Home » in English » Magazine Articles » The LA Times fires a photographer
|
| LA Times firing [message #1183 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:25   |
|
David Ross - 01:49pm Apr 2, 2003
The issue is quite complex, as the image produced by the digital manipulation could in fact be a lie. The fact that is wasn't is not germane, it is the trust in the veracity of a photograph (and a photojournalist) that is at stake. I think that had he captioned the image as a "combined" or manipulated image, and not simply presented the altered (and subtly changed) image as a straight camera image, I think there would have been no problem.
That said, I'm not sure that firing the photographer was the proper response. Rather, a correction should have been issued --or perhaps (as was on Zone Zero) both pictures should have been run so that rfeaders could make their own judgement.
|
|
|
| Pedro is wrong! Photojournalist crossed the Line! [message #1184 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:28 |
|
Andrew Hathaway - 02:39pm Apr 2, 2003
Sadly, this guy (Brian) crossed the line for professional photojournalists. If you are in the business of photojournalism, the rule is no Photoshop compositing. Period. Simulating basic darkroom techniques (dodging, burning and cropping are acceptable). I don't disagree with Pedro's drawing attention to other war attrocities but this is really about a newspapers image manipulation policy rather than their editorial choices. If he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong than the paper didn't do it's job in making sure photogs understood their Photoshop policy. On a personal note, I could never be a photojournalist precisely because I image manipulate almost all of my images.
|
|
|
| The whole truth [message #1185 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:29 |
|
Rypka - 03:44pm Apr 2, 2003
I personally believe that what is at stake here is the journalistic integrity in the United States at his moment. While as a photojournalist, I cannot condone what Brian did, I also cannot condone what all U.S. media are doing to "cover" this "war" where once again big-business is trying to "justify" killing, maiming, and changing an ancient culture to fill their pockets.
I agree with Pedro that because "journalistic" writers are capable of changing, polishing texts does not mean that their picture people should have a different set of standards, but I cannot, as a journalist, condone the actions of either party in this matter.
If the U.S. media are getting up on their high-horses with the pictures, why aren't they attempting to tell all the real story in and behind this military action? Why are they allowing themselves to be "embedded" with their own troops and not attempting to tell all the "real" story? Where is the whole truth? Will we, as the occupants of this planet, ever know the whole truth? Certainly not in the manner in which the majority of the media act and publish today.
If we are to accept that the media can be used as a part of the propaganda machines that really rule the world, then we as journalists have lost that which really brought us here. As each day goes by, I see that the Hollywood movie, Network, was really a true prediction of the way all media are working today. Not only with their own sales or ratings, but trying to comply with the wishes of big-business.
I will not even bring politics into this, because really this has no concern with political issues, "GLOBALIZATION" and big-business have taken away humanity, in all it's diiferent colors and cultures, and is attempting to now include religion.
I apologize for saying so much, but the final point, in my opinion, is that neither Brian, by manipulating the image, nor the L.A.Times, by allowing that the U.S. government dictates what and how they "cover" this war, have done right in their principle function of trying to inform and clarify to their readers what is happening. But, how can the L.A. Times have two sets of standards? Especially if they are contradictory!!!
|
|
|
| Re: The LA Times fires a photographer [message #1186 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:32 |
|
Eric Nelson - 03:45pm Apr 2, 2003
The question arises from this combination image, "where does it stop?" If combined/altered images are to be now accepted as "truth" , who decides what that truth is?
Images can be made to say many things out of their context as it is...allowing altered images in photoj. shouldn't be allowed and he was fired for good reason. Enhancing saturation, contrast, etc....things that would happen in any darkroom, should of course be allowed. Changing the content in any way should not.
|
|
|
| sorry, i just don't agree with pedro [message #1187 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:36 |
|
rolfe ross - 05:00pm Apr 2, 2003
Regardless of one's position on the war, and i don't believe the war is right, the altering of what is supposed to be a news photo is definitely wrong and unjustifiable....this picture is not fine art...and as a news photo, should be what was there, not what the photographer decided people would appreciate more...rolfe
|
|
|
| not like moving a pyramid !! [message #1188 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:40 |
|
richard folkerth - 06:00pm Apr 2, 2003
The guy blew it.
Manipulating pictures from a war is not like National Geographic moving a pyramid. Manipulating war zone pictures is editorial ... if you want to represent a point of view, then get those images straight out of the camera and give the problem to your editors about what to do with them.
The guys in the field owe the public the truth. Not a head from photo A and a body from photo B and a soldier from photo C.
For shame !
|
|
|
| Comment on the Times firing. [message #1189 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:44 |
|
Sergio Zenteno - 06:13pm Apr 2, 2003
It is not appropriate to alter a non-fiction, real-event image of this sort since journalism and photojournalism adhere, or must adhere to strict codes of ethic and veracity. Particularly during a tragic world event when information media of all types is prone and susceptible to political influence, due to the fact that media organs are usually business enterprises, or subsidiary of large cross-national business interests.
The content, meaning and impact of a photographic image can be manipulated and contextualized in important ways by digital alteration, thus shaping perception and opinion.
Journalists are in the business of capturing and transmitting information as it happens, the way it occurs, in order to convey the truest account of an event. I am a fine art photographer and media artist and in my business, illusion is an important component of what we do.
Our fellow photojournalists, on the other hand, depict graphics of reality as it is, and ought to derive professional and personal satisfaction from doing just that.
Sergio Zenteno
Los Angeles
USA
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Artists Are Murky and Vague [message #1190 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:48 |
|
Andy Carruthers - 07:45pm Apr 2, 2003
The ethics of news photographers, by comparison, are not. The LA Times had a published policy on the manipulation if digital images (which, like that of all reputable news organizations, strictly prohibits altered composite images presented as a single authentic news photo).
The photographer was well aware of the policy and the reasons for it. He chose to violate it. He got fired. End of story. No amount of ideologically-driven obfuscation by a fine art photographer on the other side of the world can change the unambigious facts of this case.
|
|
|
| retired news photog [message #1191 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:51 |
|
bill emory - 08:04pm Apr 2, 200
Good for the LA Times.
|
|
|
| Shocked and dissappointed [message #1192 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:54 |
|
Jeffrey Scales - 09:39pm Apr 2, 2003
I am shocked and dissapointed that ZoneZero would defend the manipulation of a photograph taken and presented in the format of "News Photography."
As a news photograph it takes on a commitment to a unmodified documentation of a moment in history. Also to assume that this artists editoral statement carries more weight than the realty of the tragic events taking place globally vs the commitment to present the truth is something that you should be ashamed of. This is really people dying, not a museum opening with a champange toast.
|
|
|
| Correction to last post [message #1193 is a reply to message #1192 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:55 |
|
Jeffrey Scales - 09:43pm Apr 2, 2003
Please note the correction to the previous post
Also to assume that this artists editoral statement carries more weight than presenting the realty of the tragic events taking place globally is something that you should be ashamed of. This is really people dying, not a museum opening with a champange toast.
|
|
|
| to Pedro [message #1194 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 11:58 |
|
bill agee - 10:33pm Apr 2, 2003
Pedro,
You are going to have to get off this politically correct stuff and deal with the real world. The photographer knew the policy. He chose to disregard it. Now he pays the consequences. That's the way life operates. As someone aptly stated before my post, this is documentary photography, not fine arts photography where all restrictions are off.
I also want to object to your simplistic "children killing" rhetoric. If you watched the news reports today, you would discover that the driver that ran the U.S. checkpoint with a load of women and children was ordered not to stop and provoke fire. The Iraqi military told the driver that they would kill his family if he did not follow orders. Enough said.
My feelings have always been that I don't want to know the politics of some of my favorite photographers. I would rather blindly enjoy their work then let their potentially naive ideas partially erode their standing as artists in my mind.
Bill Agee
|
|
|
| real world?? [message #1195 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:00 |
|
andrew best - 11:52pm Apr 2, 2003
This is rather concerning, the real world does create rules for reasons. But if those reasons are not compromised then rules need not be enforced.
We can most likely assume that this policy of the LA Times was put into place to prevent the possibility of changing the meaning that an image takes on. For example if the image of the soldier had been replaced with a soldier aiming his gun at the man's head there would be a huge change in the meaning and interpretation of the image.
However no such change in meaning was created through the manipulation of these two images and therefore I see no reason for the consequences that the photographer paid.
|
|
|
| let's stop for a moment and think! [message #1196 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:02 |
 Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 12:01am Apr 3, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
I find it quite astonishing that the discussion about what Brian Walski -the photographer from the LA Times- did, is debated in terms of the technology used and not the content of the image itself. People are reacting to the fact that he "dared" manipulate the image that was published in the newspaper, (and presented in our magazine section) and not much about the content of the image itself.
I would invite our dear readers, to spell out in clear terms, how they perceive the altered image with regard to the content vis-a-vis the two images from which the altered picture was derived. If, as I suspect, no one will be able to provide us with a clear reading of why that image provides us with "false" information, then we should start to reconsider how much of the debate in this instance is related to taboos of what is understood or expected from photojournalism.
I understand that much is riding on this issue, in particular about credibility. But whose credibility is it that we are actually thinking off that is compromised? If the photographer only changed the image to "frame" it better, which is in fact all that he did, what is all the fuss about? I suspect everyone is running around scared because of the "potential" for misuse. As if this was needed in order to distort information.
All the information that is being omitted from the LA TIMES, is of far worse consequence for the world at large, than if someone used Photoshop or not. Under any dictatorship guilt by association has always been a way of rooting out dissent. It was not if you were guilty of something that someone would be carted off, but because they knew someone who was "suspicious" of something.
This witch hunt, about a photographer who dared used a technology to enhance the geometry of a picture, because of the "potential" that alteration can spread like a disease, and thus has to be eradicated, reeks of photographic fundamentalism.
