"the optics aren't what they look like"

What a great line !"The optics aren't what they look like. " 

 Every thinking photographer  knows that all the talk of  photography being a "pencil of Nature" that shows reality objectively-  through  an 'objectif' - the lens, was and is a lie.

 There is a lot to object to  in  objective 'opticis'.

See . And Think. Hard. Look deeper into the manipulation of looking, seeing and believing. . the idea of perception and its management.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia


But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?pagewanted=all

How did optics achieve buzzword status in American politics? In his final On Language column last September, William Safire noted the trend: “ ‘Optics’ is hot, rivaling content.” When politicians fret about the public perception of a decision more than the substance of the decision itself, we’re living in a world of optics. Of course, elected officials have worried about outward appearances since time immemorial, but optics puts a new spin on things, giving a scientific-sounding gloss to P.R. and image-making.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=1