LA Times' apology for altered war photo

LA Times ^ | LA Times

[Samwise]

You mean this was doctored? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

[TomB]

The doctored photo shows the gun pointing at the civilians -- making the soldier appear to be threatening them.

You mean to tell me that this picture:

is more threatening than this one?

I just don't see it. The bottom picture actually looks like the soldier has his weapon pointed at the people. In the doctored pic, he only has one hand near the weapon, so he can't be aiming. And he is obviously telling them to get down.

The second pic is MUCH more threatening.

[Timesink]

You mean this was doctored? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

That wasn't Photoshop. I think they needed to bring in stonemasons for that one.

[Maeve]

The L.A. Times is one sick newspaper. One can only hope a micro-earthquake will take out its buildings (sans casualties of course).

[Timesink]

Tom, I think the problem here might be that you're arguing from the point of view of someone with a brain who's actually spent a minute or two examining and analyzing the photos, and tried to figure out what was going on in this idiotic photographer's mind. Meanwhile, the rest of us are just going on what the average Moron-on-the-Street saw and thought: "Hey, that marine's aiming his gun at innocent civilians! BASTARDS! Duuh, where'd I put my doughnuts?"

Unfortunately, I believe that doctored photo affected many more members of the Moron Crowd than those of the Thinking Crowd.

[bootyist-monk]

What incredibly sloppy Photoshop skills. There is so much repetitive imagery in the BG of the civilians that you can catch three or four instantly. Ten more minutes to clean this thing up and this guy would still have a job.

[Ciexyz]

TomB (Post 42), the original photo shows the soldier with the gun pointed DOWNWARD, not at the civilians. That's how a soldier stands, correct me if I'm wrong. The gun is at the ready but not pointing directly at the civilians.

The second photo shows the soldier's hand stretched out in a potentially-threatening manner, and the gun is pointed in the direction of the civilians.

[Zon]

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.

The photographer is doing his job. He knows which photo will benefit him most. So he went with the one that was eventually put on the front page. He didn't think of the actual consequences of being caught. He has probably been altering photos for better composition all along and been selecting the one that best reflects on his photographer skills. He inherently knows what the publisher is looking for and that plays into his process. It's second nature. You can't remove the logic from it. Well, you can try to, but it won't pass muster. What is the LA Times looking for? Is honesty and integrity its strong suit? I don't think so.

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.

"Silly reactionary posts"!??? I suppose you said in 1998 that it was just about sex and people were being silly and reactionary. Perjury is misrepresentation regardless of whether it's on the witness stand or on the front page. Honesty and integrity do matter.

[TaxRelief]

Bull. In the photo that has a defensive hand up, the gun may be pointed at people, but it is in a relaxed position. When the gun is aimed higher, it is above people's heads. By combining the two, it looks like the civilians are afraid that they are about to get shot, particularly with the defensive hand lined up with the barrel of the gun. Time for all the leftists to crawl back under their DU rock.

[Anamensis]

I agree, I don't think anything seditious is afoot here, this is just some dork trying to make his photo more dramatic. He took the photo of the soldier which had more dynamic body language, and the photo of the man where his face is showing, to draw interest. Shouldn't have done it, no. But evil plot? No.

[Mike-o-Matic]

Not bad, not bad!

[Revolting cat!]

All political arguments aside for a minute, aesthetically speaking, the composite is certainly more interesting than the original two. Who knows what was going through the photographer's mind when he decided to combine the two. I imagine that with the advent of digital photography (Question: are all photos we are seeing from the front these days digital? Are all newspaper photso digital? What pixel resolution cameras?), this or some kind of manipulation is as fairly common as certain darkroom manipulation (cropping, dodging, burning) was common in the dune buggy days!

[Toskrin]

A good picture makes us imagine a little story in action. In the doctored photo, the soldier is interacting with the standing man in a slightly threatening manner. In the first real photo, they are both reacting to something going on off the right side of the frame. The second real photo may be slightly threatening, butt here's no action - it's a passive photo, so they wouldn't want to run it.

[estjohn]

There is a huge difference between the doctored photo and the other original two--that is why the photographer altered it. In the doctored photo it appears the arrogant American is manhandling the poor Iraqi civilian who is cowering weakly trying to save his baby.

This is classic case of media fraud and bias. They were caught red-handed.

[RightOnline]

Oh hell, the LA Slimes makes up "news" all the time. Nothing unusual here. They're worthless.

[WOSG]

LOL!

that is way cool disinformation.

everyone one knows we are using the romulan cloaking device on our warships btw.

[WOSG]

I agree. it was doctored to look a little more interesting.

[CMOTB]

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

Reminds me of the infamous report on the "exploding" truck. A while back, a certian "news" show was trying to show how this brand of truck would explode when if flipped. The problem was, they couldn't get the truck to explode! So what did the do? The strapped estes model rocket engines on the fule tank and lit them off after the truck rolled to make the gas take explode. Of cousre they forgot to mention that they had to MAKE the truck explode since they couldnt get truck to explode on its own. But they did it for us, to help keep us safe, so of course when the media does a deception its all ok. </sarcasim off>

[lawgirl]

I hope O'Reilly totally blasts them for this. Of course, they blame the photographer- AS IF they have no journalistic duty to check out the photos they run. This one is SO obviously doctored they should have known. Aholes.

[timestax]

LATIMESLIES