The notion that the image, if labeled differently, would make an iota of difference with regard to its content, is also something that is questionable. Colin Powell was able to use false conclusions in his presentation of "documentary" images, to the Security Council. Hans Blix was quite clear that Powell's deductions about the content of the images presented were flawed and suspect, yet the images themselves were not questioned (please read our editorial of last month).
Let's stop for a moment and think! It is not any technology or alteration that causes the loss of credibility of photographic representation, its how and who does the image and where it is published.
The LA Times credibility is what is at stake here, not the photographer. And certainly not, at least in my eyes, because he altered an image, something he could have done as he was shooting by just framing differently, but because the integrity of the newspaper with the images they choose to publish and omitt, is what bekons our questioning. Who is questioning the alterations to information produced by the publication as a whole ?
There was a show of political posters at Bergamot Station in Los Angeles. Their lead art critic of 20 years, Christopher Knight, reviewed the show. His introductory paragraph had some negative remarks about the Bush administration's war policy. The LA Times published a disclaimer a few days later, that it was inappropriate for an art critic to be addressing politics ( as if art is done in a vacuum), that if they'd been aware of his comments, they would not have published the piece (it somehow slipped by them) and that his views did not represent the views of the newspaper.
Need I say more?
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| As A former Photojournalist [message #1197 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:05 |
|
James H Egbert - 07:03am Apr 3, 2003
I was a military photojournalist and combat photographer for several years. It is my professional opinion that the Photojournalist that was sacked due to manipulation of a photo so sell a thought that he had, that was not honestly represented in his final output was warranted. The three different images tell three different stories and thus by combining two into the third he made an editorial report of a moment.
I worked hard to present truth and honesty in all my work and never got caught up in the race for the perfect image over an image that was represenative to the facts I wrote about.
There are rules in journalism against editorial reporting of facts. We all know it is done anyway for ratings, but it does not make it right! Every report from the front lines has a slant to it. What I listen to are the direct viewpoints from soldiers, sailors and marines who I have talked with personally. Each story i am told is a different one, but each is conmsistant from their view point. That is what photojournalism should be too!
|
|
|
| Alteration of image [message #1198 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:09 |
|
Dilip Mehta - 09:23am Apr 3, 2003
I am unclear as to how you have obtained my e-mail address. Nonetheless I have often perused your newsletter as it is usually informative and interesting.
The alteration of a news image by a staff photographer of the LA Times or that matter by any news photographer is appalling. Equally appalling is your endorsement of the deception perpetuated by the photographer. Are you aware that your reckless action can precipitate a flood of digitally ?created? and ?manipulated? images taken by photographers who, for whatsoever reasons, have not been particularly successful in their assignments in this unfortunate war theatre.
By attempting to shift the onus of blame from the photographer to the newspaper it leads me to believe that in your heightened sense of paranoia you probably see ugly dark shadows in a sunrise.
Please wake up and smell the proverbial coffee ? if you are unable to do so, then please do me the courtesy of deleting my name from your mailing list.
Dilip MEHTA
Contact Press Images
New Delhi
|
|
|
| I guess that I am a purist at heart... [message #1199 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:11 |
|
Tony Wong - 10:36am Apr 3, 2003
I have always believed that the definition a "photojournalist" is a person who can capture on film (or whatever medium) the peak moment of the subject or event in front of his camera. To me, the resulting pictorial statement is based on a combination of the photojournalist's skill and some luck.
Having said this, I truly believe that a news (in this case a war) picture which is to be used as a historical record of an event carries a certain amount of responsibility to be as truthful as possible. I agree from a previous comment that changing one element of a photo just for the sake of composition can draw concern that other elements of the composition might also be manipulated. Where would the suspicions end; at the article, the seciton, the whole newspaper or magazine?
I also believe that you also start to take the skill out of photojournalism by (adding in or subtracting) elements when necessary just to make the perfect image. Where's the photojournalistic ability in that?
Just my old-fashioned opinion!
Tony
|
|
|
| Re: The LA Times fires a photographer [message #1200 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:13 |
|
P. Singhofen - 01:27pm Apr 3, 2003
Pedro, somehow I think you knew this topic would stir up a heated debate! So, let me add my two cents.
I think there are several issues at play here. First and without trying to sound like a lawyer, there is a relationship between an employer (the L.A. Times) and an employee (Brian Walski).
None us know the details of that relationship and we should not be so quick to pass judgement without all the facts. For example, if there was an employment contract between the Times and Walski where policies regarding digital manipulation were clearly spelled out including the consequences should the policies be violated, then it seems the Times had justification for firing Walski. If this is the case and Walski understood the Times' policy at the time he accepted employment and then purposely violated those policies, then it would be hard to feel sorry for him.
If Walski was indeed aware of the policy and truly felt his created image was the best option, he probably should have presented all three to the L.A. Times and explained why he felt the composite image should be used. Then it would have been the L.A. Times choice as the publisher.
Another possibility is that the Times had knowingly accepted manipulated images in the past thereby setting a precedent for its staff photographers, you know, an unwritten understanding - don't ask, don't tell.
Could it be that they found themselves in a quandary because the manipulated image was so obvious (i.e., some of the same people appear twice in the manipulated image)? It would be nice to hear from Walski before crucifying him. I don't think we'll ever know, but I wonder what his motives were. Maybe there's more to this story.
A second issue, as Pedro pointed out, has to do with how the manipulated image might convey a different message than either of the original two, or, as Pedro suggested, is it simply a change in framing or geometry.
We all see and interpret images differently, but in my opinion, the manipulated image does take on a totally different meaning than either of the originals. There is an apparent personal confrontation between the soldier and the man carrying the child that is lacking in either of the original images.
The confrontation is created by the combination of the placement of the weapon, the left hand extended outward and the eye contact between the man with the child and the soldier. The soldier with hand extended in the original image seems to me to be addressing the crowd. But, in the manipulated image, the soldier appears to be directing a personal warning to the man with child as if he and the child are a threat. In my opinion, the soldier in the manipulated image lacks compassion which is not apparent in either of the original two images.
I'm sure others will draw different conclusions, but it seems as though it was Walski's intent to add his personal editorial statement to the scene. This, to me, is more than a geometrical change or a change in framing. Like I said, it would be nice to hear from Walski.
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| Re: The LA Times fires a photographer [message #1201 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:16 |
|
Berry Ives - 11:29pm Apr 3, 2003 PST
Mr.
I do not think that the effect of the altered image on the viewer vs the effect of either of the originals is relevant. The only relevant point is that this is newspaper photojournalism.
The image published should not be a composite image. The composite image is fine for an art gallery, but this is not shown as art. Sure, I know that images are manipulated in other, usually more subtle ways, such as contrast and color, and perhaps more powerfully, perspective resulting from focal length.
E.g., it is a very common "gimmick" to heighten certain effects by using "exaggerated" perspective whether by choosing a long or a short focal length. As all of you know, no doubt, the long lens compresses, so you can make a relatively uninhabited street look like a very congested street by using a long enough lens.
I am not a journalist, but I did have a photo published in a newspaper where I used this exact trick to better illustrate my point. Is this ethical? Well, for me it made a point which was true but not so obvious to the casual observer.
I made it obvious. But it was a "straight" image in that it was a single perspective and not a combination of images which might put together a fictional story. I can say that what I shot was what I saw looking through my camera at a moment in time. I think this is what people think journalistic photography should be.
|
|
|
| the contract [message #1202 is a reply to message #1200 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:17 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 12:02pm Apr 4, 2003 PST
publisher of ZoneZero
Peter,
I don't disagree about the contract issue you raise. Of course if the photographer signs a contract which according to the employer is then not honored, it raises a problem that remains outside our present debate about the veracity of the image. Both the employer and the employee have to live with what ever conditions they mutually agreed to before hand, assuming, which I think is the case here, that the employee did not sign anything under duress.
But even if there is no legal challenge (should this be the case), the cocerns expressed here about the newspaper using the issue of the digital alteration to justify themselves in the public eye, as an excuse to cover up their own "dirty laundry", has to be discussed and evaluated.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Fear of Freedom [message #1203 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:18 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 12:33pm Apr 4, 2003 P
publisher of ZoneZero
Dr Erich Fromm wrote a wonderful book in the seventies, called" Fear of Freedom". I suspect that many of the discussions that photographers are having ( both in this forum as well as elsewhere) by which they cut off their own wings, stating that they should not be in a position to use image alteration technologies when doing photo journalism, is in essence such Fear of Freedom.
Look at it this way: No one is suggesting that a photographer not be responsible for the information he or she is conveying. Not in my wildest imagination would I take away from a photo journalist the responsibility for being truthful in the representation of what she or he depicts and passes on as a document for " what happened".
However, for anyone who has been a photographer in this forum, let us not kid ourselves, we know that digital photography has never been a prerequisite for altering information. So let's not fall into that trap, once again.
Photographers, instead of rallying behind the possibilities to enhance their own work, such as Mr. Walski did, are suggesting to us that it is "unethical" to use digital alteration tools if your endeavor falls into the category of being a photo journalist.
I assume that all the TV camera crews are sending us their unedited versions of all that they shoot in the field. Let's get real!!!! please! Every second of television that anyone has been watching related to the war, has been nothing BUT edited versions of what any camera crew put down on their respective video cassettes( analog or digital).
So why on earth are all those photographers, who are up in arms about anyone who is using software to enhance the image, doing this to their own trade? My suspicion is that the Fear of Freedom, is running rampant. Instead of expressing their concerns for the only real issue, that is being truthfull about what you present, they go on to make the untennable leap that a "direct" image is more "honest". They prefer to make the medium (photography) the bearer of such a responsibility, not themselves.
