Wow. Did I strike a nerve? Calm down and have a beer... I'm buying. No, I don't drink, but I don't mind if you do, if it will help your judgement any. You know, I may be naive. I'm only 49. Are you’re about the same?

But this isn't about you and me, is it? It's about Sarah and KTUU. Hard to tell when you call me a "god damn retard". I don’t think I am a "god damn retard"". I tested high in IQ when I was a kid, and they didn’t think I was a "god damn retard". My wife, who is in Mensa, an international organization for geniuses, doesn’t think I am a "god damn retard". My friend E.W., who was one of the pioneering astrophysicists in the fledgling N.A.S.A. program back in the 60’s, doesn’t think I’m a "god damn retard". The people who I go to work with, who know me and respect me, don’t think I’m a "god damn retard". But in your mind, you are more qualified to judge me out of ignorance than those who judge me out of knowledge. I would not assume to be so arrogant as to castigate you with such an epithet as "god damn retard", but look at your hand when you point a finger at me (index finger, middle finger... doesn’t matter), and count the number of fingers pointing at yourself. Psychologists call that deflection. I call it a schoolyard bully that never grew up. Are you following me, or should I use smaller words commensurate with your low-brow sophomoric name-calling? How about if I simply come out and call you a "god damn retard"... I guess you would understand that, but it’s hardly what I call efficacious communication.

And efficacious communications is what this is all about. (Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot who I was talking to... that’s “effective communication”, for all you people who didn’t finish high school, and thought I was referring to a bowel movement.) I am not vastly experienced in the field of communications, but I studied VisCom a bit at CSUC Chico, CA. That was a long, long time ago. Now I'm changing careers, and am just an aspiring videographer/editor, but I take great pride in my craft. I take my responsibility as a communicator seriously, and I strive for excellence and accuracy. I don't mind saying that I'd rather learn from other's mistakes than my own. I think KTUU made a big mistake, worth someone losing their job. If I made the same mistake, I'd expect to get fired.

No, I won't let you publicly flay me like a Thanksgiving turkey. As I said, this is not about you and me. But I will ask you to bear with a little lecture quite different from the kind of playground abuse you are used to seeing on this blog. You might learn something. Remember studying in school about something called "figure/ground". It's a little concept developed by media theorist Marshall McLuhan. It allows you to perceive visuals, like the letters you are now reading... black on a white background. That's how we see things. That's how we interpret visual information. You did study in school, didn’t you?

The point is that we evaluate what we see in a foreground in the context of what exists in a background. The videographer knows this as he’s used to viewing the world through.. well, a viewfinder. He sees things as though through a pipe, very linearly from a singular point of perspective. The foreground is superimposed upon the background, and because of the figure/ground principal, there is a huge association between the two. That’s why so many pictures show up on J. Leno’s headlines, with cucumbers and other strange objects sticking out of people’s heads. It’s funny, but it’s not effective. It makes people look stupid, when it’s really the photographer’s fault.

The problem is, that’s not how we normally perceive things with our two eyes. Because of the dual point of perspective, the foreground is much more disassociated from the background. We see one subject in focus, but with two slightly different backgrounds slightly out of focus and out of register with each other. Our brains can sort this out, discounting the background. The camera lens cannot. That’s why so many bad photographers make this mistake - they simply don’t look at what they’re seeing through the lens. Their mistake isn’t evident until it comes out in print. I know this because I’ve been photographing people for 28 years, and I’ve made my share of figure/ground boo-boos.

Sarah is not an experienced photographer. She may not be much of a statesman, but that is a matter of opinion. She definitely is not trained in visual communications as you and I are, and she was actually looking at a much bigger picture than the videographer saw through his narrow lens. When the photographer looked through the lens and saw the potential problem, he asked Sarah about the background. Saw a structure filled with a bunch of turkeys, and it was “no worries” for her. It was as good as the background in the opposite direction which she was facing, which may have included a beautiful forested hill. You see, you don’t get to see what she saw... you only get to see what the camera saw. You are making a very serious judgement call based upon a derth (that means, scarcity... that means, a little) of information. And that’s what you call a knee-jerk reaction.

Half way through the interview, she turns her head and says “Oh, well, this was was... this was neat!” In that little pause, she blinks her eyes, then turns back to the camera. Freeze frame right before she blinks and look closely at the near eye. She is looking at a right angle to the videographer and the man in the background. Peripheral vision does not allow for her to see what the camera so easily sees. And did you notice the glasses she was wearing, which limit vision even further? I’ve worn glasses all my life, and I sure know that.

