Is There Anything Wrong With This Picture?

8/9/2017

Screenshot of photo accompanying a story about a mammoth tooth.

This photograph, used to illustrate a four paragraph story in the Jersey Evening Post yesterday, sparked a heated conversation in the Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame group on Facebook. The admins watching the situation turned off commenting to keep the temperature down but left the originally post up, with the rationale that it was an important discussion but just not on topic for the group. I thought I'd write a quick blog post to provide a place to continue the discussion here if anyone is interested.

The debate revolved around whether this photo was appropriate for the story, or whether the view was intentionally selected as "click bait" to draw viewers who might not navigate to a story illustrated by a mammoth tooth. This is the only photo. The story says "the tooth" is pictured in the photo, but what I see is an empty pedestal where the tooth presumably used to be.

Sara

8/9/2017 08:05:53 am

Guess I'm weird - I saw the post - saw a woman pointing to what appeared to be a rock - didn't see the tooth - moved on. It wasn't until later when I read the thread that I saw her in totality. Still don't see what the big deal is. She's wearing tank top. Boobs happen. Get over yourself. Only the editors of the original post can comment on whether or not they used it because of that. But I didn't see it (or them, rather) until they were pointed out to me....but then I'm a woman and I see them all the time - so perhaps they're not that big of a deal to me.

Andy White

8/9/2017 10:53:36 am

I'm not sure if the "get over yourself" is directed at me in particular or at people in general. I didn't give my own view of the choice to use this photo to illustrate the story, but mentioned that there was a debate about it.

The reactions to this that I've seen suggest that professionals are bothered little, if at all, by the choice of the photo. Negative reactions seem to be coming predominantly from non-professionals, who seem more put-off by the image choice and more questioning of the motivation. If true, I think that's an interesting observation. Hence writing the post in the first place.

Sara

8/13/2017 05:38:57 am

The "get over yourself" was not directed at you. Just my poorly worded over generalization.

Joe Scales

8/9/2017 03:01:07 pm

Would you be the Sara from Archy Fantasies? If so, I really enjoy your America Unearthed reviews. Always look forward to them.

As for the picture, I must admit my eyes were drawn in a certain direction... then the tat turned me away. Old fashioned, I know.

Sara

8/13/2017 05:39:35 am

No. But she is awesome!

Jim

8/9/2017 08:37:52 am

Fake news, probably planted by McDonalds. I don't see any tooth, but she seems to be holding a tasty delicious french fry,,mmmmm, now I'm hungry.

Raparee

8/9/2017 03:28:33 pm

Just wondering, with all the guffawing and pearl-clutching that this photo has elicited, has anyone considered contacting Ms. Ingrey for her opinion?

Anne

8/9/2017 04:50:43 pm

My thought as well.

Andy White

8/9/2017 04:54:33 pm

I'd be interested to know, but I'm not sure it matters to larger questions about how archaeologists are portrayed in the media, how female scientists are portrayed, etc. In journalism school we'd frequently debate the pros, cons, and implications of publishing photos without considering what the subject thought of the picture.

Graham

8/9/2017 05:14:39 pm

To me it looks like a staged shot. As to the camera angle, without a larger picture showing the excavation you cannot judge why that angle was chosen, but given what the subject is wearing it could simply be that that was the only way to get the subjects face in shot.

One of my favorite episodes of CSI has a murder taking place at a Buddhist temple and much of the dialog is concerned about the fact the victims were shot through a particular chakra and what this means. When the killer is caught he is asked about this and responds in confusion that he has no idea what they are talking about, he simply shot the victims between the eyes.

To bring this to a close, don't over elaborate on motives, you're not the person who took the picture nor the subject of the picture and if you do want to know why it was used, ask the editors of the newspaper.

Anne

8/9/2017 04:52:12 pm

And she's clearly wearing a tank top, not a jersey. How would one fit a mammoth tooth in a tiny shirt anyway? Headline is misleading.