Well, I tell you, in my book, I want to be able to use any tool that allows me to express my ideas ( yes, photographers do have their own ideas!) as best as possible, and I fully accept the responsibility for telling the truth-my truth-. I have no reason to believe that TV camera crews should have any more rights to edit their images than I do as a still photographer.
If a journalist edits his text, as he or she ought to, I feel that a photographer should be in a position to do the same, if you agree with me that our professional status should be placed at the same level of that of any other form of reporting.
Lets stop this abdication of our own responsiblity towards veracity, by attempting to cut off our new aquired tools and expertise. Suggesting as some of you have, that it is "bad", "evil", your name it, to use "Photoshop - or any other tool such as this one- if you are photo journalist. Go an tell that to the editors of video footage, and they will laugh at you.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| temptations of the blank page [message #1204 is a reply to message #1203 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:20 |
|
Michael Zwiebel - 03:13pm Apr 4, 2003
Pedro?s misgivings may be valid: with so much flag-waving (literally if you have seen the Fox network) how can we trust anything coming from the American media? And if the entire media are suspect then why pick on one photographer? But hey, he got busted. That the media may indeed be causing this photographer to die for their sins does not excuse his.
Journalists are professional witnesses. Writers don?t have a machine that writes a detailed account of what they witness; they have no choice but to interpret. I think we take even the most credible written journalism with a grain of salt. Photographs are born whole, fully formed. Until now, photographers didn?t have to deal with the temptations of the blank page; their skill came in maneuvering into position and choosing the right moment (guided by their social, cultural, economic orientations, of course. In effect a photographer was saying here is what I saw at frame 1; here is what I saw at frame 2?
But the toothpaste is out of the tube; Pandora?s box has been opened. In the now-waning age of chemical photography, photographs could be counted on as slices of truth, but no more: if images can be digitally manipulated, they will. From now on images must be considered by those who view them to be as malleable as words. This brings news images full circle from the pre-photogravure engraved interpretations of photos. Will news publishers begin to treat photographers as interpreters and give them license to cut and paste or will they insist their photographers certify that their images are not manipulated? Will publications post whether an image is manipulated just as we know whether milk is pasteurized? Will 100% pure pictures sell more newspapers? If that becomes a reality, will hitherto non-problems like color, tone and cropping become issues? Stay tuned.
|
|
|
| Journalism is not objective [message #1205 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:24 |
|
Kate Wool - 11:01pm Apr 5, 2003
Since journalism is truly non-objective and seems to be more and more subjective all the time.. the combined image has truly changed the meaning of the photograph and the moment the picture was taken. I do not agree with the analogy between editing text and editing photographs. Journalism ethics become more important here. Imagine a world of no ethics.
|
|
|
| maybe Kate could illuminate us? [message #1206 is a reply to message #1205 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:25 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 12:45pm Apr 6, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
It would be interesting to read what Kate understands as the "Journalism ethics" she is making reference to. As far as I could read, no one here has suggested a "world without ethics".
If you do not agree with the analogy between editing text and editing photographs, possibly you could lead us out of this confusion by explaining your reasons.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| illumination? [message #1207 is a reply to message #1206 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:26 |
|
Kate Wool - 01:14am Apr 8, 2003 PST
One can argue that the meaning of the original photo was misrepresented by the altered photo. when meaning is changed at the discretion of a "reporter" or photogrtapher then one is walking on ethical thin ice. The original photo portrayed a soldier pointing a gun at a child. The altered photo didn't show that same scene. Does that change the meaning of the photo? I think so. If that is tolerated by one newspaper in regards to one photo or news photographer then the flood gates are opened and we can look at all news photos and wonder if it really happened that way.
|
|
| |
| To Photoshop is not photojournalistic [message #1209 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:42 |
|
Andrew Hathaway - 10:07am Apr 8, 2003
Pedro,
Why can you not concede, like so many of those that have posted thier opinions here, that Photoshop and a traditional interpretation of photojournalism just do not mix? With the exception of replicating basic photo-chemical effects (which in themselves allow a lot of room for editorial distortion) of dodging/ burning and cropping, digital 'photo-journalist' simply should not be allowed to composite thier images to "better explain the truth".
We need to accept that in this process of photography -without computer compositing images- there are many places to make decisions which effect a published, perceived truth. Perhaps as Micheal Zweibel suggested newspapers may start to label their content with banners proclaiming their "photo-journalism" to be "composite free", or something to that effect. I feel striongly that, in this era of computer generated plasticity, we need photo-journalist to agree to never cross the line of compositing for their professionally published work. It simply has to be this way. Perhaps this can be added to the definition of a photo-journalist: a photographer who does not publish computer composited images.
Lastly, news outlets and news pubs get hammered enough for their slants and perspectives, leading to an ongoing cynicism about editorial purity and truth. We all seem to live with the reality that various news orgs have their slants and that we, as consumers, need to be smart enough to 'read between the lines' and intellegently process and separate the facts from the slant. I fear that allowing photojournalists to digitally composite their work to improve the truth will simply render any publication that endorses this as completely unreliable and untrustworthy from the context of reporting facts.
Sadly, Pedro, I'm afraid that photo-journalist will never be allowed to be "free" , as Mr. Fromm postulates.
|
|
|
| In response to Andrew [message #1210 is a reply to message #1209 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:50 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 11:48am Apr 9, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
I would wish it
were as simple as conceding. The point is I am getting the same sort of response
back, time and time again. This is about exploring ideas, so let us see if we
can move forward a bit.
You seem to be
getting cramps when the thought comes up of manipulating or altering the work
with digital software. But for some strange reason, I have yet to hear any complaints
about the following issues:
1- The images
regardless of how they were made or taken, can be edited (and obviously have
been) in this war, to fit in with the editorial directives of the paper. Of
course all the images are edited to hide the killing of civilians in Iraq and
to create an aura of "heroics" around the military machine.
2- When images
get manipulated by the choice of what the photographer elected to depict and
how it was done. A soldier posing among the airplane wings on a carrier, is
that "straight" photography as some would have it? or is it, at the
end of the day, as subjective and questionable as what you beg to question?
Attachment: 01.jpg
(Size: 17.22KB, Downloaded 2357 time(s))
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| In response to Andrew II [message #1211 is a reply to message #1210 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:52 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
3- When the photographer
chooses to use certain lenses, or the editor crop the picture, what is so different
to using "photoshop" ? other than the former has a long history of
having been done, and the latter is something rather new.
Attachment: 02.jpg
(Size: 7.97KB, Downloaded 2511 time(s))
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| In response to Andrew III [message #1212 is a reply to message #1211 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:53 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
4- When censorship
intervenes that impedes the normal performance of someone recording a story.
All " imbedded" journalists had precisely this roadblock to contend
with. Does this manipulate the image? of course it does, it only does so in
a different manner.
Attachment: 03.jpg
(Size: 9.40KB, Downloaded 2382 time(s))
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Essam Al-Ghalib, Arab News War Correspondent [message #1213 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:55 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 12:44pm Apr 9, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
US Military Police Are Acting as ?Censors? in This War
Essam Al-Ghalib, Arab News War Correspondent
Published on Monday, April 07, 2003
OUTSIDE NAJAF, 7 April 2003 ? The American forces have put blanket restrictions on all unembedded reporters in Iraq, effectively banning them from traveling inside the country. Obtaining the necessary escort in order to report freely as an unembedded journalist is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Basically, the only journalists authorized to be in Iraq are those embedded with the troops, and they are escorted at all times. What those journalists are allowed to see and report on is controlled by the unit?s military commander.
Yesterday, this Arab News journalist and others who were traveling together were detained by US Military Police for over four hours. We had earlier obtained permission from the Public Affairs Officer in charge of our previous camp ? a Lt. Harrington ? to proceed onward toward Nassiriyah.
Lt. Harrington said she would notify the checkpoints along the way.
The traveling convoy of clearly marked journalists? vehicles was allowed to proceed, but moments later was stopped at the first checkpoint. We were all ordered to stop by armed MPs and asked to step out of our cars. As we sat, the entire time a guard or armed soldiers watched our every move. Two hours later, a Capt. W. G. Dragan, the military policeman in charge, explained that we were waiting for a security contact team to "assess the legitimacy of our presence in Iraq."
He added: "For your safety as well as our own we are going to keep you here until we determine what we are going to do with you. There have been reports of suicide bombers in vehicles, and we are on a higher state of alert.
"Besides, there are not supposed to be any reporters in Iraq who aren?t embedded."
We waited another two hours, becoming increasingly impatient. I gathered with the other journalists, and in a voice loud enough to be heard by our guard that I would be writing this article about the press being controlled. I approached the guards and in a friendly manner asked for their names. The Portuguese journalists who were with us ? who had beaten up by MPs before, as reported in Arab News ? asked me to be quiet. I got my laptop out and started writing, in full view of the military police. A few minutes later, we were allowed to proceed.
It was getting dark and we abandoned the idea of getting to Nassiriyah, as we were told by American soldiers along the way that there was still fighting going on there. We did not want to arrive after dark and look for shelter in a place that was still taking fire.
The next closest safe town was Najaf, 278 km away. We decided to head there, as humanitarian relief efforts were under way and the city was declared open and safe by the Americans.
As we were traveling along what we were told was Iraqi Highway 8, we could see the burned out wreckage of everything ? from small artillery gun vehicles to bullet ridden passenger buses. Along the same route, we also passed several trucks carrying water and food items marked "For Najaf, a gift from the Kuwaiti Red Crescent Society."
As darkness set in, we pulled over at a bullet-ridden rest stop. Inside, bullet holes let in the remnants of the setting sun. In one corner lay an Iraqi soldier?s dented helmet, and there were blood all over the wall. Below it was a thick pool of dried blood. It was my first exposure to lives lost as a result of this war.
After topping up from the fuel cans we had brought along from Kuwait, we headed down the road on our way to Najaf. As the night began to set in, we stopped to ask for directions from the throngs of Iraqi civilians begging for water.
