LA Times fires photographer for altering photo that ran on Times Page 1

[JimboDaMan]

OPM, I'm not sure how to take that. Do you have a link supporting this?

[Darth Tater]

JimboDaMan,

The second part was an unsupported jab at the LA Times.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OPM

The alteration did not change the story the picture told to a great degree (especially one of aggression), how can anybody think that? In fact, the photog was fired because he would NOT (maybe could not -- lacked the skills?) alter the picture to make the British soldier appear more aggressive (move the gun or his gun hand).

Dude. You're making sh!t up. Time to shut your mouth.:shootinth

[JimboDaMan]

TC4, I did a google search and can't find any article from those news orgs stating what the photographer's intent was. Please share if you've got something.

[Mad Mike]

aREDSKIN

Now you understand. I think. It's the decievers out there that grate me. The Liberal establishment, with their covert agendas, out there is what MadMike and I were agreeing on. Now if they wore that liberal agenda on their sleeve, as you describe the WT, then it would be less objectionable, at least to me.

NO. We do NOT agree in the least.

The fact is all news sources are subject to human nature. Meaning: Human nature drives each of us to have a certain amount of bias. Human editors are no different. Even the best, most ethical editor cannot help but let some bias slip into his decision making process. No covert agenda nessisary.

I only wish everyone had the chance to be a part of an editorial staff at some point. maybe then you would see the kinds of arguments that go on behind the sceans. Maybe then you would see how hard it is to get an entire staff on board to put a major slant on something. There is ALWAYS somone like me who will raise hell about it. In the case of a major news paper what are the odds that some writer would not take his story of bias to another media source who would be happy to expose them?

Here is a tip for you. Newspapers, and news channels are driven by one thing. PROFIT. They all want the same thing. A JUCY STORY THAT SELLS NEWSPAPERS. Having an agenda is just not profitable.

[JimboDaMan]

Code-

The Illuminati is a fascinating subject. Its fanciful existance is accepted as fact by many people who should know better. I'm not the best source of info on them, but an Internet search on the subject can provide hours of entertainment. A belief that can tie together stuff like the Bush family, numerology, the Third Reich, Henry Kissinger, the Catholic Church, Freemasonry, and a host of other stuff should win some kind of prize. Any person or organization that is powerful, closed, secretive or simply crosses international boundaries is suspected to be a part of the conspiracy. The greatest thing is that adherents are able to uncover enough (real or embellished) links and coincidences to keep the theories alive.

[JimboDaMan]

strat-

No I don't believe that the LA Times condones doctoring of a photo for political purposes. I was just putting out there the idea that maybe the photographer did this on his own to make it more slanted to the fews of his employer.

OK, sorry. I agree that a newspaper's contributors certainly are aware of what kind of stuff is more and what is less likely to get published.

[Darth Tater]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Dude. You're making sh!t up. Time to shut your mouth.:shootinth

I'm not sure why you chose to comment this way about my post unless you failed to read it.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Code-

The Illuminati is a fascinating subject. Its fanciful existance is accepted as fact by many people who should know better. I'm not the best source of info on them, but an Internet search on the subject can provide hours of entertainment. A belief that can tie together stuff like the Bush family, numerology, the Third Reich, Henry Kissinger, the Catholic Church, Freemasonry, and a host of other stuff should win some kind of prize. Any person or organization that is powerful, closed, secretive or simply crosses international boundaries is suspected to be a part of the conspiracy. The greatest thing is that adherents are able to uncover enough (real or embellished) links and coincidences to keep the theories alive.

I had seen veiled refrences in the past but didn't really know what they were all about... Is it kind of like the "shadow government" theories?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Om

Mike, that this kind of thing has happened and does happen all the time was precisely my initial point. Your amplification of the point is both on point and welcome.

Interesting topic. There are any number of directions we could explore:

– One can let ones' mind wander in directions that make the little hairs on the back of the neck stand up if one allows himself to consider that some of the historical "records" that have become part of the human and national consciousness may, in fact, be the fabrications or compositions of the authors / photographers / editors, etc. Just looking at the photographs in the LA Times, one can see how just a subtle adjustment can completely alter the feel and/or message conveyed by a photograph.

Some photographs define issues for a generation. Be nice to think the that all of the ones we hold as icons are actual depictions. Pictures viewed out of context can frame perceptions enough as it is even without being doctored to fit someone's personal agenda.

