Blurring faces in works of visual journalism is incredibly rare — and for good reason. I’m concerned that featuring this suggestion so prominently and including easy tools to blur faces could lead to over-censorsing and a flouting of accepted visual journalism ethics.
I’m a Cambridge resident, and I grew up here. I think the legal clinic is a good idea, simply because there are too many good ideas coming out of MIT that can be misunderstood, and the quality of ideas is so good that they very frequently do branch away from campus.
The web needs a non-profit humanistic social network. If Wikipedia can achieve widespread adoption, why can’t a social network with similar values succeed? (Granted, Wikipedia isn’t perfect.) There is a fairly large section of people who are tired of Facebook. It won’t be easy to replace Facebook with a more open and transparent social network of a similar size, but I like to think that it’s doable!
Thanks for the response, Jim. Yep, that’s along the lines of what I assumed you meant — I was just nitpicking for the sake of my point, and for the sake of the well-edited photo galleries out there that can’t defend themselves. (If it wasn’t already clear: I’m a photojournalist and a fan of high-quality, original pictures in news.)
Keep up the good work!
Interesting that you put slideshows firmly in the “bad” column, as if they are, were, and will always be, a masquerade for pageviews. It’s possible to make slideshows that are honest and don’t suck, and for goals beyond raw pageviews. It’s one thing to decide “that’s not going to be part of our news organization, for x, y, z” — it’s another to…