As we were pulling along the road we were almost sideswiped by a passing military convoy coming round the corner. We were ordered to pass the convoy by one of the US Marines. To have passed at that point would have resulted in our Pajero colliding head on with an oncoming pickup truck. As I tried to motion to the soldier who had commanded us to pass that there was an oncoming vehicle he swung his truck-mounted 50-caliber machine gun at us quickly, in an apparent move to scare us. Another journalist told me that he wouldn?t shoot two unarmed journalists.
We barely squeezed between the oncoming pickup truck and the Marines and accelerated away leaving the madness behind us. After another 120 km of convoys and Iraqi burned out military and civilian vehicles, we decided to bed down for the night outside the food factory just two kilometers from Samawah, where locals told us "dozens of innocent civilians" had been killed within the last four days.
The locals wanted to show us the truck carrying tomatoes that was shot at three days ago, with the dead drivers blood still inside, which was still laden with the tomatoes. They asked us to drive with them to the site of this incident, where the truck remains. Fearing for our safety from the Americans patrolling the area, we decided it was not a good idea to have an Iraqi inside the vehicle, especially after dark, so we said we would see it in the morning.
As I readied myself for a night in our Pajero, I couldn?t help but think that the further north we traveled, the more aggressive the American troops became ? and the more stories were being heard of innocent lives lost
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| 3 out of 4 points are right. We DO agree almost [message #1214 is a reply to message #1212 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:57 |
|
Andrew Hathaway - 04:34pm Apr 9, 2003
3 out of 4 points are right. We DO agree almost
Pedro,
I am glad to see that at least you and I are still posting. Perhaps the dwindling commentary is in itself a comment on the ephemeral nature of people's brief attention spans in these modern, MTV times.
To respond to your points:
1. Any image can be manipulated by how it is used in an editorial such as attributing a herosim to them. Agreed
2. Photographers can ?manipulate? an image by self-censoring or not. The soldier on the Carrier is a ?straight? image in that it was not composited. Of course, it?s editorial use with whatever article (presumably touting American heroic efforts rather than in the wings of American killing machines is a news outlet?s choice of spin. Agreed.
3. This is where we must agree to disagree. When a photographer uses a long lens to focus attention on whatever rather than a wide angle lens to show a broader context, that choice is a technical choice based on pre-photoshop technology (namely optics and camera technology). On a more mundane level, it is an accepted practice and option that a photographer has to put his own subjective spin on his imagery. For me this is the crux of the argument.
I don?t disagree with your other points, essentially there are many ways to manipulate the message and construct a ?truth?. Where did this distrust of Photoshop begin? With peoples fallacious belief that a photograph is a truthful document in the first place. Educated people understand that photos are not allowed as case turning evidence in a court of law.
Question: Who was in the wrong (or right) when Time Mag ran Matt Mahurin?s ?illustration? of OJ on the cover, looking dark and grim. Newsweek, of course, ran a ?straight? scan of his mugshot. Being a fan of Matt Mahurin, I realized immediately that it was on of his images, what I consider an editorial illustration. But the rest of the country cried foul saying that Time had made a serious faux pas by publishing an obviously manipulated image, implying he was a killer. Personally, I think the line was drawn forever and ever in newsrooms around the world because of that incident. And ironically, he didn?t do any compositing. Nevertheless, people knew it was digitally altered and that was enough to say computers are verboten for image manipulation (meaning of course anything other than cropping/dodging burning).
One bad apple?And we all suffer, you most of all, it seems.
It?s about people perception of truth. And a derivative of that word: trust. Do you trust what you see to be the truth? I ?trust? a newspaper published photo to be:
A photomechanical representation of some event/subject before the photographers lens at the moment they clicked the shutter. (emphasis: at the moment they clicked the shutter, implying no compositing) Beyond that, all other trust I assign to that photo is contextual. You may presume that I am somewhat cynical and you may be correct.
As I stated earlier, perhaps a very important definition of photojournalist is a situational photographer who does not composite his published images (and notice I say ?composite? because I feel that is really what you are talking about and that is what Brian Laski was canned for).
Point 4. Censorship manipulates images in that images are not available for consumption/publication. Agreed. And all these types of non-photoshop distortions/manipulations are real and pervasive but sadly ingrained in the operating procedures of news orgs and powers controlling news orgs.
My fingers are tired. You must subscribe to what I term the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (particle physics) as applied to human nature. To simply witness an event is to affect it.
Warm regards
|
|
|
| the documentary issue [message #1215 is a reply to message #1214 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 12:58 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 05:42pm Apr 9, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
Andrew,
Let me see if I can bring some persuasive arguments in relation to the one point on which we still seem to be apart.
If we look at the tradition of documentary film making, no one would question that in this field editing is part of the construction of making such documentaries. Editing that is in based on the same ideas applied to entertainment films, however in the documentary, the importance remains in the integrity of the story TELLER, not in the fact that he or she did not edit the film.
For some peculiar reason, we become discombobulated when its a still image that it the subject of editing and is then presented in the world as testimony of something, much as documentary films are.
Doesn't it defy all logic that because the image is a moving image the issue of editing is nothing to worry about, but if it is a still image we fall all over ourselves in outrage?
Let's review who it is in the world that falls into this category of the outraged. You will discover that for the most part it is people who grew up with a certain belief system that finds itself challenged in an almost religious sense. The categories they so strongly adhered to (the photograph as a trustworthy document) are starting to unravel, in part because they never were true to begin with, and secondly because a greater awareness about the fragility of the information delivered by photographs, makes us acutely uncomfortable about their reliability as a source of objective data.
Interestingly enough, any critical thinking in relation to the photo jopurnalistic imagery does not come from the people populating this field but mainly from outside the field. It reminds me to what happens within the industry, it is almost never that the leaders in one technological era are the same ones that will lead the changes into the next technology.
For instance, Kodak was not able to remain as a leader in the transition from film to the digital world. Everything is always held back by tradition. Likewise, there are few and far between, photo journalist, who see the problems within the tradition of the photo document and actually question what is going on other than denouncing it. A bit like things have been through out the ages when intolerance was the response to changes.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Is there some element in the US military that want to take out journalists? [message #1216 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 13:00 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 06:23pm Apr 9, 2003 PST
publisher of ZoneZero
the news are coming in fairly steadily of what is happening in the field of war and should be taken into account, as to how information is really being manipulated or altered by the conditions and facts on the ground. In the end, it is our belief that the discussion wether an image is altered or not through digital means, such as that of the LA Times photographer, are fairly tame in comparison to the much more serious accusations that are being presented here. None-the-less the importance of the topic about the alteration of the image should not be dismissed due to these latter considerations. They only should be added to the overall texture of the debate as they can add understanding.
----------------------------------------
Is there some element in the US military that wants to take out
journalists? by Robert Fisk
09 April 2003
First the Americans killed the correspondent of al-Jazeera yesterday and
wounded his cameraman. Then, within four hours, they attacked the Reuters
television bureau in Baghdad, killing one of its cameramen and a cameraman
for Spain's Tele 5 channel and wounding four other members of the Reuters
staff.
Was it possible to believe this was an accident? Or was it possible that the
right word for these killings - the first with a jet aircraft, the second
with an M1A1 Abrams tank - was murder? These were not, of course, the first
journalists to die in the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Terry Lloyd of
ITV was shot dead by American troops in southern Iraq, who apparently
mistook his car for an Iraqi vehicle. His crew are still missing. Michael
Kelly of The Washington Post tragically drowned in a canal. Two journalists
have died in Kurdistan. Two journalists - a German and a Spaniard - were
killed on Monday night at a US base in Baghdad, with two Americans, when an
Iraqi missile exploded amid them.
And we should not forget the Iraqi civilians who are being killed and maimed
by the hundred and who - unlike their journalist guests - cannot leave the
war and fly home. So the facts of yesterday should speak for themselves.
Unfortunately for the Americans, they make it look very like murder.
The US jet turned to rocket al-Jazeera's office on the banks of the Tigris
at 7.45am local time yesterday. The television station's chief correspondent
in Baghdad, Tariq Ayoub, a Jordanian-Palestinian, was on the roof with his
second cameraman, an Iraqi called Zuheir, reporting a pitched battle near
the bureau between American and Iraqi troops. Mr Ayoub's colleague Maher
Abdullah recalled afterwards that both men saw the plane fire the rocket as
it swooped toward their building, which is close to the Jumhuriya Bridge
upon which two American tanks had just appeared.
"On the screen, there was this battle and we could see bullets flying and
then we heard the aircraft," Mr Abdullah said.
"The plane was flying so low that those of us downstairs thought it would
land on the roof - that's how close it was. We actually heard the rocket
being launched. It was a direct hit - the missile actually exploded against
our electrical generator. Tariq died almost at once. Zuheir was injured."
Now for America's problems in explaining this little saga. Back in 2001, the
United States fired a cruise missile at al-Jazeera's office in Kabul - from
which tapes of Osama bin Laden had been broadcast around the world. No
explanation was ever given for this extraordinary attack on the night before
the city's "liberation"; the Kabul correspondent, Taiseer Alouni, was
unhurt. By the strange coincidence of journalism, Mr Alouni was in the
Baghdad office yesterday to endure the USAF's second attack on al-Jazeera.
Far more disturbing, however, is the fact that the al-Jazeera network - the
freest Arab television station, which has incurred the fury of both the
Americans and the Iraqi authorities for its live coverage of the war - gave
the Pentagon the co-ordinates of its Baghdad office two months ago and
received assurances that the bureau would not be attacked.
Then on Monday, the US State Department's spokesman in Doha, an
Arab-American called Nabil Khouri, visited al-Jazeera's offices in the city
and, according to a source within the Qatari satellite channel, repeated the
Pentagon's assurances. Within 24 hours, the Americans had fired their
missile into the Baghdad office.
