Reuters drops freelance Lebanese photographer over image

Reuters ^ | 06 Aug 2006 | Reuters

[StAnDeliver]

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.

Not nearly good enough. Where's the part about Reuters agreeing to "undertake a review of all of Hajj's previous contributions to Reuters." ?????

Reuters editors at every level need to be internally investigated now, as they did at the Slimes after the Blair fiasco.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

And somebody please tell me how did that smoke get so dark compared to the original pic? Trying to remove dust. Puulllleeeese!

[LibSnubber]

Glad I was just drinking water... makes for easier cleanup, LMAO!

[Dallas59]

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:



Verdict:

[jennyp]

And what "dust marks" was stupid trying to get rid of? Dust marks off of digital pics or perhaps dust marks that were getting in the way of all the smoke he wanted seen in the pics?

There was dust in the memory stick. :-)

[Congressman Billybob]

Okay, they fired the photographer. But is Reuters only covering their tail from worst damage when the same photographer's managed photographs from Qana get taken apart?

John / Billybob

[Vince Ferrer]

This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards

There are, or can be, technical/business process solutions to help in this situation, and the worldwide journalistic market is certainly wide enought to justify the effort. Just create a "Journalistic Integrity" version of Photoshop, which limits the manipulations that can be done on photographs in the field, plus logs the changes into the saved versions. Acceptable changes may be contrast, brightness, and maybe basic cropping. Every other manipulation would have to be the result of sending the image to an office at the newsroom, with a request of what to do, and it is done by someone other than the photographer, with the knowledge of the editor, again, with version control of what was done, along with what was requested.

[John Jorsett]

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.

I know what he means. I hate it when the sun goes down and I can no longer see my monitor.

[LibSnubber]

And the uber-gullible editor who accepted the pictures? Will this kind of professional malpractice go on, with different photographers?

IMHO, the editors are uber-complicit more than uber-gullible.

[Vince Ferrer]

I see no dust marks in Exhibit A.

[StAnDeliver]

"Brilliant!"

[Bommer]

Is that the real picture???? Man thats not even a convincing use of the Photoshop clone tool! Pathetic!

[Peach]

Excellent news.

[El Gato]

Score for the Pajamehedan!

Another one bites the dust

[ARealMothersSonForever]

I just HATE it when those dust particles get on my RAM card and smudge up the pictures. Photoshop takes care of it every time. Even in low light conditions.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

[John Jorsett]

Rather than making the "journalistic integrity" version of Photoshop be crippled, why not just have it tag the output with EXIF data that lists every alteration made? That, or maybe just a policy change in the news organization that requires originals be submitted along with any "improved" version.

[quantim]

Hajj you say?

Reminds me of a Photoshop I did a few years ago...

[humblegunner]

Other sources report Harry Potter in the area...

[SpaceBar]

The truth here is simple. Mr. Adnan Hajj is a de facto embedded Hezbollah propaganda agent posing as a freelance news photographer. His work provides valuable PR assistance to terrorists. Period. End of story.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Just the usual selective reporting.