• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Photog Phired

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
My take:

1. Not just that, Reuters removed his whole library of pictures, many used already by newspapers all over the world and didn't provide a list of which pictures have been altered.

2. The Editors who used these pictures should be fired too since if they can't see obvious banal amateur PS cloning they shouldn't sit at that desk, period!

3. Even some pictures were used at least twice with different dates to describe different scenes.

4. Certain pictures need to be rechecked for possibly beeing staged. One claims to show the Holy Koran being burned.

Some of these issues are reported here.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Obviously, news photographers cannot do this, worse Reuters is either incompetent, complicit, or so politically accepting of one side that they have lost ability to vet valid from invalid reporting.

Asher
 
Last edited:

Gary Ayala

New member
Asher Kelman said:
My take:
Obviously, news photographers cannot do this, worse Reuters is either incompetent, complicit, or so politically accepting of one side that they have lost ability to vet valid from invalid reporting.

Asher

All news agencies must have complete trust in their employees. Typically, one starts at the lowest level working for a small media outlet in a small market ... then works their way up to major market media and wire services. This has a self-policing effect of weeding out the bad apples ... but some get through and some good apples change over time.

I can see many international media organizations circumventing the usual hiring practices due to 1) convenience; 2) what is typical in the west just doesn't exist in other places; 3) political correctness and sensitivity to the region.

Having been a press photog ... gotta tell you that heads are rolling and everything is upside down at Reuters looking for more/any problems. Right off the top ... No more Freelance photos or possibly RAW Only photos (another point for RAW ... I am surprised that this wasn't the case already). Even then it is hard to separate real from staged photos ... so probably staff photos only.

Not only is this happening at Reuters, but I guarantee that "Reuters" was the first topic of discussion at all the other media firms in the Middle East with a renewed look at all that can be done to assure accuracy.

This isn't just a Middle East problem ... happens at the NY Times, Washington Post, et cetera with US reporters on US soil.

Gary
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
When I was working on my Ph.D., I needed to prove that a peak I was observing was real, but the numbers were small. I kept on repeating the experiments, each of which consumed a aweful lot of time with all nighters and money I didn't have.

A close friend suggested that since what I had, I knew, made the point, what was wrong with elevating the highest peak by just 100% to make it stand out, not altering the true interpretation which I was convinced of anyway?

It was difficult to convince that well-wisher, that doing so would negate my work and not allow me to be certain in the end of anything. Worse, it could well be that the data, I had, implied a more important finding, as yet, undiscovered.

Every shadow, shape and figure in a news photograph must be maintained and not duplicated or altered so as to magnify its importance. Otherwise that work represents, at a minimum fantasy.

The news editors cannot defend themselves when they accept PS trash that is even obvious to a beginner.

Asher

for spelling
 
Last edited:

Tom Yi

New member
I like the RAW idea as it would be less prone to manipulation, if possible at all.
Maybe they can make a smaller RAW version for PJ work so that there is a level of verification of authenticity of the image.
 

Sid Jervis

pro member
If I was a Nikon or Canon sales rep' I would be on Reuters doorstep shouting about the data verification / image authentication kits available. Pity that they don't run on Apple OSX yet (not when I last looked anyway).
 

Harvey Moore

New member
This link is a video that covers some of the PJ distortions going on today.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/med...in_Lebanon.asp



My faith in the media is at an all time low.

A couple of Mark Twain quotes are appropriate to my feelings:

“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”

"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on..."
 

Harvey Moore

New member
Thanks for the link Sid. Some are obvious tongue in cheek, some are serious.
Even classics are not immune, I think the Iwo Jima flag raising photo normally shown was a re-enactment.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
What is really outragious are the many staged photographs by all the news services and major TV networks including people posing as victims, placing props such as a pristine manequin in a wedding dress, Mickey mouse, Minnie Mouse, bears etc placed effectively in an explosion field overlayed with, rubble, debris and ubiquetous dust

The idea is to dramatize the human tragedy, not record it. The reporters in fact work with the locals to create a scene.

