Since the subject of doctored photographs appearing in newspapers was the subject of a post and some heated debate, I thought I’d link to this story about a Reuter’s freelance photographer who got caught altering some photos of the recent conflict. This link shows photo in question, still I don’t really see that it was changed to convey any political message, just to make it more dramatic and salable. Nevertheless, people will assume that’s what was done. The benefit from a “better” photo is nothing compared to the loss of credibility for Reuters, whose reputation is not the best among among friends of Israel and the enemies of terrorism.
As readers may recall, I expressed an opinion that dismissed criticism of all but the most deliberately misleading alterations, but commenter Ryan Johnson actually convinced me that it should be banned. This is a strong case in favor of that position.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Here’s one for you Billy,
Then what do you say about folks who use images that while accurate, still do not tell the entire truth?
The instance that comes to mind is when the statue of Hussein was torn down in Baghdad. If you recall, all the images and video were of close ups and when looking at them, it appeard as if a huge crowd was present, but when the faraway shots and video were shown, the crowd was rather quite small.
Here, you have images and video that have not been altered, but still do not tell the truth.
What’s the big deal? They do it all the time – doctored photos, staged photos – and Reuters certainly isn’t the only one.
[...] Watching the War on the Web II: the Blogosphere’s “Propaganda Watch” The doctored pictures, (c) Reuters 2006News agency Reuters scrapped over 920 images by Lebanese photographer Adnan Hajj after bloggers alerted them to the fact that two of the pictures had been altered. The original of one is on the left, and on the right you can see someone has used a “spray paint” tool from a computer software package to add to the smoke that’s rising from Beirut buildings. It’s pretty crudely done, and it’s no surprise that Reuters saw fit to issue a statement to say that: Manipulating photographs in this way is entirely unacceptable and contrary to all the principles consistently held by Reuters throughout its long and distinguished history. It undermines not only our reputation but also the good name of all our photographers It’s an indication of the emerging power of bloggers, who are setting themselves up as monitors of the press (sites like David’s Medienkritik are working on it full-time). They have the time and the anger to channel into keeping the media under surveillance, and dissecting the information that’s put out as news. They also have the means to publish their findings immediately, and have a sympathetic, faithful readership. British blog “EU Referendum” is just one site keeping a close watch on the British press for signs of “bias” and has also been casting a sceptical eye over pictures of the Qana bombing. Little Green Footballs was one of the first to blow the whistle on Reuters. The blogosphere’s reaction to “Reutersgate”, as some bloggers dubbed the affair, has been abundant and predictably mixed. There’s little common ground between the two sides: those who believe that the media is biased against Israel, and those who hold that photo-doctoring is merely an inevitable product of the ultra-competitive field of photo journalism, where the right image can make or break a career. Rocket Jones , like many others, sees it as comeuppance for an over-powerful media: The reporters sit safely inside their “Green Zone” hotels and have paid local stringers bring them the news. They’re not covering the stories, they merely collate what is delivered to them before passing it along as fact. Yet when the public makes this argument, it’s disregarded by the media because they’re “professionals”. There have been a lot of arrogant bastards over the years working to turn journalism into a cult, and if you’re not in the cult then you cannot criticize. The sad thing is, they’ve largely succeeded. Peoria Pundit points out that the image wasn’t drastically altered: I don’t really see that it was changed to convey any political message, just to make it more dramatic and salable. Nevertheless, people will assume that’s what was done. The benefit from a ‘better’ photo is nothing compared to the loss of credibility for Reuters, whose reputation is not the best among among friends of Israel and the enemies of terrorism. Opinion may be divided but the message is clear: journalists should take care with their sources, because their every word is being pored over by a watching blogosphere, who pull no punches. [...]
[...] The recent Reuters altered photo scandal demonstrated how blogs can fact check the mainstream media. Let’s not forget that one of the things that makes a blog a blog—and gives them their ever-increasing clout—is their interactivity with readers: Looking closely at the photography, [Mike Thorson, a Janesville, Wisc., artist] saw an odd pattern in the thick, black clouds of smoke rising from the bombed area. He recognized the effect, a bit of Adobe Photoshop magic called cloning. [...]
Got this link from Drudge.
Notice anything out of place?
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/27/world/27morale2.html