The next assault, on Reuters, came just before midday when an Abrams tank on
the Jamhuriya Bridge suddenly pointed its gun barrel towards the Palestine
Hotel where more than 200 foreign journalists are staying to cover the war
from the Iraqi side. Sky Television's David Chater noticed the barrel
moving. The French television channel France 3 had a crew in a neighbouring
room and videotaped the tank on the bridge. The tape shows a bubble of fire
emerging from the barrel, the sound of a detonation and then pieces of
paintwork falling past the camera as it vibrates with the impact.
In the Reuters bureau on the 15th floor, the shell exploded amid the staff.
It mortally wounded a Ukrainian cameraman, Taras Protsyuk, who was also
filming the tanks, and seriously wounded another member of the staff, Paul
Pasquale from Britain, and two other journalists, including Reuters'
Lebanese-Palestinian reporter Samia Nakhoul. On the next floor, Tele 5's
cameraman Jose Couso was badly hurt. Mr Protsyuk died shortly afterwards.
His camera and its tripod were left in the office, which was swamped with
the crew's blood. Mr Couso had a leg amputated but he died half an hour
after the operation.
The Americans responded with what all the evidence proves to be a
straightforward lie. General Buford Blount of the US 3rd Infantry Division -
whose tanks were on the bridge - announced that his vehicles had come under
rocket and rifle fire from snipers in the Palestine Hotel, that his tank had
fired a single round at the hotel and that the gunfire had then ceased. The
general's statement, however, was untrue.
I was driving on a road between the tanks and the hotel at the moment the
shell was fired - and heard no shooting. The French videotape of the attack
runs for more than four minutes and records absolute silence before the
tank's armament is fired. And there were no snipers in the building. Indeed,
the dozens of journalists and crews living there - myself included - have
watched like hawks to make sure that no armed men should ever use the hotel
as an assault point.
This is, one should add, the same General Blount who boasted just over a
month ago that his crews would be using depleted uranium munitions - the
kind many believe to be responsible for an explosion of cancers after the
1991 Gulf War - in their tanks. For General Blount to suggest, as he clearly
does, that the Reuters camera crew was in some way involved in shooting at
Americans merely turns a meretricious statement into a libellous one.
Again, we should remember that three dead and five wounded journalists do
not constitute a massacre - let alone the equivalence of the hundreds of
civilians being maimed by the invasion force. And it is a truth that needs
to be remembered that the Iraqi regime has killed a few journalists of its
own over the years, with tens of thousands of its own people. But something
very dangerous appeared to be getting loose yesterday. General Blount's
explanation was the kind employed by the Israelis after they have killed the
innocent. Is there therefore some message that we reporters are supposed to
learn from all this? Is there some element in the American military that has
come to hate the press and wants to take out journalists based in Baghdad,
to hurt those whom our Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has maliciously
claimed to be working "behind enemy lines". Could it be that this claim -
that international correspondents are in effect collaborating with Mr
Blunkett's enemy (most Britons having never supported this war in the first
place) - is turning into some kind of a death sentence?
I knew Mr Ayoub. I have broadcast during the war from the rooftop on which
he died. I told him then how easy a target his Baghdad office would make if
the Americans wanted to destroy its coverage - seen across the Arab world -
of civilian victims of the bombing. Mr Protsyuk of Reuters often shared the
Palestine Hotel's elevator with me. Samia Nakhoul, who is 42, has been a
friend and colleague since the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war. She is married to
the Financial Times correspondent David Gardner.
Yesterday afternoon, she lay covered in blood in a Baghdad hospital. And
General Blount dared to imply that this innocent woman and her brave
colleagues were snipers. What, I wonder, does this tell us about the war in
Iraq?
'The American forces knew exactly what this hotel is'
The Sky News correspondent David Chater was in the Palestine Hotel when the
hotel was hit by American tank fire. This is his account of what happened.
"I was about to go out on to the balcony when there was a huge explosion,
then shouts and screams from people along our corridor. They were shouting,
'Somebody's been hit. Can somebody find a doctor?' They were saying they
could see blood and bone.
"There were a lot of French journalists screaming, 'Get a doctor, get a
doctor'. There was a great sense of panic because these walls are very thin.
"We saw the tanks up on the bridge. They started firing across the bank. The
shells were landing either side of us at what we thought were military
targets. Then we were hit. We are in the middle of a tank battle.
"I don't understand why they were doing that. There was no fire coming out
of this hotel - everyone knows it's full of journalists.
"Everybody is putting on flak jackets. Everybody is running for cover. We
now feel extremely vulnerable and we are now going to say goodbye to you."
The line was cut but minutes later Chater resumed his report, saying
journalists had been watching American forces from their balconies and the
troops had surely been aware of their presence.
"They knew exactly what this hotel is. They know the press corps is here. I
don't know why they are trying to target journalists. There are awful scenes
around me. There's a Reuters tent just a few yards away from me where people
are in tears. It makes you realise how vulnerable you are. What are we
supposed to do? How are we supposed to carry on if American shells are
targeting Western journalists?"
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Critical Thinking is the enemy [message #1217 is a reply to message #1215 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 13:02 |
|
Andrew Hathaway - 09:33am Apr 10, 2003
Pedro,
It seems we do agree afterall. As you so adroitly mentioned, the folks who have the most problem with this issue of image editing ?grew up with a certain belief system that finds itself challenged in an almost religious sense.? I believe you have just described the very large majority of consumers. And those are the people who drive the decision making because our economic model only really rewards what sells. If you want to make it big (and this of course means big numbers of viewers, high Nielsen ratings or whatever metric is used to measure collective attention), then we pander to the lowest common denominator. Still. And we certainly don?t try to challenge them with critical thinking because they turn the page/channel (and we lose audience share). And the vast majority would look at this dialogue and say, ?Too intellectual?.
Sadly I don?t think that any amount of critical thinking is going to really change peoples collective belief system to allow for digital image compositing in the field of photojournalism. In the George W Bush era of black and white simplicity (no shades of gray allowed because you are either with us or against us), there isn?t much room for intellectual debate of shades of the truth. I have to run now and photoshop an American flag on my SUV.
Wasn?t it Copernicus who was killed by the church for his heritical belief that the sun was at the center of our solar system?
-Andrew
re: the article posted about silencing the press by killing them, Killing the messenger is a time honored technique of burying our head in the sand. Saddam is famous for it. What makes the US any different?
|
|
|
| Statue of Saddam Hussein [message #1218 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 13:05 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 03:38pm Apr 10, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
You have probably seen the photos of the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled, and TV footage of jubilant Iraqis rolling the bronze head around, bringing back memories of so many previous popular uprisings - 1989, 1956, 1953...
If there is one thing this war has taught us all, it's that we can't believe what we're told. For Donald Rumsfeld these were "breathtaking". For the British Army they were "historic". For BBC Radio they were "amazing".
Here's the truth.
First there is a photo from the BBC website showing the statue toppling. Below that is a long-shot in which you can see the whole of Fardus Square (conveniently located just opposite the Palestine Hotel where the international media are based), and the presence of at most around 200 people ? most of them US troops (note the tanks and armoured vehicles) and assembled journalists.
The BBC website had the honesty to say that "dozens" of Iraqis were involved, but this grain of truth was swamped by the overwhelming impression of mass joy. The radio and TV were even worse.
The masses are no doubt glad to see the back of Saddam Hussein, but this was a US Army propaganda coup, staged for the benefit of the same journalists it had bombed the day previously, and which the British media have swallowed hook line and sinker. Shame on them.
Attachment: statue.jpg
(Size: 63.04KB, Downloaded 2573 time(s))
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Doctored Photo from the London Evening Standard [message #1219 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 13:55 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 03:24pm Apr 22, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
Attachment: Picture-1.jpg
(Size: 341.54KB, Downloaded 2383 time(s))
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| where do we draw the line? [message #1220 is a reply to message #1219 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:01 |
|
P. Singhofen - 09:04am Apr 25, 2003 PST
Pedro,
If I'm reading between the lines correctly, your commentary on the "Doctored Photo from the London Evening Standard" seems to indicate that you have a problem with the manipulation that took place. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you object to more than just the hack job. I'm assuming that had they done a more technically proficient job at digitally adding people to the scene, you would still find it objectionable because they would be creating a much bigger crowd and thereby falsely swaying public opinion. That being the case, there seems to be a line that was crossed, even in your eyes, between acceptable alteration and unacceptable alteration.
It seems to me that each viewer has their own sensitivity relative to digital manipulation. Some (actually most who have written in this forum) feel that any manipulation of a journalistic or documentary image is taboo. Others, like myself, are a little more opened minded about it and feel that some manipulation (beyond standard wet darkroom manipulation) should probably be acceptable, depending on the circumstances and intended use of the final image. For example, in your editorial "Poetry of an Image", I did not find that altered image objectionable although most others writing in did have a problem with it. However, as I stated in comment #19 of this forum, I think Brian Walski did more than change geometry and framing. Maybe it's just me, but it seems to have the same feel as the infamous Elian photo. I think he probably crossed the line. Could it be that he was attempting to sway public opinion, albiet in a more subtle way than the London Standard.
So, where do we draw this imaginary line? Is it a personal issue based on our own sensitivities? Is the anti-war line in a different place than the pro-war line? Should we toss out all photos as not being credible documentary images or should we accept any and all manipulations? I'm guessing it's somewhere in between.
Peter Singhofen
|
|
|
| response to Peter [message #1221 is a reply to message #1220 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:03 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 09:13am Apr 26, 2003 PST
publisher of ZoneZero
You state some very valid questions, Peter.
I will attempt to give you my own personal perspective on these issues, understanding that they are very challenged ones at that.