The fact that news editors and anchors use this garbage, attests to

A. Complicity by increasing the pressure for fresh impactful news

B. Irresponsibility in ignoring the obvious.

C. Becoming advocates more than reporters

D. Creating rather than colllecting news

Asher
 

Tom Yi

New member
Harvey Moore said:
Thanks for the link Sid. Some are obvious tongue in cheek, some are serious.
Even classics are not immune, I think the Iwo Jima flag raising photo normally shown was a re-enactment.
I've heard that too.
I think earlier in time, staging shots were more common than now.
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Harvey Moore said:
Thanks for the link Sid. Some are obvious tongue in cheek, some are serious.
Even classics are not immune, I think the Iwo Jima flag raising photo normally shown was a re-enactment.

It was not a re-enactment. There were two flag raisings at Iwo Jima. The first flag was small and couldn't be seen by the Marines down below. So another partol climbed Mt. Suribachi and raised the flag which was captured on film by Joe Rosenthal of AP. I've met Joe Rosethal and my father (former Marine Guadacanal) has an original, signed photograph, one of his most cherished trophies. The flag raising did not signal victory ... but was raised to help rally the morale of the Marines who were in the toughest fight in the history of the Marine Corp. Although the top of Suribachi was somewhat secure, I believe the flag raisers were still under fire when they climbed up and down from the summit. There are others shots that Joe took from the event and a film clip from the first flag raising, but nothing from that day compared in drama or moves the national spirit as the most famous photo of WWII.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
It's hard to remember what war really was then.

Each island cost 10-30,000 young men on each side!

In the end, flame throwers fired the last guys out!

That flag picture was pretty well paid for!

Asher
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Asher Kelman said:
What is really outragious are the many staged photographs by all the news services and major TV networks including people posing as victims, placing props such as a pristine manequin in a wedding dress, Mickey mouse, Minnie Mouse, bears etc placed effectively in an explosion field overlayed with, rubble, debris and ubiquetous dust

The idea is to dramatize the human tragedy, not record it. The reporters in fact work with the locals to create a scene.

The fact that news editors and anchors use this garbage, attests to

A. Complicity by increasing the pressure for fresh impactful news

B. Irresponsibility in ignoring the obvious.

C. Becoming advocates more than reporters

D. Creating rather than colllecting news

Asher

Quote from Thomas Jefferson "I'd rather live in a country with a free press and no government, than in one with a government but no press." Jefferson also stated that "...in the marketplace of free ideas, the truth shall prevail."

Firstly- Asher, I am insulted at such generalizations by a man as learned as yourself.
Secondly- Yes, there are gross misconduct in the press, but this is the action of a few bad apples, and your characterization should reflect that it is only a small minority and not a blanket statement condemning all members of the press.
Thirdly- I cannot think of another group of professionals that will collectively "Volunteer" in mass to travel across the world and "seek out" and experience/live the horrors of war, famine, pestillance, disease, the rotten deal, in order to fulfill their job and obligation as journalists. (And the pay sucks.)
Fourthly- Your blanket statements clearly show that you real haven't a clue how the press press operates. You are an outsider looking through a tiny little window into a world you have limited knowledge and experience.

And why are we so affronted by printed lies??? Because we are accustomed and expect our news to be unbiased and truthful. (If we lived in China none of us would be appalled by fabricated news ... so to me, your reaction is healthy, as it indicates that what is usual and customary is quite the contary to what you are reacting to.)

Gary
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Tom Yi said:
I feel that perhaps we are getting a bit fiesty here.
May I ask for a more cordial approach?

Just tired of people taking "free" pot-shots at the press. Sorta like the Vietnam Vets after getting their butts shot off in some jungle hell, then coming home to people spitting on them. Just isn't right ... similar to condemning all for the actions of a few ... once again ... just isn't right.

Gary
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Gary Ayala said:
Quote from Thomas Jefferson "I'd rather live in a country with a free press and no government, than in one with a government but no press." Jefferson also stated that "...in the marketplace of free ideas, the truth shall prevail."

Firstly- Asher, I am insulted at such generalizations by a man as learned as yourself.

These were not generalizations. They refer to specific acts enumerated. There are enough of them that it has become an issue. Each is an individual act, but these acts were not outed by the organization, but by press-watchers/watchdogs.

I too would be horrified at anyone making blanker condemnations against the press.

Reread what I wrote in the context of this thread which refers to specific problems which I also directed attention to.