– We expend a lot of time and devote endless sincere debate in this country discussing the "free press," and the rights of individuals in that context to both personal expression and access to information. That's a good thing, I think, and we run with the idea. Having done so for several generations now, I think that when it comes to the written word, the general public has by and large learned to take most of it with a jaundiced eye and healthy grain of salt. We see clear examples of that attitude every day right here on this message board.

I don't think the general public has acquired quite that discerning (skeptical?) an eye toward the visual media, at least not in the context of pictures presented as "news." Seems a bit surprising, considering our exposure to the evolution of computer-generated wizardry from Hollywood and photo-shop gurus on line the world over.

We aren't surprised by much we see on screens large or small anymore, but for some reason, that detachment and skepticism hasn't really seemed to carry over to still photography in the "news" context. For better or worse, we seem to trust that the FX wizards and Reuters photographers generally are not in bed together.

So ... what happens over time if and when a society finally stops believing either the written word or photographic evidence provided them on a daily basis under the guise of "reporting"?

– Do those around the world who hold our "freedoms" in contempt, and actively work to combat them, find comfort in knowing that a major US newspaper ran doctored photos taken of a war being fought, arguably, to bring concepts such as freedom of the press to a land where they are sadly lacking?

And if they do, do they also secretly marvel at the almost miraculous phenomenon of self-policing and accountability and consequences?

– Is anybody else as regularly thankful as I am to have been born to a life in which the immediate concerns over sustenance and shelter – concerns that have occupied the human condition for tens of thousands of years – no longer preclude me from a) ruminating at will and at length on such ephemeral questions as these, having the time to frame said kinds of questions, and ask them without concerns of possible repercussions to me or my family from an oppressive government, and c) enjoying the sort of public fora to pose and discuss them as that which you and I are availing ourselves at this moment?

*

Somebody stop me.

Om

I drink a toast to the depth of your mind.

I wouldn't worry too much about doctored images as long as multiple news sources are involved however. Too many witnesses to get away with much. Photographers tend to be purists as well and 99% of them take great offense to some shmuck like the guy in question doctoring photos. Fortunatly they are also expert at detecting such fraud.

Now let me REALLY raise the hairs on your neck. About 4 years ago NASA developed software that would allow a photo of a persons face to be animated in such a way that it was almost undetectable from the original human speaking into a camera. It was funded by the CIA and NSA. The story apeared in most newspapers as a back page sideline that was completely ignored. Think of the posibilitys. They could theoreticaly produce the president giving an address to the nation after he was killed, or show Saddam admiting he was a woman.

The thing is it is still not perfect and the chalenge of capturing every nuance of an individuals behavior and their entire suite of facial expressions means that it is still some way off from being used but it sure makes you think about the future.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OPM

I'm not sure why you chose to comment this way about my post unless you failed to read it.

hmmmm....

In fact, the photog was fired because he would NOT (maybe could not -- lacked the skills?) alter the picture to make the British soldier appear more aggressive (move the gun or his gun hand).

I repeat; you're making sh!t up.

[Darth Tater]

Mr. Mike,

Please learn to read before you attempt to post anymore:laugh:

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OPM

Mr. Mike,

Please learn to read before you attempt to post anymore:laugh:

Did you or did you not claim that he was fired because "he would NOT (maybe could not -- lacked the skills?) alter the picture to make the British soldier appear more aggressive (move the gun or his gun hand)."?

I repeat yet again, YOU ARE MAKING SH!T UP.

Please learn to THINK before you open your mouth. Each new post makes you look more and more stupid.

:shootinth

[TC4]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

TC4, I did a google search and can't find any article from those news orgs stating what the photographer's intent was. Please share if you've got something.

I found a page for CNN but it didn't open, and I couldn't find one for MSNBC, but I did watch it on all three channels myself.

Here is it from Fox News. Bill O'Rilley talked about it on his show, but this isn't ehat he said, this is something else from the Fox Site:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83072,00.html

News Flash

The Los Angeles Times has fired a photographer in Iraq for altering a photograph that wound up on Monday's front page. Some sharp-eyed editors eventually noticed something suspicious: A few civilians appeared twice in the photo. Brian Walski, who joined the Times five years ago after stints at the Boston Globe and elsewhere, took two pictures. They show a British soldier directing civilians to take cover near Basrah. He then combined them thanks to the magic of digital editing to produce the one in which the soldier appears to be threatening a man and his child. In an editor's note on today's front page, the Los Angeles Times says Walski "acknowledged that he used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition." The note continues, " Times policy forbids altering the content of news photographs. Because of the violation, Walski has been dismissed from the staff."