For me, the level of manipulation within the image is not even the at stake, as manipulation is to be found in many different places. The publishing house by what they choose to "not publish" can participate just as much in the deception as someone who does the digital deception within the image.
But let us stay with the photographer. I would say that the photographer should use what ever tools he or she finds makes the image he wants to make more eloquent, but that then he or she have to stand behind the content of what ever the image purports to be a representation off. Such a responsibility is equal to any other journalistic representation, be that in video, sound, or text.
That, just as we have no problem with a documentary film being edited, we should not get ourselves all aroused because a still image is edited.
The responsibility for veracity can no be abdicated towards the tools being or not being used, but towards the intention of using them in making a statement which has integrity.
I as a photographer can as much as a writer, choose to do fiction or non fiction, the words used are the same, the intention is different. I also have to state before the reader in an unambigous manner what they are about to read. To discuss if the writer used a typewriter, a wordprocessor or his fountaipen, is ludicrous. To discuss if the writer presented us with his first or fifth draft is irrelevant.
Some day equal considerations will of course be given to photographers and the tools of our trade.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| response to Pedro [message #1222 is a reply to message #1221 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:05 |
|
P. Singhofen - 11:31am Apr 28, 2003
Pedro,
The following two points that you made resonate and may hold the key, at least in part, to moving forward. I quote you as follows:
(1) "I would say that the photographer should use what ever tools he or she finds makes the image he wants to make more eloquent, but that then he or she have to stand behind the content of what ever the image purports to be a representation off."
(2) "I also have to state before the reader in an unambiguous manner what they are about to read."
I think that if a photographer is preparing a book and has control over all aspects of it, then he/she could clearly and unambiguously explain what the viewer (reader) is about to see. This would place the work in the proper context. Then, of course, he/she would and should have to stand behind the work. However, this might present a problem for the photojournalist working for a newspaper or magazine, who might not have the opportunity to make such a statement. For example, how might Brian Walski have gone about this?
|
|
|
| Simple Response [message #1223 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:16 |
|
David Degner - 09:41pm Apr 29, 2003
A photograph has the inherent value of showing the truth. A photograph actually leaves a lot of interperitation up to the photographer but we still take photojournalistic photos to be the visual truth. If splicing of photos were accepted photographs would be less trustworthy and loose their power. The spliced photo does not tell the physical truth. The spliced photos might tell something closer to what is actually happening but it is the photographers job to find that photo within the guidelines that keep photos truthful.
Its too late to write coherently.
David Degner
|
|
|
| .. [message #1224 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:18 |
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Wed, 19 October 2005 14:20]
|
|
|
| about spliced photos [message #1225 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:21 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 03:49pm May 1, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
For some reason I find that we keep coming back to that same magical thought shared by many photographers, that the the representation of the "physical truth" resides ONLY in any given frame.
I have placed the word "only" in capitals on purpose, as this seems the line of reasoning. Only the direct frame is "legitimate" as it were.
Well, let me bring here some further thoughts to this debate. I will quote what someone wrote about my work some years back:
"Pedro Meyer's digital work reverses the notion of the cinema as 'motion pictures' by redefining photography as 'still-cinema', a process, like memory, which distills multitudes of visual impressions into a single paradigmatic image."
We can clearly see here, that the paradigmatic image, the "still-cinema" image, the image comoposed of slices, the memorial synthesis has no reason to be considered less a representation of truth, than let's say that of the journalist who is putting together his impressions of all that he saw that day out in the field. The journalist, translated what his eyes saw, and his ears heard, into words. I as a photographer can now translate those same realities into an image with the precision that might have eluded me before.
I can accept photographers arguing for the direct picture (one frame) for reasons of economy but not for reasons of veracity. It seems that taking cover under the pretext of the latter to advance the former, serves the community very badly.
I belive that the context in which an image is presented already resolves the fact if the information provided is fiction or factual. i.e. News section of the paper. How it was made should not be any of our concern, any more than we are concerned how the image got transmitted to the paper, if it was via satellite, phone line, or by hand on a CD, or even from negatives.
What I find so admirable, is my colleagues willing to abdicate with such abandon their absolute right to use all the tools they could use to make the most creative work possible, arguing against their own self interest that altering the photographic image, is tantamount to deception.
Having these discussions I think will help us to understand better the fundamental issues, so what ever it is that your persuasion on this matter is, please contribute.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| The LA Times was right when it chose to fire that photographer. [message #1226 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:26 |
|
Walter Dufresne - 11:58am May 2, 2003
There may be a tradition within journalism that doesn't allow for the assembling of newer, better, more imaginative pictures from pieces of older pictures. That may be especially true in the matter of photographs.
Hmm, a collage of pieces of photographs pretends to be a single photograph, pretends to be the creation of a camera at a single vantage point over the space of a single piece of continuous time. A collage of pieces of photograph pretends to do this.
Very nice pretending. Truly authoritative pretending. Pretending might be a lie.
I think I'll pull out my old copy of Janet Cooke's Washington Post series, "Jimmie's World," and re-read her compelling story about that eight-year old heroin addict. It makes for a good read. Very nice pretending. Truly authoritative pretending. Pretending that was a lie.
|
|
|
| So now what is to be done? [message #1227 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:34 |
|
Philip Cartland - 12:25pm May 2, 2003
All this discussion! From here to there to everywhere. It seems the closest we can be to the truth is to first see it with our own eyes (physical and inward), to be witness and secondly not to transfer it beyond the walls of the body with, I would italicise here, any added intent for persuasion. In other words to transfer only a kind of silence, a reticent statement of?it is as it is as it is as is life. The images, I feel of mine that came close to this were quite often...quite mostly...accidents.
|
|
|
| LA Times [message #1228 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:40 |
|
Mark J. Smith - 12:32pm May 2, 2003
We can all get very philosophical about this question but....and it is a very big but. We all also realize that the press is under the spotlight when it comes to distortions of the facts. Yes we can absolutely say that not covering the US bombing of civilians is a distortion and not get an argument. At least not from me BUT, there is that but again. And here it is...the rules are the rules. If the photographer knew it was against the rules to alter the shot he should not have done so. Did the alteration distort the story...No.
Did it break the rules of the LA Times? Yes.
Actually some things are simple.
|
|
|
| Invalid Photograph [message #1229 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:44 |
|
Bill Cheadle - 01:46pm May 2, 2003
Sorry Pedro...this guy's not a fine art photographer. He's a reporter with a camera. As a free society, we expect (though we don't always get) the unadulterated truth, regardless of what the media, from our 'news' organizations. We should not tolerate outright lies or misrepresentations from reporters or spokesmen (anybody heard of 'Bagdad Bob'?)any more so than we should accept or tolerate altered images presented as recordings of fact. The most basic of ethics demands that an altered image be clearly labled as such, and belongs in the lifestyles section, not on the front page.
|
|
|
| LA TIMES rules [message #1230 is a reply to message #1228 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:47 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 03:27pm May 2, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
Mark, the issue with the rules or contract having to be respected has already been discussed earlier in this forum; I would say everyone agrees with this point, that if the photographer messed up, there are consequences.
Now we do not even know what these rules were, so we can only assume.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| I agree with Mr. Cheadle [message #1231 is a reply to message #1229 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:50 |
|
Jon - 12:05am May 3, 2003
If a guy is photographing a "dramatization" of the truth, sure go ahead--move the bodies and rifles around, as Mr. Gardiner did in his famous "Dead Sharpshooter, Devil's Den, Gettysburg." What harm did he do when the battle was over, and it made for a better composition? Gardiner never pretended to be a journalist.
On the other hand, a photojournalist who alters their images, even in ways that don't alter their basic truth (how can I know this?) erodes my faith in their observations. At what point does the alteration stop? Will they tell me that they've made these adjustments? Will the newspaper tell me?
I agree the news reporting about Iraq was very one sided. That makes me leery and cynical already; If they allow the images to be "sweetened" by a little pixel-play, their credibility goes completely down the toilet.
|
|
| |
| A Picture's Worth A Thousand Nerds [message #1233 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 14:57 |
|
Adrian Mendoza - 02:39pm May 3, 2003 PST
Pedro, it's very simple - if you are a photojournalist, you DON'T f*ck with the photo. As has been stated, dodge, burn, crop, color correct are acceptable standards and practices, as were accepted in the wet darkroom.
However, what was the REAL reason the photographer combined two different photos? Was more information conveyed? I believe (and I could be mistaken, I've heard rumors but have not seen direct quotes attributed to the photographer) that the reason he did this was to "improve composition." Well, duh! I could do this all day (I am a working photojournalist), but is it possible the photographer was primarily looking for an award winning image? (not outside the realm of possibility). By NO journalistic standards can this action be justified or defended, Pedro.
The facts of journalistic self-censorship, jingoism and its role as a propoganda tool are totally separate issues and truthfully do not pertain to Walski's breach of trust. I repeat, if you are a photojournalist, you DON'T f*ck with the photo. For the Walski-wannabees: try a little harder, shoot a little quicker or you'll miss your one chance. If you miss it, try again another time.
Adrian Mendoza
|
|
|
| Come on now! [message #1234 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:02 |
|
Vern Rogers - 03:43pm May 3, 2003 PST (#51 of 61)
I see nothing wrong with the photo as published. How did it distort facts in any way? Everything in the photo as presented was seen by the photographer. Photos by nature distort reality. No such thing as duplicating reality. Colors, contrast, as well as content are only glimpses of what really exists. What you saw and preserved may not be what the guy next to you saw. Ask witnesses to a crime and you get different stories. And to say that you don't work on pictures is to lie. I have seen photos that have been published from early times, before any of us were born that don't reflect every exact little detail of life as it was. The development and printing stages are definitely manipulation of the photograph. Foul language doesn't increase the value of one's argument in my book, it lessens it. Facts should be able to stand on their own without expletives. You can see that the details in the published photo actually existed as shown in the other photo, so it presents a scene that did exist. What standards are you talking about? Don't you know that one of the most famous shots of WWII of the flag raising at Iwo Jima was a reshoot, a staged shot? That is well documented. And recent news items have revealed that many of the shots we saw of the war in Irag in news media were staged to give more favorable impressions. Even the picture of the toppling of the statue of Sadaam was staged. Why were they published?
