Now See This

While the general point of news (or "news") stories online is to read them, a number of them come with photographs, often licensed from outlets such as Getty Images and the like, designed to add more context.

In "File Under: It was only a matter of time," we have the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine being linked to the Biblical "Mark of the Beast." Because why wouldn't it be? As was noted in an article I read in Slate several years ago (2005, to be exact): "There's something in the bloodstream of American Christianity that looks for, and reacts to, signs of the apocalypse." And since the supposed mark is one such sign, I suspect that a lot more people than might be admitted to see it as a hopeful sign that a world they view as hostile, and are hostile to in turn, is coming to an end.

I'm always unclear on the rationale for selecting photos like this to accompany a news story. The people in them tend to come across as appearing to be something between disingenuous and actively mentally unbalanced, and since there was no-one involved in the production of the news story involved in the photography, there's no context. It's just seems to reinforce this idea that conspiracy theories are running amok and being used by shady people who somehow have something against public health. The story, which ran on the National Public Radio website, was about people choosing to leave jobs that required vaccination rather than have a vaccine, and photos like this simply don't speak to that.

In other news, the shooting of two people on the set of the new Alec Baldwin movie "Rust" has generated a renewed flurry of interest in how firearms are simulated (and used) in motion picture production. This is, to be sure, something that most people really don't pay attention to. There's the common idea that it's all special effects or something like the starting gun at a track and field meet; and, of course, the reality is much more complicated. As The Atlantic's entry into the fray noted: "A variety of different guns are used in film productions. Those include rubber guns that don’t function at all, airsoft guns with simulated blowback, blank-firing props, and even real functioning firearms." And while this covers a variety of the sorts of not-actually-real-firearms out there, it doesn't cover all of them.

This photograph, also sourced from Getty Images, is a simple, spring-loaded airsoft gun. The bright orange tip and the thin magazine are dead giveaways for anyone familiar with the type. I could see using one of these in moviemaking (mainly by poorly-resourced enthusiast filmmakers), but it would require a decent amount of clean-up if the "weapon" were ever removed from a holster. After all, the orange muzzles are designed to be highly visible specifically so people seeing the object understand that it isn't a real firearm. (Not that this always works, but still...) Honestly, if one were making a movie where a gun simply needed to be visible, there are much better choices. And while one should wear eye protection when using these things, they're not particularly dangerous; this isn't the sort of prop that winds up somehow having live ammunition loaded into it.

This, to me anyway, speaks to the lack of familiarity that many people, even the media have with firearms, real or simulated. A photo editor who knew what they were looking at would likely have selected a different image, one more appropriate to the story being told.

I am left with the feeling that for a lot of news outlets, pictures are simply a requirement. As long as it seems close to the topic at hand, run with it. And I understand that. There's also the fact that sometimes, people don't know what they don't know. And, of course, the fact that I'm just nit-picking. This sort of thing is the result of there not being much concern with it, in the end. I'm looking closely, but I don't think that I'm just one of many.