Newspaper Edits Politicians Out Of Bill Signing Photograph; Doesn't Get Why People Think That's Bad
from the it's-news... dept
Romenesko points us to a story of a West Virginia newspaper that photoshopped three politicians out of a bill signing photo that ran with a story about the bill. Here's both the original image and the one that ran:
[The] reason the delegates were removed was due to the newspaper's policy not to publish pictures of candidates running for re-election during the political season....This is a newspaper that won't run photos of candidates running for election? It makes you wonder how they report on those elections. With illustrations? And then to claim that it's okay to edit a photograph by then calling it a "photo illustration" rather than a photo that's been edited seems a bit questionable no matter where you stand on the question of journalistic ethics.
In the newspaper, the photo caption includes the term "photo illustration" to indicate the photo had been changed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ethics, newspapers, photographs, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... brought to you by someone who is always harping on others about perceived deceptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's like you're not even trying anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that said, it's an encyclopedia. quick reference and a pointer to where to look for detailed information. not supposed to be the be all and end all of your quest for knowledge if it's for anything important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We wanted to illustrate how easy it is to fake reality. It's for journalistic purposes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
just fyi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah - I did.
After this, can they still call themselves a news paper?
If they were so concerned, then why even publish the photo at all? There are plenty of news stories published without an accompanying photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
incumbent politicians often use the run up time to elections to spread their faces all over the media by having pointless signing events...
Yes, they do. And if it is not newsworthy, then it should not be reported. Since the paper deemed it newsworthy, part of its newsworthiness is who is in attendance, which could have an impact on how a voter may cast a ballot.
Photoshopping out the person could be advantageous to an opposing candidate who is too lazy to do public events. It also reports an alternate reality.
That said, cropping out people has been a time-honored media tradition. That has its own set of ethical dilemmas. That is why PR flacks always tell you to stand in the middle of a posed picture, to minimize the chance of being lopped off the end.
Methinks there would be different treatment of the photo if the candidate purchased ad space in their birdcage liner--er, newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time Travel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
glue time for you
PErhaps a bad cop will edit out a criminals picture you think this too is ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about some of that full-disclosure goodness and a more explicit caption because I sure misunderstood it.
"Photo of blah... present but not pictured blah, blah" or
"Photo of Blah (Removed Images: Blah Blah and Blah)
If they want to photoshop - fine - but the same rules as for editorially edited (what a mouthfull) articles ot text.
Even a simple "[snip]" tag would do :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And no, a vague euphemism with any unknown meaning explains nothing. Can anyone here honestly say that before reading the article they knew that "Photographic Illustration" meant "We shopped the sh** out of this photo"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is the photographic equivalent of a reporter making up quotes
Vague disclaimer notwithstanding, the photo has been doctored to misrepresent reality. While sometimes acceptable in feature/entertainment photography, that sort of deception is a career-ending offense in photojournalism.
And the policy is meaningless if enforced by subterfuge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Joel Beeson is a journalism professor at West Virginia University.
He says such a policy could be difficult for a newsroom to follow.
“It’s a news photo; it’s not a campaign photo..."
They are apparently current office holders and should have been left in the picture, re-election efforts not withstanding. It's likely they had something to do with getting the legislation passed, hence their presence. The editors are wrong to do what they did - they're altering a news event to suit their purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O RLY?
Hell, I get the sense that this paper probably needs a full team of execellent graphic designers-- not just Jim, your editor who dables in Photoshop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goldman Sachs Anyone?
As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common Sense -- look in the manual and see if there's a policy on that
We live in a country where it is routine to insist that policy, and rules that you made for yourself have tied your own hands -- even when the results are completely inane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No mention at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like...
It's like they've been erased.... from existance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sign of the Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the article, did they say the politicians were at the signing as well? I can't find the original article, so I can't answer that but if so, this isn't news.
The news paper said that it was a 'photo illustration' which means the image has been doctored in some way. So they weren't hiding the fact that they did something to it. So, this isn't news.
If the facts of the article were correct, and the politician's names were including saying they were involved in the signing, then what does it matter that the picture was doctored?