Secondly- Yes, there are gross misconduct in the press, but this is the action of a few bad apples, and your characterization should reflect that it is only a small minority and not a blanket statement condemning all members of the press.

When a baby was found with the laundry in a California hospital, it didn't matter that tens of thousands of patients didn't end up that way. Pointing out this horror was no blanket condemnation of the great physicians and nurses that work through the night to help all who come through the door.

However, it is a condemnation of the quality assurance dictated by the hospital mangement.

My criticism was directed to the editors and management who put up with false photography.

Thirdly- I cannot think of another group of professionals that will collectively "Volunteer" in mass to travel across the world and "seek out" and experience/live the horrors of war, famine, pestillance, disease, the rotten deal, in order to fulfill their job and obligation as journalists. (And the pay sucks.)

You cant? How about NGOs, Doctors, nurses, engineers and the young kids, men and women aged 16 to 25, the young fighters?

Fourthly- Your blanket statements clearly show that you real haven't a clue how the press press operates. You are an outsider looking through a tiny little window into a world you have limited knowledge and experience.

I can understand you might say that, but "haven't a clue", surely not!

And why are we so affronted by printed lies??? Because we are accustomed and expect our news to be unbiased and truthful.

I'm affronted because there is a consequence. Since we make decision based on news, the truth is helpful.

I am of course grateful for all the brave newsmen. The management debases them by using work they know they should and could easily recognize and weed out but they choose not to.

Nowhere, nowhere, did I make any criticism that puts down news reporters and photographers.

(If we lived in China none of us would be appalled by fabricated news ... so to me, your reaction is healthy, as it indicates that what is usual and customary is quite the contary to what you are reacting to.)

Gary

So, perhaps you might rethink the criticism you have levelled against my attitude to the specific events I wrote about!

Altering and staging photographs does require condemnation! Such condemnation is needed each time, so that it can be exposed and new generations of photographers know why it is so wrong.

Of course one can put into pictures that which we believe better represents our understanding of "the" truth. The broken walls, rocks and debris may be dull and have no emotional visual value.

O.K., we can thrown in a childs toy and get a man to lie in the rubble, or a woman to moan, to get a better expression of true horror.

However, the line is between could and should,

That line is ethics
.

Defending that line can't be pushed aside as a blast against the news photographers in general or dismissed as coming from someone who "doesnt have a clue".

With unqualified respect to, (and appreciation of), of all those many news reporters and photographers who faithfully do their job, even in terrible conditions,

I stand by my specific criticisms posted earleir,

Asher
 
Last edited:

Mike Funnell

New member
I've been browsing this forum, from time to time, but this topic and what I see as some overly hard-line attitudes in this thread, have convinced me to de-lurk, at least for a moment.

I'll start by saying that I too believe the shots submitted by the photographer who triggered this discussion went outside the acceptable bounds of photojournalism, and fortunately did so ineptly enough to be easily detected.

But reactions suggesting "no digital alteration of any kind" as the standard to adhere to seem over-the-top to me. I've always taken something close to a view combining one or more of the following:
  • Alterations should not generally go beyond those routinely made in the days of the wet darkroom
  • Alterations should not add or remove picture elements of any importance to the original scene
  • Alterations should not change the overall meaning of the scene presented
That would allow for a number of practices that seem unobjectionable to me. Cropping and re-sizing, for example, would fit easily within such guidelines. The same would apply to many changes to things such as overall brightness, contrast, saturation etc. and to adjustments designed to achieve results similar to darkroom dodging and burning techniques, the application of USM and the like.

I also think that different genres of photography could fit within such guidlines quite nicely. For example, in photography-as-art pretty much anything goes: plenty of outre techniques have been used in the past, and the scene to be presented exists only in the artists mind. In fashion photography, digital "airbrushing" is no different from the physical kind that seems pretty traditional there.

In the case of photojournalism, some darkroom practices of the past have been deemed acceptable, and others not. And I, for one, would be loath to insist on considerably greater restrictions on the digital darkroom than were ever imposed on the wet one (not that I have any great experience of wet darkrooms).

