Photographs and Images

Photographs and Images

The key question has to be: which category does the photo fit into?

·         Accurate spontaneous record.

·         Staged record of an even (after the fact)

·         Staged record of an event that did not happen that way.

     Staged record of an event that never happened.

How to Analyze a Photograph

·        You start by analyzing the photograph in exactly the same way as you would for a written source. First ask the 5 “w” and one “h” questions (What? When? Where? Who? Why? And How?). Then apply these questions:

·        Look more closely at who is in he photograph:

o   Are they old, young, male, female, of similar backgrounds and so on?

o   Look at their facial expressions and how they are interacting. Can you suggest how they might be feeling or the attitudes they might have?

o   If the photograph leaves out certain people, for example, if it only includes men, is there a reason for this?

·        Does the photograph show a natural situation or is it posed? How have the people been arranged? Does this reflect anything about their relationships?

·        Is there any sign that the photograph has been altered in any way? If it has been altered, how and for what purpose?

·        What limitations do photographs have as historical evidence?

About Diary Entries

Motives for Diary –Keeping

The question of why diaries are written is not just one of idle interest. For the historian to assess the value and accuracy of a diary, or indeed of any source, he must consider why the document came into existence. The main motives for diary-keeping would appear to be: record-keeping and as an aide-mémoire; the psychological need to justify one’s own actions and vent frustrations; an almost disinterested desire to preserve contemporary observations for the historical record; self-aggrandizement and desire to make money, probably trough securing publication. These motives are not discrete: commonly at least two or more are operative. 

Value

This thought brings us to the third aspect of diary-keeping: their value to the historian. Every historical source, from newspaper cuttings to records of Cabinet meetings, can yield important material for the historian, but diaries can be more valuable than any. Why? Part of the reason lies in the length of time over which diaries are written: one can have a consistent thread running over perhaps 30 or 40 years of history, and the individual foibles of the diarist can be known and taken into account by the historian.

Dangers

But diaries can also, like any other source, mislead and distort. How much credence should one give them? It is often difficult to evaluate. Diaries can exaggerate the importance of the writer’s own standing and influence (conveying a misleading impression of their author’s centrality to the events described.) Diaries written up daily and which describe very recent developments can suffer from an excess of passion. Alan Brooke (the senior military chief for most of Second Word War) frequently exploded in his diary about the impossible Winston Churchill. This can give the historian an overly jaundiced view of their relationship.

Diaries, it should be remembered, are just one person’s record, often jotted down in haste, of feelings at a particular point in time. 

Determining Bias

Both primary sources and secondary sources can be biased.

When a document/source is trying to influence you into thinking in a certain way the document can be classed as being biased.  Many countries, in the not so distant past, produced History textbooks that were written and contained content that was intended to deliberately make people think in a way the government wanted you to think.

So how can we determine if a source is biased or not?

Look at the words or images that are used.  The following piece of writing is biased because of the words that have been used. Some of the words that make this source biased have been underlined.

“Louis XVI lost his life on Monday at half past ten in the morning,        

and to the very last he maintained the greatest possible courage.

He wished to speak to the people from the scaffold, but

was seized by the executioners, who were following their orders,

and who pushed him straight under the fatal blade. He was able to

speak only these words: ‘I forgive my enemies; I trust that my

death will be for the happiness of my people, but I grieve for

France and I fear that she may suffer the anger of the Lord.’

The King took of his coat himself at the foot of the

scaffold, and when someone sought to help him he said cheerfully,

‘I do not need any help.’ He also refused help to climb onto the

scaffold, and went up with a firm, brisk step.

The above is an account of what happened to Louis XVI by a friend of his. It has been written in such a way that we feel sorry for the king. The author has therefore tried to influence us.  The source is biased.

When a writer or artist shows only one point of view their account will then be biased. If writers and artists give different points of view their work is then neutral and not biased.