The problem is that camera does not reveal the world spatially. It renders it on a planar surface. Now the videographer did compose that image well, with the point of interest at the upper-third/left third intersection. He has her looking into the space framed by her face and the right image edge. This is consistent with visual flow characteristic of most left-to-right oriented cultures. In the occidental hemisphere, we read left to right, and most people are right handed. In traditional China, where they read right-to-left, the reverse is true, and visual flow is more commonly right-to-left. The problem happens when we apply figure-ground theory inappropriately to this image. We draw a false connection between the foreground and the background that, upon analysis, simply cannot exist. We draw a left-to-right line from her eyes to the slaughter. It may be apparent that Sarah sees the slaughter, but the appearance is deceiving. You have been fooled by your eyes. A magician would love you.

Her staff contends that she did not know what was going on behind her, and that is completely plausible to me as an experienced photographer. However, her staff did recognize the problem after tape began to roll. They saw how the photographer was setting Sarah up for failure and embarrassment, and asked for a re-set and a re-shoot. They were ignored. I know how these camera crews work. I saw one from HG shoot my wife in front of our house. They were in and out and gone, leaving mistakes to be covered by post-production editing magic. Sarah is not happy about all this. KTUU is not happy about all this. Someone should get fired, and Sarah deserves an apology. Television stations don’t like to apologize. It looses them money.

I met Sarah when when was mayor of Wasilla. Her friends and my wife’s friends sort of intersect. I’ve watched her over the years and I think I know more about her personal convictions than you know about her public positions. She does not deserve the kind of criticism, ridicule, and flat out abuse that you and others on this blog apparently have no problem dishing out. Have you ever met Sarah? Do you know her friends personally? Did you even hear of her before this election campaign? Do you know anything about what you are talking about? Oh, yeah... you see what the camera sees. That qualifies you?

Benjamin Franklin (I read some of his work in grammar school, like all the other “god damn retards”) wrote the idiom “If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.” A slightly more gross variation might be “Don’t stand too close to a man vomiting uncontrollably”, for that is how I feel after reading your comments. Excuse me while I go wash myself. Have another beer, you arrogant, ignorant critic. I’m feeling good tonight, so I’m buying.

No, I'm not naive. (Good for you, you spelled "naive" right.) I'm perceptive. Naive means you will believe anything. Perceptive means you see everything. I had this figured out when I first saw the video, before I heard any of this inane commentary. That's because I know what I'm talking about. And, no, I never cared if you are a liberal or not. That is immaterial.

And one more thing: neener,neener, neerner!

- Gracen

Look, from what I can tell you have no idea what you are talking about vis a vis Palin's photo op at the slaughterhouse. Honestly, even when up against conservatives like Couric, she falls flatter than a crepe on a 10 grav planet. Even IF some obscure TV station was able to set her up and make her look like a fool (like the Canadian radio hosts), it shows she isn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Face it. She flopped and deserved to flop. Once the right wing faces that they can move on with their sad, greedly little agenda.

As to your IQ and all that, well, fine. Personally you come off like an insecure kid in his 20's, whatever your real background is. You defend the most pathetic politician since Dan Quayle and do so with barely credible conspiracy theories about the media making her look bad (as if she, train wreck that she is, needs help!) and you wonder people question your analytical abilities? Well if you are as smart as you claim, I would personally expect a higher standard of analysis from you, but perhaps it is your communication skills, not your analytical ability, that is to blame.

So, please, if you are going to defend the Palins of the world, don't expect people to look favorably upon your cognative skills, particularly if you resort to the long, LONG disproved (disproved in the 1980's, I might add, by, among others, David Shaw at the LA Times, who I once knew personally) "liberal mdeia" myth.

Hey, Mole. Nice axe... I used mine to heat my home for eleven years. It was bigger, though. What do you use yours for? I see, it goes with your costume. Nice costume. It wouldn't be just a little effort to intimidate people, would it? If it is, it's not working on me. Right now, I'm carrying cuffs, mace, a night stick, and thirty 40-cal rounds for a weapon that is slightly more up to date. And I have the hardware, the licenses, and the "costume" to go with it. I happen to be dressed for work.

