Multiple Source Paper

I plan to argue that the technology is not what caused the disbelief of documentary photography rather an increased skepticism resulting from a skewed understanding of the root of a photographs "reality"
I wish to argue that while technological advancements have been credited with stripping photos of their realism the true culprits behind photography forgery are elements which far out-date these said advancements , and the artistic horizons offered by these advancements far out-weigh any possible draw back

research paper

while reading one of the books i plan to use for my research paper i came across this photo:

















this photo from what is thought to be the golden age of documentary photography was everything but documentary and ended up ruining an innocents man life
photography is held to a double standard excepted to be both artistic and documentation of reality I hope to use photos like this and others to prove that photography should stop being constantly labeled as "faked" or "not-truthful" (except in unique situations) because the truth it is presumed that it holds never truly existed.
I shall talk about framing a photograph- staging it and Photoshop i wish to undermine Photoshop as an influence because people have the wrong impression of it and seem to think it is a magic wand that can do anything,when that isn't really true...but i do not want to dismiss the importance of the camera neither in documentation or in artistic expression. only to put it in context and to argue that it should neither be accepted as an undeniable proof nor as a completely fabricated fairy tail, also I want to argue that as an artistic form the quality of photography is not compromised if it is not completely "truthful"
I also want to look into the reason that caused this sudden attack on photography's validity and the public newly found suspicion of it like a child who suddenly became aware that just because the book said its so doesn't mean it is so.
all of these elements will come together i believe to establish what i am trying to argue

:D

video reaction

her Ethos was very clear, in the beginning she introduced her self, and imidiatly before presenting her topic talked about her credentials and even offered numbers that seemed very high and grabbed the viewers attention. Her Pathos was evident in the way she always referred to the students as your children your grandchildren your nieces so the audience felt connected she also kept saying the word "sick" she repeated it several times in order to establish a connection in the mind of the viewers that their children's illness stemmed from their food and showed an enlarged photo of a coffin in order to engage the feeling of fear. her logos were also very present she backed most of her statements with evidence, but i wonder how those statistics would have sounded if they had been stated in a purely academic matter without coffins or other pathos... I feel as though some of her statements were exaggerated, and she definitely failed to admit that there was any evidence that maybe contradicted her argument, although this is understandable since she was in front of a live audience.