To my mind, that way lies absurdity. For example, if shooting in JPEG I can boost, say, sharpening by setting an in-camera parameter? Or I can set minimal (or in some cases no) in-camera sharpening and apply that in post-processing? It will be done better there (the computers on our desks having considerably more capability in some areas than those in our cameras). What makes the in-camera version "good" and the post-processing version "unacceptable"? Wouldn't such an insistence simply encourage manufacturers to build various (perhaps counter-productive) forms of in-camera processing, to end-run such "rules"?

If I shoot in RAW, what alterations am I allowed in RAW conversion? In the days of film, I could, say, "push" processing by a stop during development. Is that allowed in RAW conversion? Or am I limited to the defaults of my RAW converter? (That would make those defaults rather more important than they ought to be.) What about doing the equivalent by various adjustments to a JPEG?

An insistence on "no alteration of any kind" would, if pushed to the limits of absurdity, prohibit RAW conversion entirely and insist on an MD5-checksum verified in-Camera JPEG (or TIFF, or whatever) as the only valid photograph. Taking that analogy even further, it would be like insisting that film (aside from Polaroid) never be developed (for fear of chemical alteration in the darkroom).

I think that trusting your photographers, while insisting on strict but sensible rules and enforcing them is a much more productive approach. If some form of "trust, but verify" needs to be applied, provision of unaltered originals (perhaps using add-on "authentication kits") in addition to the "final" version of a shot might be justified if the problem were truly widespread. (I'm not at all sure it is, though such policies might be differentially applied to, say, staff photographers vs non-staff vs man-on-the-street sources.)

What I do think needs to be countered is the popular perception that any digital alteration of any kind is illigitimate and done with the intention to deceive. That is not so, but if the perception is allowed to take hold it may deny many of the highly useful aspects of digital photography to many of its legitimate applications.

...Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike,

Thanks for wading in!

Yes you're brave! ASAIK, there is no debate about doing anything that makes an image appear as the eye would see it. So getting white and black points, color corrections, curves and sharpening were all fine.

However, there is no such thing as ANY addition of any element or removal of anything from an image, except perhaps a dust spot.

Why, because the image is like a document that can be used to testify to the public as to what was observable that time, that place where the reporter was present.

The reporter, like any professional, asserts that he/she has undertaken their job with ethics (and not done what they have the power to do according to their fancy).

With news photography, we, the public, hold it in the highest regard. It is a balance for many wrong doings. It is testimony which together with the word of the reputable reporter cannot be readily refuted.

The photographer can only use the camera for sampling the scene, and not to record his staged drama. (Unless it is actually a school play, a parade or the local cheerleaders rally!)

A flower to a lady at a funeral, a minor item, might transgress the separation between the observor and the observed. When that is what the person does to get his shots, what is to be expected in a war, when one has no interesting picture today, it is hot, there are calls from the bureau and you want something.

That is where everything should come together to cause a halt.

To my mind at least, creeping over the line with trivia allows the mind to see that line as a relatively movable distinction in how things should be done.

The bottom line is, reporters are just that, reporters, not artistic creators for one side or another!

Asher
 

Mike Funnell

New member
Asher Kelman said:
Mike,ASAIK, there is no debate about doing anything that makes an image appear as the eye would see it. So getting white and black points, color corrections, curves and sharpening were all fine.
I think we mostly are in agreement here, but one point I did want to make, but may not have made clearly enough, is that while as photographers we may not be debating such alterations, there is a distinct danger that by not clearly delineating the difference between acceptable and unacceptable alterations we risk reinforcing a public or popular perception that any post-camera digital alterations of any kind (including those above) are not legitimate.

I don't want to play post-modernist logic-chopping games about where lines are drawn. And I think that rigid-rule sets encourage that, as well as futile if legitimate-sounding "clone-stamping is wrong. / but what about dust? / how about the spot on the window?" arguments. I think that "strict guidelines" (rather than rules), with judgement exercised and disclosure where deemed necessary (eg. "The photographer has edited this photo to remove the effects of dust spots on his digital sensor") are more appropriate. This conveys the impression that digital post-processing is legitimate, but carefully exercised and supervised to guard against misuse.

