Another double session photographing conference over the weekend. I actually don't mind it, although there should be signs on temple square that read, "stay out of the flowers" and "no teenagers spooning on the grass." I suggested to a couple of sister missionaries that they might have to resort to using a fire hose to dowse the fire burning in the loins of the young conference-goers making out on the lawn. Personally, the sound of a GA's voice never really put me in the mood, but to each his own.
Now prepare yourselves for one of my patented rants. I am attaching a picture I took of the First Pres. leaving the Conference Center following the Sunday afternoon session. The Deseret News would not run the photo because "THEY" told the Dnews, the Tribune and the Associated Press not to publish pictures showing the prophet being helped by his personal secretary on or off the stand (Please note the barely-visible hand under Hinckley's left arm. Apparently "THEY" didn't want the prophet to look feeble. I went ballistic. I couldn't (and still can't) understand how a hand on the arm makes the prophet appear feeble when he is waving his cane, smiling and had just addressed the congregation (very much in his right mind). Why "THEY" wouldn't want to show the prophet in this way is beyond me. The closest I got to an answer had something to do with the prophet looking weak and making members feel uneasy. That is the biggets crock of ______ I've ever heard. The man is 97, has lived an amazing life, has a clear conscience and has catapulted the church into the 21st century. If a hand under his arm shakes someone's testimony, they have bigger things to worry about. I could see if Pres. Hinckley was wheeled into the Conference Center on a gurney with an IV and a catheter, but otherwise I'm completely confused. I will get to the bottom of the "why" and "They" behind the decision so I can sleep at night instead of planning my hostile takeover of the Deseret Morning Censorship.
On a lighter note, I am also attaching images of The Weasel in her first soccer game. She loved it, and is slightly bummed that she is missing her second game while in Colorado. She will get over it the second we land, I'm sure.
Wish me luck, I am submitting two more pieces to the Art museum for the Spring Salon.
If you need me, I'll be on vacation from the 5th to the 10th.
KJ
2 comments:
In defense of "THEM," I will say that I can at least relate.
Working in brand management, we try very hard to control the image of the brands we manage.
Given my recent background, I can't help but think of President Hinckley as one very prominent symbol of the Church's "brand."
Whenever we are able to control the content the public will receive on one of our brands, we will naturally always choose to put forward the very most favorable image, story, etc.
Also, just for clarification, doesn't the Church's power of "censorship" begin and end with the DesNews? They couldn't, for instance, deny the SLTrib the right to publish any photo it chose to publish, could they? At least not once they've granted the Trib its press credentials?
I would find that more surprising and more indicative of censorship than making the editorial decision to promote a certain image of the Prophet in a publication the Church owns.
Respectfully, doesn't everyone--in Utah at least--realize the D-News is owned by the Church and consequently has a more favorable editorial treatment of the Church?
Am I mistaking, or did my brother just compare the church to a brand such as pickles and ketchup? I am under no delusion that "The Church" is a giant corporation. It has an image to maintain in order to protect its' interests, whether they be religious or business. I can't see how keeping a hand under the prophet's arm from publication is saving The Church's image. Is it that fragile? Although the church owns the DNews, they have gone to great lengths--changing from afternoon circulation to morning circulation and changing the name to the dereret MORNING NEWS (deseret is tiny above MORNING NEWS on the paper's front page)--to get away from being perceived as a publication of and for "The Church." They recognize that Utah-specifically SL County where their largest circulation is--is evolving and it isn't in the best interest of the paper's future to cater to only the Mormon population. Everyone knows it is owned by "The Church," but it's content is supposed to be consitent with a credible news source. Obviously the paper will never run a story exposing the fact that Pres. Monson is actually a creation of Jim Henson and operated by puppeteers, but protecting their "brand," the prophet, by not showing a hand on his arm? Ridiculous. The Church has several of its' own publications that can put whatever spin they want on the content they publish, but the paper should be used for news not PR. In fact, the prophets health in itself is news.
Now for my corrections: The paper does try hard to compete with the Tribune, but they do cater to their mormon readers. My photos have been censored many other times. As far as the Tribune is concerned, they published a photo of presidentt Hinckley being helped by his secretary Michael Watson on their website. My defense of the paper that pays me so poorly was for not. Evindently I do work for a paper that censors it's own content to suit a handful of paranoid, Mormon board members.
One last comment: I'm sure Pres. Hinckley wouldn't ban any photos of him being assisted in or out of the Conference Center, it's not his style
Post a Comment