Thread by @DrRJKavanagh

This is an absolutely appalling denigration of the victims of the Khmer Rouge genocide.

https://twitter.com/vinkjohn/status/1380876964467249156

It appears the journalist who wrote the @vice story didn't even look at the original S21 photos to understand the photographer, Matt Loughrey, had not just colourised them but also changed them to make the victims appear to be smiling. vice.com/en/article/y3d…

Even more mind-blowing, when he is asked a question about the fact that some victims are smiling (again the interviewer has apparently not compared the original photographs) Loughrey says this:

Journalist's name is Eliza McPhail from Queensland, Australia. Can't find anyone matching that name and location on here.

PS Tbh, and I am not sure what other people's thoughts are on this, I find the sites that animate old photos of historical figures like Frederick Douglass problematic for similar reasons.

Of course, I am sure they smiled in real life, but if they chose to be remembered a certain way, or even if it is because photography wasn't widely available, who are we to decide to make them smile, because it makes them look more "real" or shows a "different side" to them?

I know people do it with family members' photos. That may be different, but with historical figures it seems problematic, but I guess if these images are in the public domain there aren't any legal issues.

So the same photographer did the same thing with old australian mug shots and was interviewed by the same journalist for @vice two weeks ago . did she look at the original photos?

https://twitter.com/prostgrad/status/1380979287231229967?s=20