That type of approach seemed to work for film photography, and I don't see that digital should be treated any differently. Sure, digital processing can make illegitimate manipulation easier - but that need not matter. In the days of film, people knew that photos could be faked. A moment's thought would have told them that an organisation like, say, Time/Life would have more capability to fake photos than most. But they were also (correctly) considered among the least likely to do any such thing. That may mean more scrutiny of photos from unaffiliated sources (as individuals now have more capacity to do a really fine job of alteration), but I'd say that's about all it need mean.

As to the documentary qualities of photography and reportage, well, all I can say is that a legalistic rules-and-regulations approach can be readily manipulated (else there would be fewer lawyers). An approach that encourages, supports, reinforces and enforces the integrity of all players on a reputational basis strikes me as much more likely to succeed.

A thought-experiment:

A photographer (with purple sympathies) is covering the purple vs pink war. His photo shows a purple baby who has just been shot, while deliberately leaving the purple soldier who accidently shot him out-of-frame. The rules-and-regs approach says "the picture wasn't altered, ergo it's legitimate". The ingegrity and reputation approach says "intended to mislead: cast the photographer into the outer darkness".

I guess my final point is that technical rules and regulations allow for easy detection and finger pointing by partisan players - "the EXIF data says 'Photoshop'!" - but the reputational response should be relatively straightforward: "of course she used Photoshop (doesn't everyone?) but we stand by her assertion that no deception was intended or committed" (and cast her into darkness if she proves undeserving). This assumes they have good reason for giving the photographer their trust, and have double-checked when questions were raised (and shame on them, public shame, if they haven't done both).

...Mike
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
Curiously I started a thread from the exact same point over at photo-i with some examples.

Here a harsh line, 'no manipulation' [untenable with digital, BTW], prevails while over there my (carefully chosen) examples lead to a 'who cares as long as it isn't news' attitude.
 

Gary Ayala

New member
"What I do think needs to be countered is the popular perception that any digital alteration of any kind is illigitimate and done with the intention to deceive. That is not so, but if the perception is allowed to take hold it may deny many of the highly useful aspects of digital photography to many of its legitimate applications.

...Mike"

In the realm of photo journalism and doumentary photography, I agree with your concluding statement. Our, (US), court system, back in the film-only days, one could only burn and dodge a photograph. Any manipulation beyond those simple darkroom techniques and the photo was deemed inadmissible.

In non-documentary photography ... there is a blurry line between photographer and graphic artist. That line set by each person individually, according to individual tastes, customs and mental preception of oneself. For moi, I prefer to think of myself as a photographer, so I keep my manipulation to the actions of a wet darkroom, burning, dodging, cropping, contrast/color and cloning (dust removal). I am not saying that if one goes beyond simple wet darkroom tools that one becomes a graphic artist ... but those are my rules set for my perception of who I am, your mileage my vary. (Additionally, keeping it simple allows me to rationalize my rudimentary understanding and implementation of Photo Shop. As I progress in Photo Shop my simple list may expand from burning ... cloning, and HDR ... and LAB ... et cetera. lol)

Back to your quote ... if news agencies only used/accepted RAW, then a web site of RAW images could be used to validate the processed image. So ... say AP posts an image one could click into AP's validation site and see (even download) the unmanipulated image. Unfortunately, due to the extreme competition between news agencies and the multiple per day deadlines, JPEG is the normal in-camera format.
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Asher-

My response to your response:

I reread your post from which I quoted ... to me it still seems blanket-ish, whereas yes, you cited specific acts, but you still used a wide brush when painting the picture. But if your intent was not broad then ... okay ... sorry for my wrongful interpretation.

"My criticism was directed to the editors and management who put up with false photography."

And I agree with you. The Reuters' editor should be fired (period). If a free lancer walked in and handed Reuters a printed story of an Israeli war crime... would it be printed verbatim without verification ... I hope not. Same rules should apply to photographs. Not being in the Reuter's office, not knowing how the photo in question was published ... it is hard to make constructive criticisms. But even lacking this knowledge, the editor abdicated the fundemental rule of his profession ... "Accuracy". Accuracy is more important than deadlines and budgets and for that transaction the editor should be fired.

