Kerry Photo Altered, Used for Political Attack (FR, Registered Mentioned)

Berkeley Daily Planet ^ | February 17, 2004 | Richard Brenneman

[Timesink]

A UC Berkeley journalism lecturer's 32-year-old photograph of future Democratic U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry has wound up in a forgery that suckered the New York Times.

Ken Light, head of the photojournalism program at UCB's Graduate School of Journalism, has found himself in the eye of a media and Internet storm after a clever forger inserted an image of Jane Fonda alongside his image of Kerry and posted the composite on the Internet.

[dead]

Just kidding around.

I thought she looked a hell of a lot older in the 1971 picture than she did in the "real Fonda/Kerry" picture from 1970 (where she was actually pretty cute.)

She must have had a real hard year. Never recovered from it, in fact.

[RandallFlagg]

I thought she looked a hell of a lot older in the 1971 picture than she did in the "real Fonda/Kerry" picture from 1970 (where she was actually pretty cute.)

Heh! She didn't get the lead in "Barbarella" for lookin' like Helen Thomas (who was always FUGly).

[Rummyfan]

If the NY Times got suckered that is their problem! Sounds like things haven't changed too much since Raines and Blair's departure. And yet, they pass the blame!

[dead]

Actual unretouched photo:

[js1138]

Different events, same subject.

[MEGoody]

"Jane Fonda standing at the microphone in a Miami park addressing fellow protesters gathered to harangue the Republican Party presidential nominating convention."

Isn't it amazing that Hanoi Jane was 'haranguing' the Republican Party presidential nominating convention - yet it was the Democrats who began and expanded our involvement in Vietnam (a war she supposedly hated).

[McGavin999]

Just goes to prove how stupid, incompetent and lazy our corrupt media has become. I'm really beginning to think that Tass and Pravda were more fair and balanced.

[Hon]

"If the NY Times got suckered that is their problem! Sounds like things haven't changed too much since Raines and Blair's departure."

Far be it from me to defend the NY Times, but you and others here are mistaken in your characterization of how they were suckered.

As I showed with my citation above, the NYT represented the photo as something that was circulated, but that they did not know the source of it.

Later, they reported that the photo turned out to a hoax.

It is bizare to see some of the reactions here. This was nothing but a major shot in the foot to "internet journalism" and many people here view it as some kind of victory.

[CajunConservative]

It is bizare to see some of the reactions here. This was nothing but a major shot in the foot to "internet journalism" and many people here view it as some kind of victory.

You haven't been around long enough to figure it out yet. Registered is a legend here.

[Hon]

I was very familiar with Free Republic long before Registered showed up.

I am also quite up on his history.

[CajunConservative]

It is the journalists responsibility to source and credit every thing they publish. If they are too lazy to do that then it is their problem not Registered's problem or any other internet photoshopper.

[michigander]

the NYT represented the photo as something that was circulated, but that they did not know the source of it.

Excuse me but, you left out a little detail.
It was circulated via e-mail.
How much of your work (that you now claim is undercut) did you source from an email?

[Ben Bolt]

Got photoshop ;) ?

[Revolting cat!]

It's a revealing moment of truth, isn't it, when a person, who, like most here, travels outside of the circle of the media and politics, inadvertently or not admits that she's incapable of appreciating a good hoax, and demands to be forewarned the next time a joke is performed. Laugh track for everyone in the house!

The only improvement I can think of would have been to release the forgery anonymously and somewhere other than FR, so that it would first be published by one of our beloved mainstream sources.

Superb effort, Registered!

[lonestar]

Was that guy ever married to Tammy Wynette?

[Hon]

"It is the journalists responsibility to source and credit every thing they publish. If they are too lazy to do that then it is their problem not Registered's problem or any other internet photoshopper."

This topic has been masticated several times over on other threads.

Again, the NYTimes did not post this photo as real. I don't think they posted it at all. As far as I know the only organization that posted it as real was Newsmax. If you want to say they didn't do their job, I would agree. But most here think Newsmax is on FR's side.

No, most of the media has seized on this to show the untrustworthiness of the Fonda Kerry reporting in general and FR in particular--at least that is the subtext.

[Revolting cat!]

'Course, I wonder if Mr Light (if that's his real name) noticed, and what he thinks about it, the esteemed Berkeley Planet itself altered Registered work. What are the ethics of that?

[unsycophant]

To the Left, which includes the liberal media, "this site" is already "discredited". It has never been credible as far as they're concerned. Your faux concern is not convincing.

We're at war with the Left. Registered isn't causing us to "lose" the war by creating a fake pic, whether he did it on purpose or by accident. They got taken, conned, rooked. It's certainly not his fault that a bunch of retards can't source it for themselves, and are embarrassed to admit that they rely on unknown Internet sources to provide their content.

The other side don't want to focus on the Kerry-Fonda pic, so like you--one excuse is as good as another when it comes to redirecting the conversation. The Internet is no more reliable or unreliable than it was before this fake photo turned up. It's only an issue because it's another axe to grind against us on the Right.

Everyone knows you can't trust what you read or see on the Internet without verifying it.

Hope this helps!

[Hon]

"the NYT represented the photo as something that was circulated, but that they did not know the source of it.
Excuse me but, you left out a little detail.
It was circulated via e-mail."

I don't quite get your point. The NY Times was probably alerted to this photo via e-mail. So what?

"How much of your work (that you now claim is undercut) did you source from an email?"

None. But that is an irrelevant question, really. The NY Times probably followed the hoax photo link back to here. And thereby the site is discredited.

What I and others have posted here is thereby discredited by association. You're trying to make this complicated. It isn't complicated. It's painfully simple.

[Spiff]

The only improvement I can think of would have been to release the forgery anonymously and somewhere other than FR, so that it would first be published by one of our beloved mainstream sources.

While I question the judgement and the timing of Registered's hoax and its negative effects on the authentic photo and the story behind it, I am not saying that such hoaxes do not have their place. However, FR should not be exploited to release or to spread them.