The point was never about intentionality but simply meaning. The choices
made in using video-phones are of course deliberate; they are offer a more
portable way of reporting news from an extremely difficult area, so in part
the videophone itself (even if it had no visual markers in the image) would
be 'mean' that the news report being delivered was indeed more able to
access the site and thus (it is mistakenly assumed) the truth of the
situation.
However, there are visual cues that signal that a videophone is being used.
These are visually disruptive, and we cannot help but infer a meaning from
this: that war is disruptive, the image is disrupted, thus the image
captures the disruption of war. The journalist is not communicating via the
quality of the image, we are feeling a reaction from it.
>Besides, the crystal clear images of the first bombardment of Baghdad (the
>"shock and awe" attack) that were shown on British television certainly
>conveyed to me some of the 'weight' of war. It was also shocking just how
>much those images looked like the scenes of fireworks at New Year - an
>impression conveyed by the quality of images.
I think one of things that the media coverage of the war has revelled in is
the sheer media of itself, ie. its not just one medium but multiple ways of
accessing the war and thus giving greater truth. But of course truth is
always a valuable commodity...
|