[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: Digital Technologies



Harry wrote:

> I think that the only real solution is to make sure that viewers are
> educated enough to doubt everything they see and not take everything in
> as fact.

If we could somehow achieve this and also expand it to "doubt everything
they see, hear, touch, feel, taste, and experience" (I'm probably
forgetting a 'sensing' verb here so feel free to tell me if you can
think of more or better ones) then we'd never have to worry much about
people being scammed or mislead or misinformed. We'd be able to stop all
those scammers in their tracks from those blokes that call unwitting
receptionists and ask to be transferred to (I think this is right...) # 9
or whatever gives them an outside line so that they can make phone calls
on that companies dime to those investment 'gurus' making millions hawking
their get-rich-quick seminars and books b/c people just wouldn't fall for
it.

Considering how many people feel, on some level or another, that ignorance
is bliss, I doubt this goal will ever be achieved on a widespread basis.

Maybe one can call my views in this pessimistic but I prefer the
term realistic.


Robyn Pretzloff 
SILS Computer Lab Co-Manager
Graduate Assistant/Graduate Student
School of Information & Library Science
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-----------------------------------------
Reality is the leading cause of stress
among those who are in touch with it.
--Jane Wagner
-----------------------------------------

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Harry Ahlas wrote:

> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:39:33 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
> From: Harry Ahlas <hahlas@email.unc.edu>
> To: 310-74list <inls310-74@ruby.ils.unc.edu>
> Subject: re: Digital Technologies
> 
> I don't think that "watermarking" is a satisfactory solution.  It's not
> much different than when you see a correction in a newspaper:
> 
> "We made a mistake in yesterday's article about XXX.  In the third
> paragraph of the article, we said "such and such" but should have said
> "so and so."  We apologize for any inconvenience."
> 
> Point being, once the viewer sees the enhanced photo with "CBS" in the
> background, that image is pasted in the viewer's mind.  You can do only
> so much to fix that.  It's not like the viewer's going to look for
> watermarks on every image that s/he downloads or sees on tv.  
> 
> And supposing that the image editing isn't noticed by a third party
> until after the viewer has seen the image, there's only so much the
> third party can do to change the viewer's initial memory of having CBS
> in the background.  
> 
> I think that the only real solution is to make sure that viewers are
> educated enough to doubt everything they see and not take everything in
> as fact.
> 
> Harry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>