Don't worry about me, though. I'm listed by the FBI as one of the "good guys". That means I... well, never mind what that means. Ok, it means that I legally get to do a lot of things with my stuff that you don't get to do with your stuff, unless you are in security work too. But somehow, you know, it just doesn't seem right to put a picture of a weapon next to my opinions. After all, these are only my opinions.

As to my background, it's in security. Something you might believe is that when you are in security work, your powers of observation increase hugely. Your eyes are the weapons you use all the time, so you don't have to use your others. You see what really is there, not just what you want to see. It has to be that way when you are guarding a single shipment of 1997 lbs. of pure gold in one shipment to Inchon or New York, or more currency than your boss's boss's boss is likely to make in his/her lifetime (do the math, and that works out to tens of millions), all stashed in a little truck. Some people have no problem putting you down six feet deep for that kind of green, so you learn to see things that are there, but others don't see right away because they aren't readily evident or obvious. I don't just make my living with my eyes. I'm alive because of my eyes.

The fact is that most bad guys don't look like bad guys, or at least, right away. They try to look like quiet little good guys, so as not to draw attention. And some good guys for some strange reason try to look like big, bad guys. You soon develop a knack for not being rattled by those who taunt you, because you suspect that most hecklers are just trying to make themselves feel or look powerful and significant. I see that this blog is chock-full of really good guys who are trying to look big and bad. But since they are really good guys, you can't just shoot them.

I'm not really in security work... or at least my family is generally safer if you believe I'm not. How about this? I used to do security work, but I'm just moonlighting low-risk jobs right now while my daytime video editing business gets off the ground. I decided I'd rather carry a camera to work than a gun.

I don't have superpowers or x-ray vision or anything. I'm just able too see what most don't see. I don't know you, but on average it's safe to say I that I see things better than you (nothing personal, Mole). It will make me a good videographer and video editor. It would also explain why my communication skills aren't up to your standards. I haven't had to talk and write much while keeping the bad guys away. Yeah, I might come off as a little insecure or defensive. Did you happen to notice I was called a "god damn retard" out of the blue by a complete stranger? Why do I get such personal hostility from someone I’ve never personally attacked? Mole, there's blood in the water and I'm surrounded by sharks. This makes me more nervous than making cash shipments for the Federal Reserve Bank. All I do is appear to be a conservative, and I get my neck chopped off.

Oh, I get your picture now... the Palin turkey interview, chopping block, your little axe. Very clever. I see the connection... I think.

As far as sounding like a kid in his twenties... cool! I’ve been trying to sound like a kid in his twenties ever since I was thirty-five. Now, if I only had my hair again. And by the way, just what’s wrong with twenty year old kids? Would you like me to round up a bunch of twenty-somethings to camp out on your doorstep to ask you that question? Or were you just chastising me for being inarticulate below my years? Would you like me to rustle up a gang of inarticulate forty-somethings to appear at your door and show you what they’re really good at?

Oh, did you catch that? I "appear" to be a conservative? Did I say that I was a conservative? Exactly where did I say anything about me thinking the media was leftist? Didn't you just assume that, because I find fault with someone who thoughtlessly makes a known conservative look ridiculous? If I find fault with the media, that's not calling them leftist. Why so defensive? Hey, Mole, that is not a rhetorical question... I'm asking you to quote me to me. Where did I say the media is leftist? Back it up, or shut it up.

Whether I am conservative or not does not change the point I'm making. But you'd like me to be a conservative, right? Then, using whatever criteria you find handy, you could simply dismiss my opinion. So, you put words in my mouth that I never said. The fact is, mole, that I never made this about liberal/conservative ideas. The makers of the Palin turkey interview should not be fired for their politics. They should be fired for their unprofessionalism. Whatever they think of Sarah's politics, they should not misrepresent her the way they did. It's bad for business. And whatever ideals you have, journalism is not a cause. It's a skill to be marketed.

Professionalism. Professionalism. Professionalism. That's the issue. Got it?

My communication skills are not the issue, but you try to make them the issue. My age is not the issue, but you try to make it the issue. My political leanings are not the issue, but you try to make it the issue. What up? (That's not a typo. I'm just trying to sound hip and urban.) Am I speaking a foreign language here, or are you simply not listening?