"You cant? How about NGOs, Doctors, nurses, engineers and the young kids, men and women aged 16 to 25, the young fighters? "

Qualification- I am a former journalist and I have covered wars on four continents and have seen first hand those that you have spoken. Yes, NGO's are in the horrible places of the world, but not in the numbers as journalists. Doctors and nurses do not volunteer "in mass". I have yet to encounter a group of doctors and nurses from ... say ... Kaiser working in a war zone. Although I have run into the occassional medical professional who individually gives of themselves to the needs of others and religious organizations will sponsor a team(s) of medical professionals, but once again not in the percentages of news agencies.

I am guessing, but I'd say 100% of all major print and electronic news organizations in the US, have teams of professionals in the Middle East. Needless to say, this is not true of the groups you mentioned. In the majority of countries in this world journalism is rated as one of the most dangerous professions one can enter.

"I can understand you might say that, but "haven't a clue", surely not!"

Okay ... now I am caught making a blanket/assuming statements. I am just so tired of people attacking the press for being biased ... when in truth, they are attacking the press because it isn't reporting the world as they preceive the world.

"I am of course grateful for all the brave newsmen. The management debases them by using work they know they should and could easily recognize and weed out but they choose not to."
It isn't black and white ... although in this particular case it seems so. For example: The most fundimental need of a journalist is access. Without access to information, to stories, to photo opps the journalist is just wasting their time and the company's money (investigative reporting is very expensive with minimal return). In war zones, journalists from the US are dependant upon the government for this access. If a reporter writes a story which the government deems negative ... then access is cut off and the reporter and the reporter's organization is blackballed. So a journalist/editor has to walk this thin line between doing his job as he's is trained and reporting the government's line which at a minimum has a pro-government spin (which is expected) and sometimes is completely false. Likewise a reporter develops local access to information, which like the government will have a different agenda than unbiased reporting. An indigenous source is harder to verify and has a different set of values from you and the government personnal. The whole time you are nervously tapping your foot because you don't know if another news agency has the same story and you may be "scooped" ... and if you get scooped the boys and girls at the home office (REFMs) will dump all over you because they are keeping score on who breaks what.

"Altering and staging photographs does require condemnation! Such condemnation is needed each time, so that it can be exposed and new generations of photographers know why it is so wrong."

No arguement there. If I could, I would personally fired those that allow false reporting to appear electronically and in print.

Reporting accurately in a war zone is a very tough business. Mentally, emotionally and physically one is in a pressure cooker of an environment. I never "attacked" your statements regarding "ethics", I attacked what I preceived as a blanket statements comdemning all journalists. As I see it now, you were condemning all journalists that allow/report false stories. Once again, no arguement here on that point. It is human nature to succeed ... and in journalism it is easy to "fudge" (a US term alluding to a slight infraction of the rules, in this case ethics).

So, Asher, if you were working for AP and photographed a baby doll lying on rubble ... interesting shot ... you turn around and there is smoke ... black as tar smoke billowing into the heavens with a fire raging from a broken gas line ... but at this angle the doll is hidden by debris ... do you nudge the doll ... fudging a foot or two for the definative image? Do you point out the doll to a passerby hoping they will pick it up and set it down in a different spot? Your deadline is coming up fast ... your editor is yelling at your because the New York Times out-scooped twice already this week, you haven't bathed in three days because the plumbing at the hotel was hit by friendly fire, the smoke is causing your asthma to act up, you average three hours of sleep a night because of rockets driving you and the other hotel patrons into the basement where the toilets have been backing up, the MRE's taste like chalk, you have slight diarrhea from the water or the stress or both, a week ago the reporter in the room down the hall was kidnapped - now everyday when you lock the door you get this terrible fear of Shi-ite home cooking, a quick look revealed that your indigenous escort has disappeared and now there are sounds of a large group coming your way from around the corner ...

Although I asked you ... I'll provide an answer ... until you are there ... until you are in the same shoes of the photog ... you really don't know. Similar to the first time you are caught under fire. You really don't know how you will react ... you know how you wish to react, in your head on route to the fighting you visualize over and over and over, how you will act under different firefight scenarios ... but you never know until the time comes.

Gary
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
News photographers from around the world risk their lives trying to record the truth and bring it back to the rest of us. Kidnappings and decapitation has not stopped other reporters from persisting in covering news in hostile areas.

