Toledo Blade photog quits after altering picture

The phrase "the camera doesn't lie" carried a lot of weight for decades before PhotoShop. There was never really any such phrase about newspaper stories.

 

Worse, it's like purposely misquoting or misrepresenting someone on something that nobody would care about anyway.

"It's a great day for baseball, and I've never been happier to see the green grass on the field," he said, as opposed to "It's a great day for baseball, and I've never been happier to see the off-green grass on the field."

 

Yep. It's called "deception."

 

I'll be honest, I looked at both photos for a long time trying to find "the difference" and I actually thought the second one (the original) was the doctored one because the banners looked sharper. I never even noticed the legs until I read the correction.

 

Actually, this is a very interesting post by 21: Just asking: Is there a big difference between editing out the legs, and 'cleaning up' inarticulate quotes (removing the ummms, slang, curses)? In either case you're altering something.

He/She makes a valid point. As editors, we clean up, add and delete from stories all the time. What's the difference between excess in a photo and excess in a story? We quote subjects, deleting much of what they say to only include their point. We even correct grammer in many (not always ... see Sparky Anderson) cases so the subject doesn't sound like a complete idiot.

Not saying what the photog did was right, but here's another analogy ... why do we distain athletes for using steroids while praise others for getting a cortisone shot so they can perform? Isn't the end result the same? Both players (let's use Barry Bonds for steroids, and Curt Schilling - World Series start; cloody ankle - as the examples) used drugs to enhance their performance, but Schilling is labeled a hero while Bonds is labeled everything else under the sun.

 

That photo, in and of itself, does not appear to riuse to the level of a firing/quitting offense.

There is more to this story, I'm thinking.

 

That's the point.

Editors make those decisions after the fact. This photo was doctored before an editor ever saw it.

 

Many writers clean up quotes before an editor sees a story, don't they?

 

I tried to address that in my prior post, JD.

 

As editors, WE ARE NOT DECEIVING ANYONE. That's the difference.
We are adjusting a quote (or, writing around one) for language or decorum.

 

I don't really have a huge problem with the alter. It didn't materially change the photo or the news. We did alter a photo once at our place when a portrait shot was ruined by someone walking in the background. We just erased the guy in the background and ran the portrait shot like nothing was there.

I guess with a live shot that isn't staged, you have to be careful. My question concerns ethics:

Since we have the technology to clean up photos and get rid of arms that aren't there, why shouldn't we alter photos if it doesn't materially change it? It's the same as cropping a photo in a sense.

I think care should be taken when it is a news photo, but if it is a staged or artistic shot, I think there is some wiggle room.

Thoughts?

 

No wiggle room. None.
You're analogy is: Altering is the same as cropping? Don't you think that's a bit of a false conclusion, I hope?

Read this, it may change your view.
We are news organizations taking news photographs. We aren't the cover of Playboy.

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082

Click on the FLASH PICTURE COMPARISON.

We cannot mess with our readers' trust. And altering a photo calls in question every other photo.
It is hitting Pandora's Box with a sledgehammer.