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

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

[Hon]

"They have been at work ever since, as was seen this week with the fake snap of John Kerry which caused a stir in the United States. It purported to show him associating in the 1970s with the film star Jane Fonda, who is still widely reviled in the US for her visit to the enemy capital, Hanoi, during the Vietnam war. Many still see it as the act of a traitor."

You're exactly right, Spiff. This is the way this is being reported whenever possible. And it is intentionally done to make people think that any photo they see of Kerry with Fonda is a fake.

It undercuts all of the work I and other here and elsewhere put into getting the Fonda Kerry connection out. It cut that story off at the knees.

[js1138]

I knew it was faked when I saw (After closer inspection) what Fonda was wearing and knew that that style of clothing wasn't yet popular.

You can tell the difference between 1970 and 1971?

What about the fact that the image was posted by Registered on a thread with many comic images?

[Hon]

"The media who selective checks out certain stories, like the Kerry/Polier affair and won't report it because its just INTERNET GOSSIP. Yet they take this picture from FR and don't even check the source (AP WORLDWIDE) and run it? Gimme a break."

I hope this isn't news to you.

Registered gave them a break.

[Lazamataz]

Well, I hope you're proud of yourself, Mister. >:^(

cuz I sure as hell am proud of ya ;^)

[RandallFlagg]

You can tell the difference between 1970 and 1971?

What about the fact that the image was posted by Registered on a thread with many comic images?

Like I said, at first I was fooled as well.

[TexasCajun]

Nice work. Hope someone at the White House shows President Bush.

[TexasCajun]

Oh... The American Flag is a nice touch too!

[Richard Kimball]

wearing the anguished Lincolnesque expression that's become a virtual trademark

Lincolnesque? He looks like he's sitting on a fire hydrant.

[Richard Kimball]

[LisaMalia]

It wasn't an innocent mistake. And it screwed things up--big time!

I agree. I was on the thread where it was initially posted. Thanks to a sharp FReeper, it was debunked immediately. If you're going to doctor a photo, label it as such. I'm not talking about funny, captioned pictures that are obvious, but ones that are actually very real looking. And this one was.

Although we look at an article from a Berkley paper and laugh at their stupidity, this could be passed around the internet to more unsuspecting people. I fail to see anything funny about this situation.

[diotima]

Sorry, the "newspaper of record" has the reponsibility to check accuracy of what it reports. That image was not sourced OUTSIDE of FR with a link and it wasn't represented as real.

No one needs to walk on eggshells because the media might not check their sources and run it as fact.

[abner]

Notice this Berkeley publication altered the original fake artwork????

They removed the headline and the caption. I wonder why.

[BunnySlippers]

•

[BunnySlippers]

And it does speak to a larger issue which is when photo manipulations reach a point where photos can no longer be trusted to be what they represent.

In the digital age it's viewer / reader beware. These days we all have the capacity to be reporters a la Drudge ... or photo editors. Remember the early days of the Internet where we were all urged to dismiss news gathered online since you never knew if it was true. Well, we all just have to be more skeptical when we read that Sid Bluminthal beat his wife ... or Kerry stood with Jane.

The onus was on the "legitimate" news sources for not vetting the photo before going to press with it. They are the ones shirking responsiblity. Doctored photos have always been a possibility.

[Johnny Gage]

WOW.. You're a Star now.

Can I have your autograph?

*HIGH FIVE* atta boy. Got the dims in a big lather.

[SAMWolf]

I saw that for the first time last night. I don't know if it's real or not. It could be, I've seen stories that Kerry had dealings with Chung.

[Hon]

"Sorry, the "newspaper of record" has the reponsibility to check accuracy of what it reports. That image was not sourced OUTSIDE of FR with a link and it wasn't represented as real.

No one needs to walk on eggshells because the media might not check their sources and run it as fact."

Er, what the NY Times reported was accurate, in case you haven't noticed:

"And on Thursday, a new photograph of the senator and the actress began circulating via e-mail. Unlike the image Mr. Sampley bought, which shows Mr. Kerry seated several rows behind Ms. Fonda, this picture — its origins are unclear — shows them side by side, Ms. Fonda behind a microphone and Mr. Kerry, holding a notebook, to her right."

Look, this is a preposterous argument. If you think it is a great lark to spoof the media, don't ever expect to be taken seriously. It's that simple.

FR could be a useful tool to counter the agit-prop from the other side. It won't be if people can say--"oh, yeah, that's the site that does the hoaxes."

Over the last couple of weeks I have tried to turn the AWOL story around with facts about how it sprang from misreporting. I tried to get the Kerry Fonda connection out through the photo and research into their background. I've tried to get other important facts out.

It is frustrating to see my hard work and that of others here undercut by such a childish and self-promoting prank. If FR is just satisfied to be a chat site, fine. It could be more.

[T'wit]

I absolutely DID NOT manipulate, alter or edit this photo. Yet it it's way, it tells a damning story!

[diotima]

I never said it was a great lark to spoof the media. There was no premeditated effort to spoof the media. The image was never presented as real, its authenticity was questioned on this very website.

The mainstream media takes FR seriously when they can use it against us.

[Coop]

I'll have to check the FR bylaws, but I don't think you're allowed to give lectures like that until you've been here at least two months.

But don't worry, I won't turn you in. :-)