I also agree that it is a much more serious neglect to not show the horrors of war, making it into a commercial for political ends. We were never shown the death and destruction that took place, which would help people be repulsed by war. Rather it was presented in the media like one of our sports events, kind of like a super bowl of wars. That is a much more serious failure.
I admire all photojournalists and their work, but I still make my own opinions on world events, based on what I learn during, and especially after the event. Any photo is subjective, just as any article is subjective. That is human nature. Any picture you shoot is an impression you had. It isn't reality, it is a two-dimensional image in imitation colors or unreal black and white. I don't question the motives of the fired photographer any more than I do any other. He gave his impression of events. How can you question that when you do the same?
|
|
|
| Oh Adrian! [message #1235 is a reply to message #1233 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:04 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 05:27pm May 3, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
Lets see, Adrian, if I can change your mind about a couple of things. I understand that your description of what you denounce as not acceptable behavior towards a picture, is actually not something that addresses what I believe are your main concerns. The truth in a picture.
Your so called standards of the "wet room" do not even fit to begin with into your dogmatic approach, by a long shot, if we just go and take a look at such stalwarts of photojourmnalism as Eugene Smith. So already there, your referred "practices" bit falls short on the historical front.
Second, I might suggest, you give more thought on what gives veracity to the content of an image, rather than this mindless fundamentalism, of lashing out at anything that would or might be altered, without so much as thinking what the issue at hand really is.
Of course we agree about the importance that photojournalism be perceived on the basis of its veracity, but your conclusion about achieving this goal through the "prohibition" of tools, seems not only to hinder the development of photography but also to provide a cover for those who manipulate the content even without the "alterations" you denounce, such as with the simple expedient of changing captions.
Let us not be naive, it did not require digital technologies, for photojournalistic work to be manipulated. So to use such diatribes as you presented us with here, hardly offer the solution for what you seem to be looking for.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| Oh Pedro! [message #1236 is a reply to message #1235 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:07 |
|
Adrian Mendoza - 07:55pm May 3, 2003
Pedro, if, in your example of W.Eugene Smith's work as an exception to my rigid rules, I can only assume you're talking about his famous photo of Dr. Albert Schweitzer and the posthumous discovery that it was composited from 2 photos (sound familiar?). Not to split hairs, but Smith was a DOCUMENTARY photographer, not a photojournalist - the distinction being that he was presenting a specific point of view, not aspiring to objective coverage.
Despite this distinction, I still do not accept the validity of his Schweitzer photo because it was presented as reality. I really don't see how it improved (through inclusion of a silohuetted subject with handsaw...) or enhanced anything other than the composition - the content (information) remains the same, IMHO.
By the way, even though I am a photojournalist by profession, I love tweaking images (I even have a few pix in your own gallery). But I don't attempt to position them as reality, they are clearly labeled as "tweaked."
http://www.zonezero.com/comunity/portfolios/experimental/men doza/1en.html
p.s., I'm the Chicano photog who's mis-spelling of "Chapultepec" you corrected last Summer. I've been a fan of yours for 28 years, but I absolutely disagree with you on this point. But it's good to have the discussion.
Saludos,
Adrian Mendoza
|
|
|
| Photomontage is not photojournalism! [message #1237 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:12 |
|
Berry Ives - 07:26am May 4, 2003
While I totally agree with Pedro that the news media has failed miserably to bring us full and accurate coverage and analysis of the war in Iraq, I still hold fast with high standards for photojournalism. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with what tools are used, although certain manipulations are made easier in the digital environment. I think the whole issue is one of assuring against the deliberate manipulation of information to deceive the viewer. In this particular case, the manipulation did not deceive the viewer in my opinion. But the issue is one of assurance, of having a policy that diminishes the likelihood of deception. I, for one, do not want to always have to be wondering if I am looking at a photomontage or a "straight" shot. When I am in an art gallery, I expect one thing, and when I am reading the newspaper I expect something else.
The photographers intentions do not appear to include deception in this case, and perhaps the punishment was too severe. Why not a reprimand? While I will defend the LA Times standard that is at issue here, the news media in general should be ashamed of itself for caving to jingoism so often. But maybe, unfortunately, that reflects our culture here in the USA. But that's really another story (that we here in the US hear too little about in the major media outlets)
|
|
| |
| Guardian Unlimited [message #1239 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:22 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Pedro Meyer - 10:43am May 15, 2003
publisher of ZoneZero
From: suellicott@aol.com
Date: Thu May 15, 2003 5:56:47 AM America/Mexico_City
To: suellicott@aol.com
Subject: For your attention
Spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited site and thought you should see it.
To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk
The truth about Jessica
Her Iraqi guards had long fled, she was being well cared for - and doctors had already tried to free her. John Kampfner discovers the real story behind a modern American war myth
John Kampfner
Wednesday May 14 2003
The Guardian
Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war. An all-American heroine, the story of her capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one of the great patriotic moments of the conflict. It couldn't have happened at a more crucial moment, when the talk was of coalition forces bogged down, of a victory too slow in coming.
Her rescue will go down as one of the most stunning pieces of news management yet conceived. It provides a remarkable insight into the real influence of Hollywood producers on the Pentagon's media managers, and has produced a template from which America hopes to present its future wars.
But the American media tactics, culminating in the Lynch episode, infuriated the British, who were supposed to be working alongside them in Doha, Qatar. This Sunday, the BBC's Correspondent programme reveals the inside story of the rescue that may not have been as heroic as portrayed, and of divisions at the heart of the allies' media operation.
"In reality we had two different styles of news media management," says Group Captain Al Lockwood, the British army spokesman at central command. "I feel fortunate to have been part of the UK one."
In the early hours of April 2, correspondents in Doha were summoned from their beds to Centcom, the military and media nerve centre for the war. Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top figure there, had stayed up all night. "We had a situation where there was a lot of hot news," he recalls. "The president had been briefed, as had the secretary of defence."
The journalists rushed in, thinking Saddam had been captured. The story they were told instead has entered American folklore. Private Lynch, a 19-year-old clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was a member of the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed. Nine of her US comrades were killed. Iraqi soldiers took Lynch to the local hospital, which was swarming with fedayeen, where he was held for eight days. That much is uncontested.
Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated. It was only thanks to a courageous Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, that she was saved. According to the Pentagon, Al-Rehaief risked his life to alert the Americans that Lynch was being held.
Just after midnight, Army Rangers and Navy Seals stormed the Nassiriya hospital. Their "daring" assault on enemy territory was captured by the military's night-vision camera. They were said to have come under fire, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by helicopter. That was the message beamed back to viewers within hours of the > rescue.
Al-Rehaief was granted asylum barely two weeks after arriving in the US. He is now the toast of Washington, with a fat $500,000 (£309,000) book deal. Rescue in Nassiriya will be published in October. As for Lynch, her status as cult hero is stronger than ever. Internet auction sites have listed at least 10 Jessica Lynch items, ranging from an oil painting with an opening bid of $200 to a $5 "America Loves Jessica Lynch" fridge magnet. Trouble is that doctors now say she has no recollection of the whole episode and probably never will. Her memory loss means that "researchers" have been called in to fill in the gaps.
One story, two versions. The doctors in Nassiriya say they provided the best treatment they could for Lynch in the midst of war. She was assigned the only specialist bed in the hospital, and one of only two nurses on the floor. "I was like a mother to her and she was like a daughter,"says Khalida Shinah.
"We gave her three bottles of blood, two of them from the medical staff because there was no blood at this time,"said Dr Harith al-Houssona, who looked after her throughout her ordeal. "I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle. Then I did another examination. There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only RTA, road traffic accident," he recalled. "They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury."
The doctors told us that the day before the special forces swooped on the hospital the Iraqi military had fled. Hassam Hamoud, a waiter at a local restaurant, said he saw the American advance party land in the town. He said the team's Arabic interpreter asked him where the hospital was. "He asked: 'Are there any Fedayeen over there?' and I said, 'No'." All the same, the next day "America's finest warriors" descended on the building.
"We heard the noise of helicopters," says Dr Anmar Uday. He says that they must have known there would be no resistance. "We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital.
"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking down doors." All the time with the camera rolling. The Americans took no chances, restraining doctors and a patient who was handcuffed to a bed frame.
There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Al-Houssona had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance. "I told her I will try and help you escape to the American Army but I will do this very secretly because I could lose my life." He put her in an ambulance and instructed the driver to go to the American checkpoint. When he was approaching it, the Americans opened fire. They fled just in time back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.
A military cameraman had shot footage of the rescue. It was a race against time for the video to be edited. The video presentation was ready a few hours after the first brief announcement. When it was shown, General Vincent Brooks, the US spokesman in Doha, declared: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."
None of the details that the doctors provided Correspondent with made it to the video or to any subsequent explanations or clarifications by US authorities. I asked the Pentagon spokesman in Washington, Bryan Whitman, to release the full tape of the rescue, rather than its edited version, to clear up any discrepancies. He declined. Whitman would not talk about what kind of Iraqi resistance the American forces faced. Nor would he comment on the injuries Lynch actually sustained. "I understand there is some conflicting information out there and in due time the full story will be told, I'm sure," he told me.
That American approach - to skim over the details - focusing instead on the broad message, led to tension behind the scenes with the British. Downing Street's man in Doha, Simon Wren, was furious that on the first few days of the war the Americans refused to give any information at Centcom. The British were put in the difficult position of having to fill in the gaps, off the record.
