FeedDon’t touch that photo
August 7, 2006 in Overset
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.
August 8th, 2006 at 1:05 am
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.
August 8th, 2006 at 7:52 am
What’s the big deal? They do it all the time - doctored photos, staged photos - and Reuters certainly isn’t the only one.
August 28th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Got this link from Drudge.
Notice anything out of place?
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa.....rale2.html