A few days ago, Sports Illustrated revealed a cover addressing the protests against police brutality and racial inequality via kneeling during the national anthem. The cover was supposed to represent the increasing unity between professional athletes (particularly in the NFL) in protesting both the original issues first brought to attention in this fashion by Colin Kaepernick, as well as the responses by President Trump. There was only one problem: Sports Illustrated didn't include Kaepernick on the cover.
In a very bizarre editorial decision, Sports Illustrated recently released the cover shown below.
https://twitter.com/SInow/status/912663109130756097
The front row shows LeBron James, Stephen Curry, and Roger Goodell linking arms, representing the unity professional athletes and sports organizations have shown as the national anthem protests continue to generate controversy. James and Curry recently jumped to front of the issue when Curry declined an invitation to the White House (typically extended to championship teams of major sports), prompting the president to rescind the invitation, which then prompted James to fire back at the president. Goodell, as commissioner of the NFL, appears there as the head of the sport at the center of the controversy, having recently called the president's comments "divisive" and saying he was "proud" of the league's response this past Sunday.
James, Curry, and Goodell are certainly three logical figures to have on the cover given the situation, but many immediately pointed out that it was not who was on the cover, but who wasn't, namely Colin Kaepernick, whose initial kneeling protest last year was the genesis of the current situation. Stephen Curry himself called it "terrible," saying:
The real people that understand exactly what’s been going on and who’s really been active and vocal and truly making a difference... if you don’t have Kaepernick front and center on that, then something’s wrong.
Sports Illustrated Executive Editor Steven Cannella defended the cover, saying it was meant to show the emerging "unity" of the sports world and saying "in some ways, even though his picture is not there, Colin Kaepernick is there," and mentioning that the cover was meant to show the new and emerging voices.
https://twitter.com/SInow/status/912705100862427137
Even with that explanation, it seems utterly bizarre to not put Kaepernick on the cover, given his pivotal role. What are you thoughts? Regardless of your stance on the protests, was the imagery chosen for the cover an appropriate representation from a photographic standpoint?
[via Deadspin]
Calling millions of people idiots because they don't share your political views isn't arrogance???
Yes. Darn us coastal liberals. At our meetings it's just, "How can we destroy our civilization? I want my kids to grow up in a Mad Max like dystopia. Ooh I know, let's say we're going to try and reduce cancer-causing pollution in our water, but really our secret goal is to destroy jobs. Wink wink."
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven. Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and sometimes they are meant to deliberately mislead others.
Learn the difference.
Damn, generalize much?! Lumping huge portions of the country into one group based solely on their location is not only inaccurate and laughable, it's not helping the situation.
Damn @Bill Reed, I was just about to say the same about you backwoods rednecks being a cancer to the country. I am sorry if the post has upset you. Don't worry, you can talk about it at your Klan Support meeting later tonight
This article isn't about politics; please reread the last line: "Regardless of your stance on the protests, was the imagery chosen for the cover an appropriate representation from a photographic standpoint?"
Sure it is. All it takes is some critical thinking and self control.
This article lacks a bit of context to be understandable by anyone not very familiar with the US internal matters. For example: who is Colin Kaepernick? Was he there when the photo was taken and Sports Illustrated decided to specifically exclude him from the cover? If he wasn't then what is the problem?
God created Google for that
He could do that but does the author or Fstoppers want him to leave their site to do so?
Why not? The web is called "web" for something. Is a rich, interconnected environment.
I don't know how the author thinks about the issue, but I know I think is ok to left the site in search for the context of the history.
Is a delicate equilibrium, and normally less is more. The three rules of journalism are "have something to say, say it, shut up once said". Where anyone set the dividing lines are the tricky part!
I'm looking at it from a web authoring point of view. I never want my audience to leave the site I'm developing. From a consumer's point of view, you're absolutely right.
I understand that in a personal web, but I don't think is applicable in a community with articles and forums. But I can be wrong, my vision is, like you said, from a user experience point of view.
Thanks for your clarification!
Colin Kaepernick is an NFL quarterback who gained notice at the beginning of the 2016 season when he sat down for the first 2 weeks during the national anthem, then transitioned to kneeling (out of more respect for those who served, he said) as a silent protest against police brutality and racial discrimination. The photo is Photoshopped.
Funny you should mention this. Apparently..they do in Cambridge University. https://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/directory/subject-groups/american-history
Decades of woman beating, rapes, illegal drug use, gambling, dog fighting and all of a sudden the sports world cares about social justice.
One could say the same about the fans who are only now boycotting the NFL. Regardless, the last line of the article mentions that I'm concerned with the photographic choices made; this writeup isn't about the politics.
Excellent point. I guess that's why you're a big shot Fstoppers author and we're just trying to keep up with inane comments. ;-)
This is a photography forum. We don't need this nonsense here. I am not going to a game because I don't want to see these misguided, misinformed, uneducated players act out. Most don't even know why they are kneeling.
Sorry you think it's nonsense. But I'm not going to ignore an example of the power imagery has in our culture, because if I do, then there's no reason for me to be in photography in the first place. If you'll reread the article, particularly the last line, you'll notice I went to great care not to inject my personal stance on the matter and talk specifically about the photographic choices made.
Sorry that you bit the red herring like all the rest writing about this. If you really want to use your photography for social justice, why don't you be original and do a composite of all the black children in St. Louis and Chicago killed by stray bullets from drug gangs. Why don't you do a composite of young black men killed before reaching manhood in the city of Baltimore. With this article all you are doing is piling on to the false narrative started by those who don't bother to investigate below the surface of current events. These so-called heroes do their kneel, play the game, then go back to driving their Ferraris and getting multiple young women pregnant with children who will enter the cycle of urban violence.