It is however, the responsibility of the news orgainizations to examine, vet and scrutinize all news stories and photographs. They have the means and skill to recognize many of the reported manipulations. All discovered frauds should be publicised fully as retractions.

Further, where the scenes are managrd and staged, all the news organizations, in concert, should leave together.

The news orgainizations close ranks when press freedoms are threatened or one of their reporters are kidnapped by thugs. So why cop out here?

Asher
 
Asher Kelman said:
Further, where the scenes are managrd and staged, all the news organizations, in concert, should leave together.

The news orgainizations close ranks when press freedoms are threatened or one of their reporters are kidnapped by thugs. So why cop out here?

Asher

This is where I think the news agencies fell down badly in Lebanon. The news from Lebanon was managed, staged, coordinated, and a "must-have" for the highly competitive news agencies and networks. I can't imagine them walking away together. But I do think they could have made the staging and management part of the story, and not left it to a few blogs. Do I overestimate their audience?

scott
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
Any news paper/agency that admits or is shown to having any agenda should be definition be ignored. Here in the UK that would include every single newspaper and especially the BBC.

The reporting from Lebanon was a farce in general, the reporters were taken by Hezbollah each morning to specially chosen sites where they were given the photo ops and the latest propaganda. The reporter on BBC boasted of it at the time and the footage showed the group being herded around by Hezbollah press officers from site to site. The misreporting of casualties which was affecting international opinion through the UN was scary to say the least. Within an hour of the rockets which hit that building and killed '56', world leaders were jumping in with horrified condemnations. A few days later it was shown that the number was greatly exaggarated and the deaths exaspirated by the rockets stored in the basement, and this was by independant agencies on the ground!

In general world opinion and that of its leaders is directly influenced and driven by the media. Democracy means listening to the people and the media tells the people what to think. The media is proud of that. I'm extremely frightened when this kind of things come to light. Whatever your take on the war and I'm no Israeli apologist, that statesmen are driven by world opinion which is skewed by misreporting, sensationalist reporting and sheer twisting of the facts to fit specific agenda.....

The head of the Nazi propoganda machine was executed by the Nuremburg trials as the free world was of the opinion that there was a direct correlation between the Nazi propaganda machine and the holocaust of Jews and others, as well as the concept of 'unter menschen' which drove the horrific massacres across Russia and elsewhere. Media frenzy was responsible for a number of excecutions across the Iraq saga and maybe those at the top deciding on their agendas would do well to realise that they are holding real lives in their hands.

I'm all for the media to report on the truth but to skew it or misreport it to satisfy an agenda is evil. Let's be honest, who are the most powerful people on this planet today? The people who are controlling the minds of the masses? I promise you it isn't the governments of the West. It is the heads of the media and they should reflect on the responsibility of their postions.

Cartier Bresson complained about the ability to misuse photos by editors back in an essay written in the thirties. This is far more the case nowadays and I'm sure that many news photographers are being taken advantage of by the cherry picking of their photos to fit a story decided by an editor.
 
Ben Rubinstein said:
The reporting from Lebanon was a farce in general, the reporters were taken by Hezbollah each morning to specially chosen sites where they were given the photo ops and the latest propaganda. The reporter on BBC boasted of it at the time and the footage showed the group being herded around by Hezbollah press officers from site to site.

What I find strange is that the journalists in the middle of this so seldom react to the manipulations. I was just looking at the last two months of the Digital Journalist ( www.digitaljournalist.com which is all up in arms about bloggers falsely accusing Tyler Hicks of the New York Times of faking a picture. Read a little further, and it turns out that Hicks photographed a "helper" who had been taking him around the devastated buildings in Beirut, as the helper slipped and hurt himself in the midst of the debris. The picture ran with a caption that suggested, incorrectly, that the person had been trapped in the wreckage since the bombing. In defense of Hicks, the DigitalJournalist editorial emphasized that the caption was created by editors who never talked to Hicks. But why was the picture even submitted, and why did the Times never retract it or at least correct its caption?

I think that the root of such defensiveness, often reaching self-righteousness, is the sustaining belief that photographers who expose themselves to such risks are doing so because they hope to end the horrors of war by bringing its costs home to all of us. This is one effect, but allowing all the manipulation to go unchallenged undercuts its validity and trivializes what should be a very important message.

scott
 
Top