So, what is the issue? Come on you can say it... that's right. Professionalism. Here's your chance to personally attack me again. Am I being professional right now? No, but I'm not working right now. I'm playing. I imagine your friend David Shaw at the LA Times acts unprofessional when he's playing too. But the videographer at the turkey farm was not playing. He had a job to do - to represent to truth, even if only to cover the pardoning of a Thanksgiving turkey. If it was Joe Shmo, and they were all off the clock, then he could have been playing all he wanted. But this was the governor of the largest and richest state in our nation, a position that commands respect regardless of the governor's affiliations or leanings. Ask David about that. This is serious stuff. The video misrepresented the Sarah I know. What was conveyed was way off the mark, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know Sarah. You aren't from her home town. You didn't grow up with her. You didn't go to high school with her. You have never had a conversation with her. You are so far removed that you can't hear the whole town of Wasilla laughing at you guys because of how totally ridiculous you look. Now, KTUU simply blew it at Sarahís expense, and they know it. They don't like it because Wasilla is Anchorage's neighbor town, and is a large part of KTUU's market. When you're a professional journalist, you just don't screw up the story like that, even if you are in Alaska. Especially if you are in Alaska. It doesn't matter if you are liberal, conservative, or ambivalent. This has to do with treating people fairly and truthfully. Does that mean anything to you?

Now, as a result, there is this liberal feeding frenzy out there. Nervous? Sure I am. Insecure? Yeah, you bet. But I know what I'm talking about, and I see what is really there. There's no way in H-E-double-toothpicks you could possibly see what we see so clearly, but somehow I'm the one called naive? I'm being attacked and derided? Why don't you just hit and run me, and then curse and deride me as you drive away?

No, I don't plan to defend Sarah. She can do that herself. I was ignoring her debatable performance for the moment while commenting on the videographer’s and producer's shoddy work. I was trying to analyze the visuals that are there, not read into them my own meaning based upon some personal prejudice or political agenda. Suddenly, I find myself under attack for not communicating as well as you think I ought. Is this the Official Media Defense Forum? Or do you just sit around all day attacking people like a pack of starved jackals because they don't agree with your politics? Oh, bother, DOES NO ONE HERE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT VISUAL LITERACY? Good grief, I'm going over to see if there is a blog at Videomaker.com.

Oh, wait a minute... I just got it. "Fresh dissent served daily" it says at the top. You don't care if you are right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, fair or abusive, just as long as you serve up "fresh dissent". Being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable, right? Sort of like Monty Pythonís Argument Clinic. So, do you disagree with everything everything (which I don't find very helpful), or do you just disagree with everything conservative (which, regardless of my leanings, I don't find very helpful either)? Is this some sort of summer camp pissing match to try to one up each other, or the guy with the last word is like on top of the dog pile? Excuse me... where is the exit?

Mole, before I'm gone for good, let me introduce you to the fresh air of kindness. If you don't know what that is, try to pay attention. Don't bother replying, or you'll be speaking to the wind coming through the door. I just want to say that I am truly impressed with your picture. Yes, your picture. It's the first thing on this site I understood. Possibly, the only thing. Seriously, if you took the photo yourself, you did a darn good job. Good textural and chromatic separation from the background. Real good choice with the shirt color! Blues complements the greens, and in addition, they convey power. Not too much headroom above... that's good. A lot of amateurs miss that one, and "bulls-eye" the subject dead center. Nice figure/ground association... a fabric curtain or even a stone wall would not have conveyed nearly the same thing. Nice association with nature. Very rugged. The head of the axe and your own head are pointed in the same direction... using the principle of repetition increases the visual movement right to left. That's not accidental, that's occidental. Get it? Occidental, left-to-right? Oriental, right-to-left? A little lame attempt at some VisCom humor there. Ok, so I'm no comedian.

I have a suggestion for the photo. Pay a little more attention to the rule of thirds. I know it's formulaic, but the formula still works. As the picture is now, the dead space on the left and right side is too balanced, making it stable and static. Stable and static is a good thing if you want to convey an immovable inert object. For that, your head should be facing forward. But that is too conservative an attribute for you. Instead, you want to convey motion and energy, which are attributes more consistent with your liberal opinions, thus the turned head and axe. To create even more visual movement and energy, throw the dead space a little out of balance. Have your head look into the frame, not out of the frame. More dead space there on the right than on the left will actually better convey that you’re looking bravely into the distance to the right, not something just two feet away. It will be much more flattering to you that way. Just try it, and you'll see what I mean.

