Skip to comments.
L.A. Times Photographer Fired Over Altered Image
www.poynter.org ^
| 4/3/03
| Kenny F. Irby
Posted on 04/03/2003 6:11:40 PM PST by harpu
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
1
posted on
04/03/2003 6:11:40 PM PST
by
harpu
To: harpu
I LOVE it.
2
posted on
04/03/2003 6:16:03 PM PST
by
RLJVet
To: harpu
I don't feel sorry for the photographer at all. Soldiers have to make harder decisions under the worst of conditions, they're life or death decisions, and usually end up the right way . This guy had to decide to send a manipulated photo or not? And used the excuse that he was tired and smelled like a goat??? Give me a break.
3
posted on
04/03/2003 6:16:19 PM PST
by
Utah Girl
To: harpu
Room for one more?
4
posted on
04/03/2003 6:18:57 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Utah Girl
First blink, I could see it'd been altered.
There are plenty of real pictures...
To: harpu
You've got to admit the doctored photo is pretty good, in terms of artistic merit. Let's admire it for a few minutes before hanging this traitor.
6
posted on
04/03/2003 6:26:53 PM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: harpu
Altering the photo is one thing but what was the point? Am I missing something?
7
posted on
04/03/2003 6:28:17 PM PST
by
thepitts
To: harpu
No accident. Trying to make it look like the rifle is pointed at the baby.
Another suicide reporter.
Goodby scum.
8
posted on
04/03/2003 6:29:06 PM PST
by
ibme
To: ibme
It doesnt look like the rifle is pointed at the child in any of the photo's.
9
posted on
04/03/2003 6:30:42 PM PST
by
thepitts
To: xm177e2
Yeah, it's more dramatic. It makes it look like the US soldier is halting/threatening a man who's rushing his injured child out of harm's way.
And the photographer was 'tired' and that's why he took the EXTRA TIME to slander the US soldier in this way??? I don't buy it! He did it to push the party line -- the Demo-Comm-Baath line! I'm glad he was fired, he should be left in the desert until he comes to appreciate soldiers like the one he slandered with his photo.
10
posted on
04/03/2003 6:33:39 PM PST
by
Jerez2
To: harpu
the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper with the highest standards of journalismI read this and I fell off my chair laughing!
Then I read this:
but the integrity of our organization is essential. If our readers can't count on honesty from us, I don't know what we have left."
And I was rolling on the floor laughing so hard I couldn't even finish reading the article.
11
posted on
04/03/2003 6:35:33 PM PST
by
Bullish
To: harpu
This probably happens more often than we would like.
PBS ran some pollution thing and falsified locations and events. Remember the exploding Chevy pickup debacle? Tornado videos are often altered and misrepresented by the media. The car chase videos we all see now have a lot of "live" commentary added -after- the fact. Ever notice how the excited voice in the helicopter can "anticipate" what the cops or the bad guy will do?
Very common in these cases to add sound effects, commentary and locations that were never present in the original video.
The media even has a name for it, it's called "sweetening". Now we have to wonder if the images themselves are real or enhanced.
Like any bad habit, once you start it is hard to quit.
12
posted on
04/03/2003 6:42:59 PM PST
by
Milwaukee_Guy
(Having France in NATO, is like taking an accordion deer hunting.......)
To: Utah Girl
With heavy drama and wordy theatrics, this gazillion dollar newspaper monopoly fires a photog for doing, unasked, what they pay and instruct their writers, reporters, columnists and editorialists to do every day. The irony is delicious.
13
posted on
04/03/2003 6:45:46 PM PST
by
KC Burke
To: harpu
What a hose job.
14
posted on
04/03/2003 6:46:58 PM PST
by
lodwick
(Pray for America)
To: thepitts
In the first photo the man with the child is standing up and moving away from the soldier. In the second photo the man andchild have moved slightly away, and the soldier is pointing the gun at them. The difference lies in the proximity of the pointed gun to the child. In both photos the gun is pointed towards the child, but in the altered the effect is heightened due to the closeness of the soldier and the child.
15
posted on
04/03/2003 6:51:51 PM PST
by
Cleburne
To: harpu
Although what the photographer was wrong to do what he did, I think his employer is using him as a scapegoat in trying to present themselves as honorable journalists. FOX has gotten to them. They are trying to find some way, ANY way, to obtain credibility.
16
posted on
04/03/2003 6:59:42 PM PST
by
JudyB1938
(It's a wild world. There's a lot of bad and beware.)
To: KC Burke
With heavy drama and wordy theatrics, this gazillion dollar newspaper monopoly fires a photog for doing, unasked, what they pay and instruct their writers, reporters, columnists and editorialists to do every day. The irony is delicious. Well summarized.
17
posted on
04/03/2003 7:06:56 PM PST
by
Roscoe
To: harpu
I think a trial for perpetrating a fraud for treasonous purposes and a sentence of 15 years to make an example of this rat bastard is perfectly in order.
18
posted on
04/03/2003 7:12:56 PM PST
by
Wondervixen
(Ask for her by name--Accept no substitutes!)
To: harpu
what is with these reporters? I don't get it
19
posted on
04/03/2003 7:24:33 PM PST
by
Walnut
To: KC Burke
That's exactly what I was thinking. The LA Times spins pretty much every story and column, so what is wrong with a photographer graphically showing what most reporters think?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 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