. Don't ask too many questions, I've probably forgotten more than I remember.)

It goes much farther back than that, and deeper, to the beginning of and to the core of the question of what is photography, image making in general and journalism. Here's a book you might like: http://www.amazon.com/Print-Legend-Photography-American-Western/dp/0300103158 (I have a minor in art history with an emphasis on history of graphic communication and photography. Don't ask too many questions, I've probably forgotten more than I remember.)

Wasn't there something as early as Lincoln? Having a rival removed from a photo outside a tent visiting the troops? That may not be it exactly, but I remember something?

Wasn't there something as early as Lincoln? Having a rival removed from a photo outside a tent visiting the troops? That may not be it exactly, but I remember something?

That was probably a portrait of Lincoln, a composite of Lincoln's head on Calhoun's body. Other examples here:

Iconic Abraham Lincoln portrait revealed to be TWO pictures stitched together | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107109/Iconic-Abraham-Lincoln-portrait-revealed-TWO-pictures-stitched-together.html)

Imagine how things would have turned out if people had cell phone cameras back then. Or at any major event in history. I grew up in an era when if Walter Cronkite said it, it was taken as fact. Now you have to hope for an un-altered cell phone video to see what actually happened.

it's an issue of journalistic integrity. one of the current issues with digital photography is that images are routinely manipulated by the media. while the alteration of the iconic kent state image was likely done for aesthetic reasons, news images are altered, cropped, color corrected, etc. in order to advance a particular narrative. when an image is altered, it loses some of its value as documentary evidence. while it's more of a problem now, it's interesting (to me, at least) that this was occurring 45 years ago. -M

Martin,
Thanks, I actually understood that, but I was trying to make more out of it than was actually intended.
C. T.

That was probably a portrait of Lincoln, a composite of Lincoln's head on Calhoun's body. Other examples here:

Iconic Abraham Lincoln portrait revealed to be TWO pictures stitched together | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107109/Iconic-Abraham-Lincoln-portrait-revealed-TWO-pictures-stitched-together.html)

Fascinating! Thanks for that!

It goes much farther back than that, and deeper, to the beginning of and to the core of the question of what is photography, image making in general and journalism. Here's a book you might like: Amazon.com: Print the Legend: Photography and the American West (The Lamar Series in Western History) (9780300103151): Martha A. Sandweiss: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Print-Legend-Photography-American-Western/dp/0300103158) (I have a minor in art history with an emphasis on history of graphic communication and photography. Don't ask too many questions, I've probably forgotten more than I remember.)Just to add a bit more trivia, the Kent State photo isn't the only Pulitzer winner that was airbrushed before publication. Back in the late 40s there was a tragic wee-hours fire at the Winecoff Hotel in Atlanta, and a young amateur photographer with a brand new "miniature" Speed Graphic captured the image of a victim who had jumped from an upper floor, just before she struck the pavement and was killed. The shot made front pages all over the world and took the Pulitzer that year.

However, for the sake of decency and respect for the victim, someone at the AP offices airbrushed an undergarment onto her exposed bottom before sending the photo out to the world.

Nobody raised even a whisper of criticism about that.

Removing people from historic photos was a staple of Stalin's "ministry of truth" era activities. I don't think there's a document in soviet-era libraries that has an image of Leon Trotsky, for example...