If the news paper had of used an image that didn't have those 3 politicians in it, would we care? Would it have been posted on this site as some sort of moral outrage? Would it have called into question the level of news being reported by said paper? No, on all counts.
Stop nit picking and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you please provide a definition of "Photo Illustration" for me please? I do not associate Photo Illustration with reporting factual events. From what I can gather Photo Illustration means making Art out of photos, and I haven't found a definition where it relates to Removing Images from a photo reporting on Factual events.
If the news paper had of used an image that didn't have those 3 politicians in it, would we care? Would it have been posted on this site as some sort of moral outrage? Would it have called into question the level of news being reported by said paper? No, on all counts.
Yes, you are correct. By the newspaper creating a fake photograph and using a vague caption with no official or colloquial definition anywhere near news reporting they brought this controversy on to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I applaud the newspaper in question for properly labeling their use of photo manipulation and question why Techdirt thinks there is a story here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clearly, most people don't recognize that as "common" usage. Perhaps in the industry they do, but the average reader of the paper does not.
But, really, the use of that term is not the issue.
I applaud the newspaper in question for properly labeling their use of photo manipulation and question why Techdirt thinks there is a story here.
I dunno, but when the leading media watch site, Romenesko writes about it and various media ethicists weigh in on the practice, it seems pretty clear that an awful lot of people DO think it's a story.
The question remains about the ethics of modifying a photo, no matter what you call it. I find that to be a story worth writing about.
You don't, but it's not your site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
Stuff like this is advertising, with no real purpose. IMHO, if there is one single thing that would reform campaigns, it would be to ban all forms of campaign advertising. Including photo ops like this, which tell you nothing about the candidate or where he stands. Pictures like this are just subtle propaganda.
Unfortunately, while it may be possible under the Constitution to ban campaign advertising, at least for national office, its probably not possible to ban these photo ops. So I understand the position the newspaper is taking.
At the same time, its almost always a violation of journalistic ethics for a newspaper to shop any photograph, and its wrong to create this kind of precedent.
If the paper is going to continue this practice, simply using the term "photo illustration" is far too subtle. I doubt that anyone would understand from that that the photo was shopped. The statement,
"[The] reason the delegates were removed was due to the newspaper's policy not to publish pictures of candidates running for re-election during the political season.... "
should be prominently displayed for each such photo. A better solution would be not to publish the photo at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
So why not just not publish the story or the photo? Publishing with a doctored photo is the issue.
Unfortunately, while it may be possible under the Constitution to ban campaign advertising, at least for national office, its probably not possible to ban these photo ops. So I understand the position the newspaper is taking.
Then they shouldn't write about the candidates. That's no excuse for modifying the photo.
At the same time, its almost always a violation of journalistic ethics for a newspaper to shop any photograph, and its wrong to create this kind of precedent.
Er... um... yes, that was the point I was making. Why do you say you disagree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isn't that an oxymoron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Newspaper Owner is Republican and the Politicians are Democrats.
It's like this. West Virginia is a state young people move away from in order to find jobs, leading to continuous population decline. There are some anomalous regions-- the Eastern Panhandle is effectively part of Greater Washington D.C.-Baltimore, but that is on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains. This means that the people who stay behind are disproportionally geriatric, and there are a lot of people getting government checks of one kind or another. Excluding temporary upsets, the Democratic Party has more or less permanent majority status, because no one really believes that the Republicans are enthusiastic about stuff like Medicare and Social Security. In the short term, West Virginians' reaction to Obama is straight out of _Blazing Saddles_, of course. However, that will pass. The regions of West Virginia which are prosperous are generally those which have succeeded in collecting federal money, notably Morgantown, with West Virginia University, and its associated Medicare-funded hospital complex.
The owner of the Morgantown Dominion-Post, a local businessman, is a perennial Republican candidate for senator and governor. It's not exactly the same thing as being far-right, but still, he would regard Democratic legislators as the competition, and try to avoid doing them any favors. I gather the man is mostly in the mining and steelmaking business, not the news and media business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dominion_Post_(Morgantown,_West_Virginia)
http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/John_Raese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]