Skip to comments.
New York Times Says Magazine Photos Manipulated (Altered Pics of US Public Housing Pushed as Real)
Fox News ^
| 06/10/2009
| Fox News
Posted on 07/10/2009 8:06:55 AM PDT by Dallas59
NEW YORK — The New York Times inadvertently published digitally manipulated photographs in the latest issue of its Sunday magazine, the newspaper said Thursday.
In an editors note, the Times acknowledged that Edgar Martins, a 32-year-old freelance photographer based in Bedford, England, digitally altered the photos. The shots have been removed from the newspaper's Web site.
Readers pointed out alterations to the photo essay, titled "Ruins of the Second Gilded Age," on the blogs MetaFilter and PDN Pulse.
The photos showed run-down housing construction projects across the U.S. that had been hit by the recession. In an introduction to the spread, the magazine said the photos were created with long exposures but not altered by computer.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: fake; fraud; medialies; nyt; photojournalism; photos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
07/10/2009 8:06:55 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
To: Dallas59
2
posted on
07/10/2009 8:08:37 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
To: Dallas59
The New York Times would NEVER alter the news to suit their needs!
/sarc
3
posted on
07/10/2009 8:09:10 AM PDT
by
Erik Latranyi
(Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
To: Dallas59
Interesting that the Times didn’t have the expertise to vet the photos on their own.
To: Erik Latranyi
That is not what is alleged. The English photographer told the Times they were not digitally altered, and they believed him, but it turns out that they were.
To: NativeNewYorker
Interesting that the Times didn’t have the expertise to vet the photos on their own.
:::::::
They did, but like all leftist pinko operations, THEY LIE.
6
posted on
07/10/2009 8:12:03 AM PDT
by
EagleUSA
(if)
To: proxy_user
The English photographer told the Times they were not digitally altered, and they believed him, but it turns out that they were. Does anyone know if the Photos were DIGITALLY TAKEN? I.E. No Film?
7
posted on
07/10/2009 8:13:46 AM PDT
by
sr4402
To: proxy_user
The English photographer told the Times they were not digitally altered, and they believed himIgnorance is no defense.
8
posted on
07/10/2009 8:14:22 AM PDT
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
To: Dallas59
If I had paid for this story....Would the NYT refund my money?
9
posted on
07/10/2009 8:14:33 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
To: NativeNewYorker
Misinformation and shoddy fact checking...sure, I’d pay $5/month for that...yeah, right.
10
posted on
07/10/2009 8:17:29 AM PDT
by
shteebo
To: Dallas59
No thanks. I wouldn’t pay any amount of money to read this rag.
11
posted on
07/10/2009 8:18:57 AM PDT
by
freekitty
(Give me back my conservative vote.)
To: Dallas59
That’s a pic of a rundown housing project?
12
posted on
07/10/2009 8:19:14 AM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
To: Dallas59
"
"Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay," the editors note says." . . .
. . . but, since the pics fits the editors' template, they were easily fooled.
13
posted on
07/10/2009 8:23:03 AM PDT
by
YHAOS
To: Dallas59
Have to admit that photo is evidence of Squalor, I tell you!!! (sarcasm).Nice foyer. What! you say.... Public Housing???
To: Dallas59
What is the significance of this photo?
Why are some areas highlighted?
15
posted on
07/10/2009 8:31:40 AM PDT
by
Doe Eyes
To: Dallas59
The fox piece got it wrong. It should say
inadvertently got caught publishing digitally manipulated photographs
I doubt they mind publishing manipulated images but they do mind when someone finds out.
To: Doe Eyes
Split photo. Both sides are the same.
17
posted on
07/10/2009 8:51:24 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
To: Erik Latranyi
The New York Times would NEVER alter the news to suit their needs! Its seems the photographer photoshopped the pictures (mirror imaged one side to the other). When discovered, the pictures were removed.
How did these alterations "suit the needs" of the New York Times?
18
posted on
07/10/2009 9:03:40 AM PDT
by
Doe Eyes
To: Dallas59
What's 'run down' about that home? Looks more like someone opened those nice french doors for a few minutes and let some leaves blow in. A broom will take care of that tout suite!
19
posted on
07/10/2009 9:10:54 AM PDT
by
SuziQ
To: SuziQ
Looks like that. I never saw the original story other than it about unfinished housing.
20
posted on
07/10/2009 9:12:10 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