What makes you say they don't know why they're kneeling? It's not a difficult concept. Police brutality is a problem that fails to live up to the promise of America. The flag is a symbol of America's promise so they kneel to mourn America failing to live up to its promise. Not so hard to understand.
That, of course, is why Colin started kneeling (along with some prodding by his hottie girlfriend :-) ) but the recent movement is more of a reaction to being told not to, which, of course, nobody likes.
Not just that they're being told not to, but why they're being told not to. When Kim Davis brought her political beliefs to work she was celebrated by the same people criticizing the NFL players.
You could be right. I don't know what anyone thinks. Your point about Kim Davis is well made, though. While I'm not a fan of same sex marriage, I think her method of protesting was wrong. She should have quit her job.
And she was also a tax payer supported employee which Kaepernick was not (though many stadiums are subsidized).
The subtext to this also is that there doesn't seem to be any good time or place for African-American's to speak about injustice. This image has a point.
People are not saying they can't say what they want to say, just that they don't want them to ever say it where anyone else can hear it.
I don't like to lump things together so it's difficult to have this kind of conversation in a venue like this. Suffice to say, I agree with you in principle.
For some reason, posts are out of order on my computer so I can't be sure what I was responding to in order to give you an accurate response. Having seen a similar disorder on another computer, it may have something to do with Fstopper's site.
I tried that. Didn't work. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Don't talk to me about police brutality until we face the real problem of black on black crime especially murder. More black men were killed in Chicago last week by other black men than killed by white policemen in a year. This s what I mean about misinformed. Go read the transcript of what the black grand jury and black witnesses found in Ferguson. There was no "hands up don't shoot". Not one of these kneeling athletes will go into the community and talk to young black men in a manner that helps them grow like I have. So yes, they are misguided and misinformed.
Don't talk to me about police brutality until we face the real problem of black on black crime especially murder. More black men were killed in Chicago last week by other black men than killed by white policemen in a year. This s what I mean about misinformed. Go read the transcript of what the black grand jury and black witnesses found in Ferguson. There was no "hands up don't shoot". So the entire police brutality claim is largely a false narrative. Not one of these kneeling athletes will go into the community and talk to young black men in a manner that helps them grow. So yes, they are misguided and misinformed.
I reject your premise that we can't be work on both at the same time.
I especially disagree police brutality is a false narrative. Somehow we've accepted that a police officers life is always the most important life in any situation. That if there's the slightest chance a police officer could be injured it's okay to kill our citizens. That's a defining characteristic of a police state.
Point 1: There is no work being done regarding black on black crime. Point 2: The false narrative is that police killing blacks is in no way as severe as black on black crime. There is an epidemic of crime in the black communities and constitutes the real public safety issue. However, nobody wants to touch it. The use of the term police state is irresponsible when discussing our country. You want to see a police state? Go to Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. I am old enough to have experienced real racism back in the day. Today there are too many little snowflakes who yell racist, racism, bigotry so much that the worlds have no meaning. Now let's go shoot some landscapes and try to learn color management. The only reason I even posted on this thread is that I am sick to death of the whining. If you see something that needs changing go change it. Nearly every police department in America has openings for those who can do a better job.
Boycott NFL
NO RESPECT-NO SUPPORT
Not what this article is about.
I think they wanted to benefit from the controversy without being too controversial. :-/
That thought had occurred to me, and I'm starting to believe it more strongly after listening to how wishy-washy the executive editor was when called out on the editorial choices made for the cover.
It's not likely a lark getting a variety of owners and players together for a shot. Kaepernick may not have been available that day for all we know. Moreover, the issue has creeped away from that which Kaepernick originally protested. He was protesting racism--the teams and owners are protesting the political reaction.
Of course you're right but if I were unemployed, I'd adjust my schedule to be part of this shoot. I think your "Moreover" statement is closer to the truth.
They didn't get James, Curry, and everyone else together; it's Photoshopped.
I know the rows are shopped, but they still got groups of players together at specific times, which still takes wrangling. It's still more likely than not that it was Kaepernick who didn't make the shot rather than him not being invited.
It looks like a Photoshop composite image to me. Which would explain Curry's reaction to it.
That's because it's a photo of people that hosted a Hillary fundraiser.
Not what this article is about.
Sorry Alex, I believe it is what it's about. Colin Kaepernick did not support Hillary (or Trump) in the race calling them both liars. The Democratic Party's influence on what gets put into Time inc. magazines is powerful. To believe otherwise is naive. Steph just didn't get the memo.
I now see what your asking - perhaps the problem is with the title of the article.
Please, please, please, stop posting this type of material in this site... short of a tutorial on photoshop techniques to create a composite, or why this would've been a better shot on a Sony.
I'd even go as far as deleting this post along with the wonderful comments everyone has left. Issue an apology hand-written note, shot under-exposed on a Canon, then posted and brought back up to life 5 stops higher, with all the glorious noise and banding for everyone to see.
No, I'm not going to delete the post and I'm sure not going to issue an apology. Talking about Photoshop techniques is fun, but if we don't confront the power imagery has in our culture, why are we even here in the first place? If you reread the last question of the post, I specifically said this was a question of usage of imagery, not one's stance on the controversy (notice how I didn't talk about my stance in the article), and yet, only one comment actually discusses that.
Really? I thought my comment regarding controversy did just that.
Sorry Sam, it did, which is why I replied to it. I was in the midst of replying to about ten other comments and lost track of yours.