Visual Editors
Visual Editors, NFP was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2004.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Does this NASCAR graphic cross an ethical line? |
| Yes. |
|
36% |
[ 36 ] |
| No. |
|
63% |
[ 62 ] |
|
| Total Votes : : 98 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Morris
Secret Agent
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 85
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:12 pm
|
|
| |
A couple things here regarding how this was discussed Robb. I called Whitley the week after everyone returned from Syracuse. One of my guys, Rob Schneider, was there that weekend and suggested I call Michael to get as much of an insider's perspective as possible. At the time I didn't know how much more insider Whitley's view could be, because Goertzen had called me the evening of the disqualification and explained it all to me in detail. And Jeff was one of the 5 judges. When Jeff called, it so happens that Layne was at my house. So we got the news quickly, and let it sink in.
But Jeff and I have been planning this discussion in a public forum — we just hadn't gotten to it until this week. Jeff had sent me a Q&A he had prepared on Monday of this week. Wednesday he submitted a synopsis to Visualmente and I was asked (by them) to share "our side" of the story. So Jeff's article and mine posted simultaneously. There is some clarification and explanation to come here shortly from Layne Smith, DMN Graphics Director and lead artist on the hauler graphic. Layne can explain his take better than I. But Goertzen understood how valuable this could be to many visual journalists, and was working with us on an exploration of the issues. We just hadn't gotten there yet.
I didn't initiate anything in VizEds because it would have read like "you're not gonna believe what those f#*kers did to us!" There are many isssues to be explore here, and I'm curious to see how this is studied. But when you get right down to it, we didn't lose anything. The readers saw a helluva graphic and learned something about an area of sport many never get to see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilometer31
Maestro
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 574
Location: San Antonio Express-News
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
| Robb Montgomery wrote:: |
An analogy. How many of us over the years have marched Macintosh keyboards, mice, monitors and iPods into our photo studios to use in photo shoots, or business graphics . . right? Maybe there was no compelling story reason to use an Apple product - but it was a useflul prop. ... Have I crossed some ethical line by photo propping with a branded product?. |
This is a great point (and just might have saved Dallas their Silver had it come up during the judging discussion).
In the end, I thought:
* Yeah, it would have given me pause, if I were judging.
* But the context was a FICTIONAL car/truck that is trying to demonstrate the REALITY of mass corporate sponsorship of the sport. So why was choosing NewTek's logo any more a sin than any of the other logos used? Had they randomly chose a McDonald's logo, would the judges have had issue?
* Yeah, it was probably a silly, unnecessary thing to do.
* Yeah, we probably do take ourselves too seriously at times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tball
VizEds Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 110
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
| scavendish wrote:: | | Robb Montgomery wrote:: | | I learned a lot from the reporting that went into this NASCAR graphic but struggle with the smugness of this discourse over the use of incidental digital props. |
Smugness? |
Um, yeah. What?
I've been refraining from commenting here, because, truth be told, I feel a little funny about how public the judging has become this year. I'm not advocating the level of perceived secrecy that usually surrounds it... but this year, with the advent of NewsDesigner.com and VizEds, and inevitable leaks from the judging site, the results had taken on a life of their own even before they were released.
I'm afraid I can't add much to this discussion, despite the fact that I helped lead this graphics team's discussions that weekend. Michael is spot-on with his version of what went down in Syracuse. As you'd expect a coordinator to be, he was present for this discussion, as were Steve and several others with considerably more judging experience than me.
I can, however, reiterate this: The graphic wasn't awarded a silver medal. In order for a medal to be awarded, the discussions surrounding an entry must come to an end and a vote must be held. Obviously, discussion of this entry continued after the judging team expressed how much they liked it, or none of this would ever have come to pass.
The only way I can see this thread evolving in a productive way is for the judges involved to add their comments. But, as enlightening as that may be, we shouldn't bully them into defending their choices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megan Lavey
Maestro
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Posts: 788
Location: Arizona Daily Star
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
| Whitley wrote:: |
Megan perhaps without meaning to you have made it look like I said this. This is a paraphrase from a comment by a judge when asked how he would explain why the judges disqualified the entry. It has been taken out of context because I edited it out of my previous post. In fact I wonder how you got the text. |
Ah, sorry about that, Whitley. I didn't mean to do that. I actually had the response sitting on my computer for a bit before it got posted, so I probably got the original paragraph from when I first grabbed that. I apologize for that.
| Quote: | | So if you find out a photograph was faked or a quote invented after the fact, it isn't an ethical violation? The issue in Dallas doen't compare to the examples I just listed, but it sounds like you are asking if ethical questions have an expiration date. or statute of limitations. |
Yes, because I want to understand ethics a bit better. It's one of those areas I'm trying to learn more about. So I tend to ask odd questions at times. From what I understand though, it's not an actual altered photo or story, but it's suppose to be a representation of a NASCAR car. Should they had just stuck to logos that could have commonly been found on NASCAR outlets?
| Quote: | | Using an IPod and designing a story about an IPod has nothing to do with designing a graphic about a NASCAR hauler and including a software logo which has nothing to do with NASCAR. Again, I'm not favoring the judges, but I'm not sure I follow your argument. |
Your following post made that clearer too, so it invalidates the argument. I was wondering why exactly that exact logo was a big deal. But, some of the follow-ups I've read have cleared up the issue for me as well. Ethics is a very hard thing to grasp at times because there are large swatches of black and white (like never accept money, no digitially altering content, etc.), but also a very large swatch of gray as well.
_________________
"I solemnly swear that I am up to no good." - Mauraders Map from Harry Potter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Previous topic
Next topic
