News- no, it's propoganda - Page 15

scaeagles · 08-07-2006, 01:50 PM

I am of the opinion that, practically speaking, no amount of retraction can undo the damage done by such things. It also makes me wonder how much more widespread journalistic (photo or or otherwise) fraud there is that we simply don't know about.

I hear (although I could not list any specific poll) that the general public has a low level of trust in the media in general. I guess it will continue to get lower and lower.

Nephythys · 08-07-2006, 03:57 PM

920 photos pulled

Ghoulish Delight · 08-07-2006, 04:03 PM

Geez, Reuter's didn't catch that obvious fake? You can see the blatant "copy/paste" pattern. I mean, if you're gonna fake it, at least don't do such a shoddy job.

JWBear · 08-07-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

920 photos pulled

Idiot! (the photog, not you Nephy.)

Nephythys · 08-08-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

Idiot! (the photog, not you Nephy.)

I know- I'm an Egyptian Demon Bitch

Gemini Cricket · 08-08-2006, 07:52 AM

I saw before and after pictures of a city shot and didn't see the point of altering them. Instead of brownish smoke there was grey/blue smoke. Weird. I like Reuters zero tolerance rule about altering photos. But it does make me wonder how often this has been done...

scaeagles · 08-08-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I like Reuters zero tolerance rule about altering photos. But it does make me wonder how often this has been done...

Some of the alterations are so incredibly obvious that there is certainly at least one editor that should be fired. There is either gross negligence, gross incompetence, or complicity involved.

Gemini Cricket · 08-08-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Some of the alterations are so incredibly obvious that there is certainly at least one editor that should be fired. There is either gross negligence, gross incompetence, or complicity involved.

Totally. I have only seen one set of two photos. A bombed cityscape...

Alex · 08-08-2006, 08:51 AM

The flares one is not obvious. In addition to the smoke he also duplicated some of the buildings which makes everything look more destroyed as well.

Yes, it the smoke cloning was horribly obvious but I don't really blame the photo editor. One, he can't go about his job with the assumption that his own people are trying to fool him and who knows how many photographs he is having to deal with in how much time.

I really don't think outright photographic manipulation is common because the photographers know that getting caught will ruin their career (and zero tolerance really is the policy, photojournalists have lost their job for simple color correction). What is probably more common is actually staging the photo.

scaeagles · 08-08-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Yes, it the smoke cloning was horribly obvious but I don't really blame the photo editor. One, he can't go about his job with the assumption that his own people are trying to fool him and who knows how many photographs he is having to deal with in how much time.

Can I ask what the job of photo editor is then? I'm not really trying to be rhetorical. Perhaps I don't understand. I would figure one of the tasks assocated with it is looking for obvious fraud such as this.

08-07-2006, 01:50 PM	#141
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I am of the opinion that, practically speaking, no amount of retraction can undo the damage done by such things. It also makes me wonder how much more widespread journalistic (photo or or otherwise) fraud there is that we simply don't know about. I hear (although I could not list any specific poll) that the general public has a low level of trust in the media in general. I guess it will continue to get lower and lower.
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 03:57 PM	#142
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	920 photos pulled
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 04:03 PM	#143
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Geez, Reuter's didn't catch that obvious fake? You can see the blatant "copy/paste" pattern. I mean, if you're gonna fake it, at least don't do such a shoddy job. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 07:52 AM	#146
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I saw before and after pictures of a city shot and didn't see the point of altering them. Instead of brownish smoke there was grey/blue smoke. Weird. I like Reuters zero tolerance rule about altering photos. But it does make me wonder how often this has been done...
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 08:51 AM	#149
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The flares one is not obvious. In addition to the smoke he also duplicated some of the buildings which makes everything look more destroyed as well. Yes, it the smoke cloning was horribly obvious but I don't really blame the photo editor. One, he can't go about his job with the assumption that his own people are trying to fool him and who knows how many photographs he is having to deal with in how much time. I really don't think outright photographic manipulation is common because the photographers know that getting caught will ruin their career (and zero tolerance really is the policy, photojournalists have lost their job for simple color correction). What is probably more common is actually staging the photo.
	Submit to Quotes