Forest Gump at the Terry Jones Press Conference

I think if Forest Gump made his way into the mayhem that was the Terry Jones' Qur'an burning it would offer some simplistic insight into how ridiculous the events that surrounded the week before Sept. 11, 2010 really were.

Terry Jones met with a number of religious leaders and had his fare share of fights with news reporters over the week of international coverage. If Forest Gump was able to meet with Terry Jones and explain some of this mother's logic to him, it would be interesting to see the reaction from the crazy pastor.

The media had interviewed hundreds of different people from all over the world before Sept. 11, 2010 to get their insight into the Qur'an burning. If Forest Gump was interviewed, I would have changed the events by having him influence the decisions of other extremists into calming down their actions. In the movie, he tends to use his over simplification as a solution to many problems, and he also creates many ideas such as the "Shit Happens" slogan and the smiley-face T shirt.

Terry Jones obviously thought he was right and did not want to listen to any other solution to his mission. If Forest Gump were to meet with him and hold a press conference, I think it would prove to be a comedic and simple outcome. If the movie taught any lesson it was that some of the worlds major issues, such as racism and segregation, are non-existant in the minds of people like Forest Gump who were raised to respect everyone.

There have been many complex events to happen around the world since the release of Forest Gump and the timeframe the movie has been based upon. It shows there are some incredibly simple solutions to the world's problems which a character like Forest Gump would solve.

Forest's reactions would be of disgust, and it would be shocking to him. I think if it were a part of the movie there would definitely be a flashback to some of the values his mother taught him.

Icon of Journalism

The New York Times logo is the iconic image of the journalism industry. It is internationally recognized and symbolized as "great journalism." Once you have been published in the times, you have made it as a journalist. The word "times" stands as a metonym for the publication and a status symbol in the industry.
For example:
Someone might say, "He works for the Times." Meaning, he works for The New York Times, not meaning a date or time. It surpasses other publications with the word "Times" in their nameplate.
The nameplate style has not changed since its original publication in 1851. Though the name from "New-York Daily Times," to "New-York Times," to the current "The New York Times" has changed, the font and style created has stayed consistent for over 150 years. Forever symbolizing great journalism with the recognizable logo.
Other industries may have a generic logo, such as "RX" for Pharmacy, but journalism is one of the few industries where a flagship corporation leads the standard for excellence in its respective field.

"The New York Times" nameplate was first used in December of 1896, and has stayed consistent since. 

Additional letters have been added to font since the introduction of the NYT Magazine and The International Herald Tribune, but the style stays the same.
The font has also been adapted to a single "T," for copyright purposes and for logo. This recognizable "T" proves that the font has been so ingrained into our minds that only a fraction of the title can be shown, and the public will immediately recognize the reference.

The "T" logo has been used for The New York Times Magazine since 2004.

It takes millions of views and hundreds of years for a symbol like the "T" of "The New York Times" to be as recognized as it is today, but it also shows how impressionable the public is toward design and advertising. The tropes that are associated with logos, designs and advertising are not always easily recognizable, but they are after inferred without us even knowing it.

If you pick up a publication with the nameplate of The New York Times you expect to get a quality product. This is also why many other news organizations have tried to mimic The New York Times' nameplate.

The Washington Post was founded in 1877 and has a similar nameplate as The New York Times.

This "old english" font has become recognizable as a newspaper heading since before The New York Times was a great newspaper. It is only in the recent decades that The New York Times has stood as the pillar of great journalism and recognized by the "T" logo.

An Indiviudal Responsibility

I feel that in today's society, the way we perceive images has changed due to overexposure of what used to be taboo topics. The judgement of an individual has been tainted by a lack of responsibility on their part when searching for such images.
Susan Sontag states in her book In Regarding the Pain of Others, “Transforming is what art does, but photography that bears witness to the calamitous and the reprehensible is much criticized if it seems ‘aesthetic;’ that is, too much like art” (76). She also goes on to day that war photography is "beautiful."
I agree with Sontag's statements on how culture chooses to judge photographs, but I also think it is the overexposure due to unlimited access via the Internet that has caused much of this chaotic storm over photos of dead soldiers or grouse scenes of war. War photographs are unique in the fact that they tell a story that few may ever experience and no two are alike. These should be preserved, not transformed into grouse examples for political gain. When these pictures show up outside of the privacy of our laptops there is an immediate reaction by others for viewing them. I think the "art" in war photography has been lost. It is an art form to take a great war photograph, just like it involves great skill and determination to make a great painting. This can be seen in Clint Eastwood's 2006 film Letters from Iwo Jima.
In Eastwood's film, the main characters are just that - characters. Similar to fictitious person in a painting, his work of art is the story. While it was based on real letters and factual knowledge of the battle on Iwo Jima - by personifying these people in character in a movie is creating art. Just like creating a good photograph in wartime. It is the response of the public which ultimately judges the images Eastwood has created. Decades ago, Eastwood's movie might have no even been showed because of its graphic nature. Because the public has been overexposed to the horrific images of war, they are not as likely to last out against a film like this one.
I feel like no image should ever be censored, but I also believe that the general population has a moral responsibility to judge for themselves what is good and bad in a war photograph. It is not up to Eastwood to censor his work, just as it is not up to the news organization to dictate what images should be seen. The overexposure is a problem with the individual not the public as a whole. An individual should educate themselves on a topic like Iwo Jima before believing or judging any photograph they see. It is also important for captions to carefully explain exactly what is going on to prevent any false judgements.