Sometimes, the camera lies

Posted at 3:30 PM on June 23, 2011 by Bob Collins (13 Comments)
Filed under: Sports

This picture from the hockey riots in Vancouver earlier this month was so much better when it was just a picture about unrestrained love.

Alas, reality has stepped in to strip us of all that is good. A video has surfaced which confirms reports that the "kissing couple" had actually just been trampled by the cops.

---

Comments (13)

Is it the camera that lies, or is it the mind that wants to believe in something that may or may not be there? In this case, I believe it is the latter. Given the context of what is happening around these two people, I find it hard (and did at the time of its release) to think that this would be the time to be amorous.

Posted by boB from WA | June 23, 2011 4:12 PM

---

Man, that's cold.

Posted by Heather | June 23, 2011 4:16 PM

---

boB from WA - Really?

It was widely reported some time ago that the kiss was a tender attempt to comfort the young woman, who had fallen/been knocked down.

And I thought that it was common knowledge that immediately following life-threatening events, "amorous" behavior is an extremely common reaction.

Just goes to show how much I don't know about what people don't know. :-)

Posted by Jim Shapiro | June 23, 2011 4:34 PM

---

I guess a hockey riot is just the wrong place to go looking for love.

Posted by John P. | June 23, 2011 4:37 PM

---

//And I thought that it was common knowledge that immediately following life-threatening events, "amorous" behavior is an extremely common reaction.

It had been recently suggested the photo was faked.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 23, 2011 4:57 PM

---

Bob - Faked as in staged or edited?

Posted by Jim Shapiro | June 23, 2011 5:01 PM

---

Gosh, I wonder if those 'Boys' got their Red Bull before they launched their attack on what appears to be the most vulnerable of all those in the riot crowd.

Posted by lucy | June 23, 2011 5:39 PM

---

Lucy -

Throughout history and across cultures, the primary distinction between law enforcement officers and the citizenry that they protect and serve is the authorization to carry a weapon.

Posted by Jim Shapiro | June 23, 2011 5:56 PM

---

I'll bet that if it was the man's butt that was showing in the photo, the media wouldn't keep showing it and discusssing it.

Posted by Jamie | June 23, 2011 6:14 PM

---

Jamie,
I am a bit perplexed with your apparrent disgust of the exposure of this womans hind- quarters.
Her undies cover more of her bottom half than what I have seen on woman at the public family friendly beaches. And I will comment that her taste in briefs are of a higher standard than what is typically displayed at your Victorias Secret, showcased in the window display.

Posted by lucy | June 23, 2011 6:42 PM

---

Jamie -

That instantly iconic photo is sex and violence and fire - a trifecta wet dream for the visual news media.

I hope that you aren't as disturbed by it as you appear to be, because you'll forever be fighting a painful and inevitably losing battle against not only the almost incalculable powers of the media, but against the powers of human nature as well.

Posted by Jim Shapiro | June 23, 2011 8:40 PM

---

Lucy:
1. I am not disgusted by the woman’s “hind quarters” (isn’t that a term usually associated with animals?). I’m disgusted with the use of her body to get viewers’ attention.
2. Just because some other underwear or swimwear expose more than is exposed in this photo doesn’t make it all right to use her in this manner.

Jim: “[S]ex and violence and fire” -- I'll have to address this one later. If anyone is even reading this any more.

Posted by Jamie | June 24, 2011 5:48 PM

---

//Lucy:
1. I am not disgusted by the woman’s “hind quarters” (isn’t that a term usually associated with animals?). I’m disgusted with the use of her body to get viewers’ attention.

Oh, my apologies then. I thought that your term "butt" in your use of it in a few different comments implied you had a problem with the actual part of the body being exposed which it isn't.

Why don't I feel like it is pornographic or degrading to women?
Well becuase I guess like Bob or boB said at the top of this thread 'you see what you want to see'.

I see a man embracing a woman in the midst of a chaotic situation.

Hind quarters refers to back end which is what I was referring to in the post.

Posted by lucy | June 24, 2011 6:29 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories