LA Times' apology for altered war photo

LA Times ^ | LA Times

[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

[hemogoblin]

A friend on the west coast e-mailed me this; I am not sure how publicly this correction is being made. I thought this was of interest, especially for the way the action of the "photo" appears to have been changed. Not to mention the squatting guy on the left who appears twice.

This is my first article post; hope everything is correct ...

[talleyman]

Great job. Now if they'd only apologize for the truth they've altered every day in their copy...

[3AngelaD]

TREACHEROUS MEDIA DISHONESTY ALERT.

[thinktwice]

The Los Angeles Times, nonetheless, constantly -- and hypocritically -- twists the truth in written news and commentary articles.

Go figure!

[LTColRick]

The only thing the LA Times is sorry about is that they got caught.

[onedoug]

Right. They wre caught. The LA Times is essentially a European newspaper.

[lilylangtree]

I just read the announcement on MSN news that the reporter was fired for the altering.

[TomB]

The reporter broke a rule and should be fired.

But is the picture somehow dishonest? It seems to me he altered it to look better, not tell a different story. IOW, he was more interested in getting it published and maybe get some notice, not create negative attitudes toward the war.

[mabelkitty]

No. In the original, the gun and hand were lowered when the soldier spotted the man with the child.

This is blatant anti-troop propaganda.

[jiggyboy]

Nope, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this is the most clearly-definable and therefore best place, otherwise you go straight to the modern American model of a whole quasi-judicial Oprah-like process where a hundred opinions and "feelings" all carry the same weight.

[atomic conspiracy]

The photog's action was completely consistent with this fifth-column bong-wipe rag's longstanding editorial policies. He just got caught and had to be sacrificed for the good of the collective.

[Uncle George]

It's only a band aid put on a large bloody CANCER. This paper (A Commie tool) will soon be "The Late LA Times" Oreilly and the REAL AMERICANS of this Country have HAD ENOUGH. This rag and the NY Times rag are going to change or DIE.

[weegee]

Michael Moore was awarded an Oscar(TM) for Best Documentary for pulling this type of a trick. Maybe the LA Times will receive a Pulitzer Prize for their efforts.

[kellynla]

They need to apologize for their editorial page and front page "news." Robert Scheer's column yesterday was an outrage! Semper Fi

[Sloth]

Actually, I don't think they were lowered, they were just pointed further from the camera.

[Sloth]

Rather, the hand was down, but not the gun.

[TomB]

Nope, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this is the most clearly-definable and therefore best place, otherwise you go straight to the modern American model of a whole quasi-judicial Oprah-like process where a hundred opinions and "feelings" all carry the same weight.

You are essentially correct, IMO. As I said in my first post, he violated a rule, and should be punished. After all, if this kind of stuff is allowed, the paper would lose what little credibility it has left.

That said, looking at the two pictures that were used to created it, nobody can convice me that there is something "anti-troop" about it, and not the other two. If he wanted to create an anti-troop picture with photoshop, he could have done much better.

Actual photos

[Redcloak]

I guess that this means that the Times isn't going to be interested in my exclusive picture of a Klingon Bird of Prey attacking Baghdad...

Oh well... There's always NBC.

[slowry]

No. In the original, the gun and hand were lowered when the soldier spotted the man with the child.

This is blatant anti-troop propaganda.

You say the "gun and hand were lowered" -- maybe I'd say in the combined version it looks like the soldier is less likely pointing his gun at a civilian. Plus the faces of more people -- including the soldier -- are visible in the altered version.

I am not for altering photographs for publication, but I don't see how this is "anti-troop"?

It was rather sloppy to actually have people appear twice in the photo, but I think all that happened was the piece of military equipment (Bradley?) in the lower left was replaced by more people.

It does make one wonder how often photo alterations occur.

[ExpatCanuck]

But is the picture somehow dishonest?

You have got to be kidding. I've seen all 3 pictures (the 2 originals and the final copy) and the soldier is made to appear to be threatening and yelling at the guy with the kid in his arms, when in reality that is nowhere close to what was happening. This is beyond dishonest; I would go so far as to say this is treasonous.

The left is eating itself alive over reports that not only are our troops going to extremes to limit civilian casualties, indeed suffering casualties because of it, but that the Iraqis are becoming unafraid enough to actually start displaying gratitude. It completely erodes the left's position that we are an invading force and that the Iraqi people hate our guts and will fight to the last man. This reporter is a piece of sh*t lefty that thinks there is nothing wrong with altering the truth to support the 'correct' viewpoint. He is probably an elitist snob who thinks he was doing a great service to the stupid, ordinary people who read the paper and don't have his wisdom to see things as they truly are.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I've been spending some time lurking at DU over the course of this war, and with a few exceptions, it has become a refuge for the most pathetic group of closed minded wack jobs that must exist on the planet. The most pathetic part is their fundamental belief that they represent mainstream thinking in America, and they view themselves as 'crusaders' (they'll hate that word) who must enlighten the unwashed masses. There will be many comments over there supporting this reporter as a hero.