Pictures can be worth so much more than 1,000 words

Yesterday was the closing date for this year's National Geographic Photo Contest. The work submitted from amateur and professional photographers around the world is of an incredible quality, and much of it worthy of a place in the auspicious magazine. But to look at the artistry and narrative in the images begs the question: can pictures tell stories that words alone cannot?

The 54 photos already posted online can be found here. There is a broad selection of images in the three categories: Nature, People and Places. In the tradition of National Geographic all the images are in themselves beautiful. More importantly though each makes a statement, tells a story or asks a question.

Take no.36 for instance. The photographer, Christopher Bellezza, has distilled the story of his grandfather's working life into a single moment. A writer, even the most concise of hacks, would likely struggle to pen Grandpa Bellezza's tale in anything close to the proverbial 1,000 words.

#36 'Papa' by Christopher Bellezza (National Geographic Photo Contest 2011)

I'm certainly not trying to masquerade as an art critic. For me they are stories, plain to see. That is where their importance lies. In our new digital world, dominated by 140 character web-bites, photographs have an even greater role to play. We all see narratives in the events which surround use. Journalists first condensed these to stories. Lengthy ones. When that was too much, headlines grew in importance. Snippets of news. The ever present 'top line'. Now even that is too much. Whole stories and opinions are condensed into quasi-sentences-bites millions of times a day. That is how information is consumed now.

The same isn't true of pictures. There is no way to condense an image, no means to shrink it to fit on the head of a pin (that may not be strictly true, but the point stands). In this climate an image is worth so much more than 1,000 words. Print media can actually deliver photographs in a more desirable form. 

I very much doubt there is anybody out there who'd rather take in these pictures through a smartphone screen when they could have a great stack of glossy National Geographic magazines on their coffee table or by the loo. Until social media can find a way, god forbid, of reducing photojournalism to 140 pixel morsels, the print industry has at least one good reason to hoist a middle finger up to 'the man'.

Fifteen years of Al Jazeera - the misunderstood network

The Al Jazeera media empire celebrated its 15th birthday at the beginning of November and now is the perfect opportunity to take a look back at the history of this misunderstood network. 

The newsroom in Doha

In 1996 Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa launched Al Jazeera as an Arabic news and current affairs channel. In the decade and a half since the Qatar Media Corporation has expanded its baby into a network spanning several regions and languages. Al Jazeera has also established a significant online presence, and in 2004 a brandchannel.com poll placed Al Jazeera as the fifth most influential global brand behind Apple, Google, Ikea and Starbucks. The clearest indication of the networks influence came earlier this year during the Arab Spring. Their coverage of the Egyptian protests significantly strengthened the revolutionary movement and in turn took Egypt one step closer to a democratic state.

Criticism 
Since its inception Al Jazeera has faced controversy at every turn. In its infancy the willingness to broadcast dissenting views (the Arabic script which appears on the network logo literally means 'the opinion and the other opinion'), and in particular the decision to broadcast Israelis speaking in Hebrew, engendered suspicion and hostility in a number of Arab states.

Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Israel and Kuwait have all openly criticised the network, citing conflicting biases. The grievances, however, have been predominantly centred around reportage openly critical of largely their conservative governments. In this respect it must surely be said that Al Jazeera faithfully fulfils the fourth estate duty to hold governments to account. If they are not getting complaints then they are not doing their job.

Of course not all criticism of Al Jazeera cements its image as a beacon of truth in the region. On more than one occasion critics have highlighted the lack of hard news gathered from within Qatar. Stories such as the citizenship dispute between the Al Ghafan tribe and the government, and the Emirate's growing diplomatic relationship with Israel escaped real editorial attention. Most likely this is a by product of being funded by a member of Qatari royalty who views Al Jazeera as a symbol of the states power but nevertheless editorial objectivity should remain sacrosanct.

Controversy 
More controversially, Al Qaeda often anonymously delivered videos - particularly of Osama Bin Laden - to Al Jazeera and it was the network who first aired them. The publication of these items led President George Bush to accuse the network of engaging in 'hateful propaganda'. It has been alleged that Bush had planned to bomb the Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha and was actually dissuaded by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Indeed, since 9/11 the Al Jazeera Kabul office has been destroyed by US forces, and a journalist from the channel has been killed by an American missile.