GINA

8/9/2017 07:51:37 pm

She looks like she's from Jersey Shore.
This picture was not taken with good intentions. Its unprofessional and I'm more interested in the tooth from Jersey. Not the female and her cleavage. I'm disappointed.

Alan Ross

8/9/2017 10:32:26 pm

Oh Andy... surely it is actually more demeaning to the lady concerned to be discussing her n(on-visible) cleavage. It is a press photo not a journal publication. It is a looking down at woman in a trench doing a stock pointing shot. She made the find. What do you expect.,.for her to wear a bandage around her top half. She is wearing normal attire. The power of suggestion is implanting the idea that something is more visible than is not. This whole post is sexist and intrusive, by taking it out of context and discussing a woman's cleavage in a way that was never done in the first place, How do you think the woman concerned would feel at being discussed in this frankly creepy manner? It demeaning, intrusive and unjustified.

Alan Ross

8/9/2017 10:47:18 pm

Sorry my typing and punctuation was off! I couldn't see the keys. I must wear my glasses. But you'll get my general point

Andy White

8/10/2017 08:58:35 am

Yes, I get your general point, but I think you have completely missed mine.

If the photo isn't bad, how can discussing it be bad? I didn't take it out of context -- context is the whole point. I'm amazed to be told that opening a discussion about whether a photo is sexist or not is, in and of itself, a sexist thing to do. I still haven't said what my position is, so you seem to be objecting to the very idea that there could be a range of opinions on the matter. That's strange.

As I mentioned above, I'm getting the sense that this photo is a "non issue" among professional archaeologists, including many of my female colleagues. That's an interesting thing to know, and one that I would not have known without asking. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there's a generational gradient in how this photo is perceived. I could be wrong, of course. I'd never know if I didn't ask.

Graham

8/10/2017 06:32:48 pm

I find this response curious as you seem to be assuming the thoughts of the person photographed. Unless they actually respond to this or make their own statement by some other means, we will never no.

Fawkes

8/10/2017 07:54:15 pm

I think that photo being the only one is misleading for the article. I hunted for a while trying to find a mammoth tooth to see if it looked like one of mine I gave up.

It is understandable to use stock photos in certain situations to make things more attractive and sellable places do it all the time. Maybe the newspaper/magazine needs more readership or maybe this is a person from the dig. Or maybe she found the tooth and it was hot out and thus the tank top. Or maybe her name is mammoth tooth.

Uncle Ron

8/10/2017 08:03:42 pm

The story specifically states ". . . the tooth, pictured with UCL’s Letty Ingrey . . .." But there's no tooth in the pic. Maybe they were going to put the tooth back after the picture was set up; but look at her facial expression. I can hear the photographer saying, crouch down there and point to where the tooth will be . . . hold on I can't get your face in too . . . I'll get up on this ladder . . . Ok, hold it . . . oh yeah, that's great . . .. And just then she realizes what he's seeing through the camera, and Flash! Definitely click bait and definitely not appropriate for the story; not because of what's there but because of what's NOT there. If the tooth was there we could say well that's just the human body - let the frat boys leer. But without the tooth there's no excuse for using the picture EXCEPT to let the frat boys leer. (I'll bet there's another shot with the tooth in place and less of Ms. Ingrey showing.) I don't know if it's so much "how female scientists are portrayed" by the media as how women in general still are portrayed by much of the media.

8/11/2017 01:45:55 am

I guess it's just what draws your attention.
I've seen far less mammoth teeth then exposed decollete, so i was looking for a mammoth teeth in the picture and the decollete made no real impression.

She is not even trying to be in a seductive pose.

Reminds me of a T-shirt that said "Yuck Fou" that many people have to look at multiple times before their brains actually read the right words.

Zoroaster

8/19/2017 11:30:45 am

I didn't see any problem until someone in the comments said it was the boob thing. I agree with Sara, get over yourselves people.

Comments are closed.

Is There Anything Wrong With This Picture?

Archives

Categories