Posted on 04/02/2003 10:44:49 AM PST by hemogoblin
On Monday, March 31, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page photograph that had been altered in violation of Times policy. The primary subject of the photo was a British soldier directing Iraqi civilians to take cover from Iraqi fire on the outskirts of Basra. After publication, it was noticed that several civilians in the background appear twice.
The photographer, Brian Walski, reached by telephone in southern Iraq, acknowledged that he had used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition. Times policy forbids altering the content of news photographs.
See the photos here: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
No, I'm not kidding. If the two original pictures do not make the soldier look threatening, then the composite most certainly doesn't.
This knee-jerk hyperventilating does nothing but make us look petty and reactionary. The guy did this to enhance the composition of the photo, not to commit treason.
There's no treason her first of all, you're right, but he DID alter the photo considerably. The photog wanted the shot with the soldier aggressively gesturing toward the man w/ baby, but did NOT want the man looking backward toward the source of the real danger.
(By the way, this was a photographer, not a reporter.) I think that once we agree that it's wrong to combine photos, the question is was an effort made to portray the soldier (British?) in a bad light. My answer is definitely "no."
So the guy is yelling. I think it was made clear in the printed newspaper he was trying to get them to take cover from Iraqi fire. Nearly anybody would understand yelling is appropriate in that situation.
You say that in the final version he appears to be threatening the guy with the child in his arms. I say instead that it's less likely he's pointing his gun barrel at them.
I think some people on this thread need to take a few deep breaths and not immediately conclude evil was intended just because an altered photo appeared in a liberal newspaper.
Let's try this again. NOBODY on this thread, from what I can tell, feels that what the photographer did was right. We all agree that it is inappropriate to alter pictures without attribution. So the Times was correct in firing the photographer who did it once they discovered the problem.
The question that arises is, essentially, was it malicious in intent? I say that, looking at the originals and using my limited photography experience, it is more than obvious that the photographer was looking for a better composition, not to portray the Brit soldier as threatening.
Your logic is distorted, because the soldier is indeed threatening in all 3 pictures, but he is presented as less humane when pointing his gun at a man with a child instead of at some other perceived threat in the distance. And that, I believe, was the effect the photog was going for. Unless one reads the story (and most people won't), the perception is that this soldier is behaving in a threatening manner to unarmed civilians.
That was exactly my impression of the doctored photo before reading any comments. At first glance until you read the caption, it looks like the solider is threatening the man and his child.
We aren't discussing logic here, we are discussing perception. And if you think that the composite picture is "less humane" as the second original, where the gun actually looks like it is being pointed AT someone, then there is nothing else to say. But it should be pointed out to lurkers who scan this site looking for silly, reactionary posts, that many here don't think there was malice in the intent of the photographer. For the simple reason that if this guy wanted to make a picture that makes this Brit soldier look bad, he could have done a MUCH better job.
Bill O'Reilly just led tonight with this story. The LA Times' credibility is totally destroyed, because they finally got caught.
He was fired for getting caught.
It's not really capital-J Journalism, but there's not a non-news magazine cover in America that isn't Photoshopped out the wazzoo first.
I'm no fan of the LA Times, but what O'Reilly just pulled is worse. The Marine's rifle is pointed at folks in both pictures, and it should be.
I'm disappointed with Bill, dangit what is it with folks ? They get a little power and almost invariably abuse it. I won't be lied to by reporters, and that includes FOX !
Sure is. The doctored photo shows the gun pointing at the civilians -- making the soldier appear to be threatening them.
This propaganda is similar to what CNN was showing last weekend: a soldier aiming a rifle around a corner of a building, with an Arab woman walking nearby. The implication was, the soldier was aiming at a civilian, or was aiming and didn't care if a civilian was approaching.
I'm sure the truth was, the soldier was rounding the corner and sticking the gun out first for protection. Isn't that standard policy?
It gets worse. Tony Snow was on earlier and reported the same thing. He actually said the doctored picture made it look like the soldier was threatening the man. I just can't see how they would think that. The whole episode makes them look bad.
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.