I upset some people

Over at the Macleans blog, Paul Wells posted this week's cover, which you can see above. Someone with the screen tag ex canuck was first post in and he had a simple question. Was it posed? This provoked a certain amount of anger.

Which is odd. I find it particularly odd given that there is something about that picture that feels a little too good to be true. Which isn't to say I can safely conclude that it was posed. It might be legitimate. But it is also a case of a kid expressing anguish and grief in a classic pose found in a lot of art and when that happens, I think it is legitimate to ask questions.

Check out these examples and you will see what I mean:

Caravaggio's Deposition

Goya's 3 mai

Picasso's Guernica (look for the figure on the right)

And we might wonder about the coincidence of events required to get this shot. The kid just happened to express grief and anguish in this classic pose and the photographer was in exactly the right place to get the shot? Remember that the photographer has to be crouched to get this picture as he is taller than the kid he is photographing. And he has to be just a few feet away in this crouched position.

It could happen. The photographer might have been crouched taking a picture of something else and the kid just happened to come along, throw her hands up and look to the sky for relief from her suffering and the photographer thought quickly pivoted and caught the shot. These things do happen in real life. However, anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of the history of photojournalism will know that many photographers have given into the temptation to help reality along a bit.

I joined in over at Macleans to defend ex canuck's position. I think it is okay to raise the skeptical question. Others disagreed. You can see the complete thread here. You may have to scroll down and open up a collapsed sub-thread. Look for the red tag that says 17 replies (or perhaps more when you get to it) and click on it to open up.

The thing you will notice is how uncivil and quick to insult the people attacking me are. You'll also notice how utterly unsophisticated their criticisms are. They conflate the actual suffering in Haiti with the news report in Macleans. They forget that Macleans is owned by a corporation dedicated to making money (a point that Paul Wells himself does not miss in his commentary in the original post).

All critical comments will be accepted. Abusive ones will not.