Towards the end of the conflict, Wren wrote a confidential five-page letter to Alastair Campbell complaining that the American briefers weren't up to the job. He described the Lynch presentation as embarrassing.
Wren yesterday described the Lynch incident as "hugely overblown" and symptomatic of a bigger problem. "The Americans never got out there and explained what was going on in the war," he said. "All they needed to be was open and honest. They were too vague, too scared of engaging with the media." He said US journalists "did not put them under pressure".
Wren, who had been seconded to the Ministry of Defence, said he tried on several occasions to persuade Wilkinson and Brooks to change tack. In London, Campbell did the same with the White House, to no avail. "The American media didn't put them under pressure so they were allowed to get away with it," Wren said. "They didn't feel they needed to change."
He acknowledged that the events surrounding the Lynch "rescue" had become a matter of "conjecture". But he added: "Either way, it was not the main news of the day. This was just one soldier, this was an add-on: human interest stuff. It completely overshadowed other events, things that were actually going on on the battlefield. It overshadowed the fact that the Americans found the bodies of her colleagues. What we wanted to give out was real-time news."
Lockwood told Correspondent:"Having lost the first skirmish, they (the Americans) had pretty much lost the war when it came to media support. Albeit things had got better and everything came to a conclusion quite rapidly, but to my feelings they lost their initial part of the campaign and never got on the front foot again," Lockwood said. "The media adviser we had here [Wren] was an expert in his field. His counterpart on the US side [Wilkinson] was evasive and was not around as much as he should have been when it came to talking to the media."
The American strategy was to concentrate on the visuals and to get a broad message out. Details - where helpful - followed behind. The key was to ensure the right television footage. The embedded reporters could do some of that. On other missions, the military used their own cameras, editing the film themselves and presenting it to broadcasters as ready-to-go pack ages. The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies, notably Black Hawk Down.
Back in 2001, the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer, had visited the Pentagon to pitch an idea. Bruckheimer and fellow producer Bertram van Munster, who masterminded the reality show Cops, suggested Profiles from the Front Line, a primetime television series following US forces in Afghanistan. They were after human stories told through the eyes of the soldiers. Van Munster's aim was to get close and personal. He said: "You can only get accepted by these people through chemistry. You have to have a bond with somebody. Only then will they let you in. What these guys are doing out there, these men and women, is just extraordinary. If you're a cheerleader of our point of view - that we deserve peace and that we deal with human dignity - then these guys are really going out on a limb and risking their own lives."
It was perfect reality TV, made with the active cooperation of Donald Rumsfeld and aired just before the Iraqi war. The Pentagon liked what it saw. "What Profiles does is given another in depth look at what forces are doing from the ground," says Whitman. "It provides a very human look at challenges that are presented when you are dealing in these very difficult situations." That approached was taken on and developed on the field of battle in Iraq.
The Pentagon has none of the British misgivings about its media operation. It is convinced that what worked with Jessica Lynch and with other episodes of this war will work even better in the future.
· War Spin, presented by John Kampfner and produced by Sandy Smith, is on BBC2 on Sunday at 7.15pm.
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| NY Times Reporter's Fiction [message #1240 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:25 |
|
Michael Zwiebel - 03:01pm May 18, 2003
Any comment on the recent flap about the NY Times reporter who was making up stories? Is what he was doing different from the LA times photographer?
|
|
|
| Are Zone Zero photos altered? [message #1241 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:30 |
|
Mike Dean - 01:10pm Jul 2, 2003
Are you kidding Pedro? I hope you were just playing devil's advocate. I have to wonder now if any of Pedro's images or any images on zone zero have been sandwiched or otherwise manipulated other than basic darkroom correctoin like burning, dodging and color correction.
|
|
|
| LA Times Was RIGHT ON!!!!! [message #1242 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:35 |
|
trisha - 10:06am Oct 9, 2003
not only would i fire that photographer, but i would see to it that he never works ANYWHERE that pertains to news. He is a disgrace to the photojournalistic world. What a jerk!
|
|
|
| Don't press too hard on your house of cards [message #1243 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:44 |
|
Eric Arnold - 03:11pm Oct 24, 2003 PST
I can't believe how bent people get over "manipulated" photographs in journalism.
First off, the photog broke employment rules so it is okay to fire him. But straight photography is no less a lie than many manipulations, one of Pedro's points. You guys know no photograph is the same as being there. Just the basic choices of viewpoint, lens, focus, choice of film (or ISO/white balance/format in digital) exposure (and timing of the shutter press), development (or RAW conversion), crop, and printing (with contrast adjustments) are arbitrary and the end result is a 2D representation of 3D reality with a ton of interpretation built-in.
You cannot escape this. Someone else can cover the same 'event' and come away with photos stunningly different in meaning than yours. I can't believe some of you think it deceptive to blur a background when the same image would have resulted from a larger lens aperture. Or to darken a background when fill-flash would have done the EXACT same thing. I know there's a deifference between these adjustments and, say, compositing something that never existed. But the decision if content has been changed is not as cut-and-dried as some of you make it out to be.
The act of taking a photograph changes reality. You can't say this or that straight photo is more "correct" than a manipulated image that better captures the moment. Makes me think some of you must do this work with pinhole cameras loaded with Polaroid film.
|
|
|
| spin... [message #1244 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:50 |
|
David Giles - 02:45am Feb 16, 2005 PST
I think they're all very good points being raised BUT...
Yes, a photograph inherently freezes reality in a particular, subjective, distorted way, so digitally altering a picture is just a few steps down the road from taking one at all, and press photographers don't get fired for leaving stuff out of the frame, as long as theyso when the photo is actually taken; and yes, journalists or editors get to patch their texts up however they want (something obscene like 85% of all American news articles get amended by one PR agency or another), so what the photographer here did wasn't that different... but then, maybe he SHOULD be censured, and so should journalists and editors who pander to public opinion or PR comapnies...
What interets me is WHAT WAS WRONG with the two "unmanipulated" photos? If they had served his rhetorical purpose well enough as is, he wouldn't have manipulated them... in fact, he placed the two central characters in a much more direct relationship... he made them appear to be looking each other in the eyes, and he made the soldier appear to be almost threatening the Iraqi man with his child... to this end, he also made the soldier bigger than he was in either of the original photos! There's a subtle narrative being imposed on this (spin, you might say), which might be happening anyway, through the original framing when the photo was taken, as well as the caption etc, but I think it's reasonable to set limits on just how much liberty you can take in imposing this sort of narrative! This is qualitatively the same thing FOX news takes crap for all the time, and rightly so, but you can't be selective about who you criticise
|
|
|
| Re: The LA Times fires a photographer [message #1719 is a reply to message #137 ] |
Sat, 04 March 2006 18:43 |
|
I agree with everyone on here that says that the photographer should have been fired. When you are a photojournalist, your job is to tell a story by what is in the frame and how you frame it. Your job is not to add or subtract from what you see.
The biggest reason I chose to respond though is this silly notion that the LA Times is somehow caving to pressure from the US government. This could not be farther from the truth. It is well known that the LA Times is one of the most liberal newspapers in the US. It is only second to the San Fransisco Chronicle and the New York Times. The fact is that the LA Times says what it wants to say. Nothing less, nothing more. It does not cave to the government. If anything it could be said that it has a bias of showing only what went wrong in this war with the former government of Iraq and now the insurgency. Yet, so many things have gone right and you do not see those on the front page either.
The stories that the LA Times thinks its subscriber base wants to hear are the ones that make it into the paper. It could not be any more simple.
|
|
|
| Trying to reach Mr. Scales [message #1739 is a reply to message #1193 ] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 19:50 |
|
Mr. Scales:
I'm the marketing director for JazzTimes magazine, and I sent an email to the last email we have for you, but delivery failed. I would like permission to use one of your photos; would you please contact me at your earliest convenience?
Thank you very much, and kind regards.
Colleen Holt
Marketing & Communications Director
JazzTimes Magazine
cholt@jazztimes.com
|
|
|
| Re: Correction to last post [message #1740 is a reply to message #1193 ] |
Fri, 14 April 2006 19:55 |
|
Dear Mr. Scales,
I work as the Marketing Director for JazzTimes magazine, and I'd like very much to use one of your photographs. I tried emailing you, but the message was returned.
Could you please email me at your earliest convenience?
Thank you and kind regards,
Colleen Holt
Marketing & Communications Director
(and a great admirer of your work)
JazzTimes Magazine
cholt@jazztimes.com
|
|
|
| Re: let's stop for a moment and think! [message #1784 is a reply to message #1196 ] |
Sat, 05 August 2006 01:25 |
|
Pedro, you don't seem to understand, there is nothing about which to think. Simply, the photographer(s) violated the rules of the companies for which they worked. It doesn't matter how little or how much the photos were changed or whether they changed in meaning. If you start to cross the street in the middle of the block, and a policeman tells you that you may not do it, what right have you to complain when you are arrested/fined for jaywalking? The principle is the same. If you want to discuss how much PS is too much for any photo you need to start a new thread; this is only about the rights of the paper to fire employees for rules violation.
Personally, I think PS and the other editors should be banned for everyone. The meaning of the word photography is now changed to mixed media. Most people with digital cameras don't have any idea of how to use those cameras and don't care; they can fix it in PS. I feel that this is what you are pushing and it sure doesn't belong in photoj. If you cant get the shot right get rid of the camera. I did photoj with a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 speed graphic and the photo was either there or it wasn't. There was no "adjusting" for a poor exposure.
Now when I shoot it is for my own use and feeling. If I wantto modify a photo I do so and call it creative art or mixed media. I don't try to delude people with "enhancements".
Pedro, I think you are the one who needs to "stop for a moment and think!"
Michael
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 22 00:25:33 EST 2009
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
The LA Times fires a photographer