If the original was tightly cropped, try re-cropping it rather than re-shooting. Or if you have a good photo editor and a little patience, you may be able to clone it convincingly. If you have any trouble understanding me, run it by one of the photogs at the Times. They probably can explain it better, since I can't very well draw you a picture here. A little more work can make it a lot more effective photo for you. Trust me, and you'll see that I'm right. Obnoxiously disagree about everything I say, and you'll settle for a mediocre picture.

There. Your welcome. Good luck with that axe of yours. I wasn't trying to make you feel bad about the size of your axe. I’m sure it’s a fine axe. I was just making a point. Besides, everyone knows it’s not the size of your axe... it's how you use it. Go in peace, have a great day, or whatever blessing you find palatable. Meanwhile, I'll go somewhere where people are trained to see what they're looking at.

- Gracen

You need an editor. Seriously. And I thought I was wordy.

Blaming the media for making Sarah Palin has been a right wing talking point for months now. You continued it even though it was demonstrably untrue and part of a long-standing right wing lie going back to Nixon (remember Tricky Dicky?). So if you are going to repeat right wing talking points be prepared to be considered right wing. Palin was fully aware of the setting, was asked about it, and approved it. The choice was hers whatever your expert observational skills might tell you.

As to your weaponry and job: I don't really care. Maybe I'd be interested in your profession (me, I'm a research scientist) but I don't care about your aresenal.

As to photo editing: I don't care. I am not a photographer. No one pays me to be a photographer so I have no reason to spend much time on it. Though when I am taking pictures of GFP-labeled cells, THEN I take good pictures because they are potentially for publication in the scientific literature.

The axe: It was for a wedding. Yes, seriously. Since then only wore the outfit for Holloween. And if you find it intimidating or even figure it is intended to be intimidating you must have had a really bad experience chopping wood some time back. Would someone holding a scalpal dressed as a surgeon be an intimidating image to you? And it didn't have to do with the turkey, though good thought.

And while we are giving eachother advice, PLEASE edit your stuff. No one is going to read all that when there really is only a very minor point and even that demonstrably wrong.

Hey mole. My axe was a tool I used to heat my home, and I've never had a bad experience with my axe. Your axe was used for a wedding (...?!!!) , but now you choose to use it to visually represent yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not a woodsman's get-up, it's a soldier's, right?

You write regularly on a blog which has a default logo showing a guy holding a crude weapon, a molotov raised and ready to commit a violent act. You replace that with a picture of yourself holding a crude weapon, an axe raised and ready to commit a violent act. How sweet...

I invite you do to the same thing with your picture as I invited Liza to do with the molotov man: put Sarah's burned church just to the right of it. Then get your axe, and stroke it lovingly as you imagine those children's flesh peeling from their bones. Pretty darn neat, isn't it?

Alternatively, you could tell me how your get-up and the church arson are in no way related, and I'm sure you're absolutely right. I also understand that those sheets those guys ran around in had absolutely nothing to do with mysterious backwood lynchings of "niggers" a few years back. Be sure to include a picture of your axe when you reply about right wing politics, Nixon, Thanksgiving turkeys, the tooth fairy, and anything else that comes to mind having absolutely nothing to do with violent politics.

You seem old enough to remember the prejudice of the 1960's. So why do you repeat it here? Ask your friend Liza the same. Mole, these aren't just words and pictures on a page. They mean things. There are consequences to what you say. It may be just a dotted line connecting the prejudice Liza encourages to the arson of Sarah's church... but it's still a line. Those were wives and children in that church. They could have been yours.

Final advise: loose the axe - what the fock were you thinking? There, a minute and a forty-six... was that short enough for your attention span?

You sure seem frightened of the images we place on this site. Your comments in this thread have been shown to be wrong, or, at least, it has been pointed out that Sarah Palin WAS asked about the activities in the background and said, "no worries." That has not been disputed as far as I am aware. Even on conservative sites the validity of the video is not in dispute, rather they make fun of what they see (with some validity) is the hypocricy of some liberals complaining about the turkey slaughter while eating turkey themselves. Personally my comment about it is it is pretty dumb from a PR point of vuew.

So YOU are the only one seemingly denying the validity of the video. We point that out and then you start yammering about churches burning in a way that suggests you have some fetish for burning churches and violence. And you seem horrified that (gasp) I use a picture from a friends wedding where I am dressed up in a costume (as requested by those getting married). Well close your eyes if it scares you. Or perhaps you should get some professional help if seeing such images makes you obsess on your fetish for burning churches.

Feel free to continue to post your yammering. But don't accuse people of lying when no one else disputes the video's authenticity.