Their name is perhaps best recognized in the 'West' by people who really pay attention during broadcast news bulletins. Due to their proximity to the majority of Middle Eastern strife and the commitment of both their camera crews and their editorials teams, Al Jazeera time and again gets raw and exclusive footage that is snapped up by other news outlets. The precedent was set down with Al Jazeera's footage of Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and has been the same ever since. The network took on a new significance in the wake of 9/11. The subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were covered extensively and again content was regularly syndicated.

Future role?
The network has a huge role to play both regionally and globally. Were Al Jazeera to vanish then 'Western' news agencies would be forced to buck up their ideas. Instead the substantial syndication of material will no doubt continue. In terms of how trustworthy they are as a brand then it perhaps comes down to the old adage - 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. A little simplistic perhaps, but if Al Jazeera's diligent work is unsettling the villains of the region, the likes of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then they can't be all bad, can they?

Lennox Lewis on the 'Today' program: a boxing great led astray

8/11/11

Lennox Lewis

People from across the world paid tribute to legendary boxer Joe Frazier following his untimely death in the early hours of this morning. In his prime "Smokin' Joe" was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. He is perhaps best remembered though for his rivalry with Muhammad Ali. Frazier defeated Ali in a 1971 bout dubbed the 'Fight of the Century', and was bested by Ali on two further occasions.

Unsurprisingly the passing of this great sportsman has dominated the day's news agenda. Though the newspapers went to press too early to cover his death, broadcasters have used archive footage and new interviews with heavy hitters in the boxing fraternity to honour his memory.

Not every media outlet finished with aplomb. On this morning's 'Today' program BBC Sport's Garry Richardson interviewed another former world heavyweight champion, Britain's Lennox Lewis, about the impact of Frazier's death. What should have been a  straightforward exchange instead exhibited some decidedly poor technique on the part of Richardson.

I have included the transcript of the 2-minute interview below and have highlighted every time Richardson asks a leading question (where the information he is looking for is included in the question) in bold.  (You can also listen to the interview here).


Richardson: "Lennox, this is very, very sad news about Joe Frazier, he was one of boxing's greats wasn't he?"

Lewis: "He definitely was one of boxing's greats, he was legendary and he made a great contribution to boxing. I feel sad for his family and the whole situation. Nobody likes to hear about great heroes and legendary people passing on. This is very sad for boxing today."

Richardson: "He's one of those boxers that perhaps when you were growing up you would have thought 'he's a great, I would like to be like him one day.'"

Lewis: "Yeah. In a room filled of great men he's definitely one of them. Like I said, he's made his mark in boxing, everybody knows his history and he was a great man. Without him other boxing heroes wouldn't be great either because they really tested their talent against him."

Richardson: "He tested his talent, ultimately, against Muhammad Ali and actually managed to beat Muhammad Ali which for any boxer would be the most outstanding feat ever in a way, wouldn't it?"

Lewis: "It would. That's what I'm saying. His contribution to the sport is endless. Even that great fight he gave the public and his fans and the American audience."

Richardson: "He's one of those boxers that you would say, well, 'who's an all time great' and everybody would have an opinion but you'd put him up as one of the best, wouldn't you Lennox?"

Lewis: "Yes I would put him up there as one of the best. He is a remarkable man, he had the Joe Frazier style, everyone can remember it, there are certain boxers that try to mimic it. He brought us the up and down movement, the body movement, the head movement and he was one of the first boxers to bring that out."


That's every single question that Mr Richardson has posed a leading question or statement. I am disappointed that the producers on the Today program allowed such shoddy work to slip through the net. There is no excuse for poor interview technique. Mr Richardson may not be a hard hitting political hack forever duelling with verbose politicians but basic question and answer skills are surely a prerequisite of a job at this level.

Browsing Mr Richardson's preprepared notes would, I imagine, not be dissimilar to reading this transcript. It seems he had decided before he had even picked up the phone what he wanted Lewis to say, and by the sounds of things he got exactly what he was after.

What should have been a straightforward piece became a shining example of unprofessional journalism.