[Darth Tater]

Mr. Mike,

I again ask you to read, you can do that can't you?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by TC4

I found a page for CNN but it didn't open, and I couldn't find one for MSNBC, but I did watch it on all three channels myself.

Here is it from Fox News. Bill O'Rilley talked about it on his show, but this isn't ehat he said, this is something else from the Fox Site:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83072,00.html

News Flash

The Los Angeles Times has fired a photographer in Iraq for altering a photograph that wound up on Monday's front page. Some sharp-eyed editors eventually noticed something suspicious: A few civilians appeared twice in the photo. Brian Walski, who joined the Times five years ago after stints at the Boston Globe and elsewhere, took two pictures. They show a British soldier directing civilians to take cover near Basrah. He then combined them thanks to the magic of digital editing to produce the one in which the soldier appears to be threatening a man and his child. In an editor's note on today's front page, the Los Angeles Times says Walski "acknowledged that he used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition." The note continues, " Times policy forbids altering the content of news photographs. Because of the violation, Walski has been dismissed from the staff."

Typical of FOX to add fuel to the fire by claiming to know the photographers intentions. Unless somone can show me an admission from the photographer that his intent was to "produce the one in which the soldier appears to be threatening a man and his child." it is an allegation without any proof to back it up. In fact the "proof" shows that his intent was, as he admited "to improve the composition".

Shoddy journalism by FOX.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OPM

Mr. Mike,

I again ask you to read, you can do that can't you?

Listen you moron. I have asked you to clarify several times.

Did you or did you not claim that he was fired because "he would NOT (maybe could not -- lacked the skills?) alter the picture to make the British soldier appear more aggressive (move the gun or his gun hand)."?

Answer the question or shut the fvck up.

[Darth Tater]

Mr. Mike,

If you had the ability to read, this conversation would be over well before now. Are you just vertically challenged or what?

[JimboDaMan]

He then combined them thanks to the magic of digital editing to produce the one in which the soldier appears to be threatening a man and his child.

Wait a minute. This is typical of much journalism in that it appears to say something it actually does not.

The statement includes opinion - the doctored photo is more threatening - but is essentially factual. He DID combine the pics, and although if his intent was simply to make it threatening he could have done much better, to many observers it DID look more threatening.

But noplace does it give his intent other than "to improve the composition". Its simply not there, although Fox tries to imply more than it says.

O'Reilly. Yeah, I'm sure Mr. "No Spin" would never editorialize on something like this .

Mike-

I think OPM is covering himself by the admission that it was an 'unsupported jab'. Kind of like covering yourself with Saran Wrap, but he did in fact make that admission.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OPM

Mr. Mike,

If you had the ability to read, this conversation would be over well before now. Are you just vertically challenged or what?

Answer the question or shut the fvck up. simple isn't it.? You cant answer the question because it proves my original statment is correct. You claimed that he was fired because he would not or could not make the photo look more threatening. That is a lie. YOU ARE MAKING SH!T UP. You have no proof to back up your wild claim. Now that i have called you on it your only response has been to claim I cannot read. Newsflash moron. I test in the top 1% for reading comprehension in the nation. How about you?

[Darth Tater]

Mr. Mike,

So you are vertically challenged, sorry.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Wait a minute. This is typical of much journalism in that it appears to say something it actually does not.

The statement includes opinion - the doctored photo is more threatening - but is essentially factual. He DID combine the pics, and although if his intent was simply to make it threatening he could have done much better, to many observers it DID look more threatening.

But noplace does it give his intent other than "to improve the composition". Its simply not there, although Fox tries to imply more than it says.

O'Reilly. Yeah, I'm sure Mr. "No Spin" would never editorialize on something like this .

Mike-

I think OPM is covering himself by the admission that it was an 'unsupported jab'. Kind of like covering yourself with Saran Wrap, but he did in fact make that admission.

I saw it. We both posted at the same time. That "admission" was not there when I clicked

"submit reply" for my original post. Since then he has refused to admit anything. All he has done is dance around the issue. The correct answer is "yes I made it up". end of story.

[Darth Tater]

Mr. Mike,

Dance around what issue? All you have to do is read the original post, if you still can't figure it out, well like I said, you must be challenged.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OPM

The alteration did not change the story the picture told to a great degree (especially one of aggression), how can anybody think that? In fact, the photog was fired because he would NOT (maybe could not -- lacked the skills?) alter the picture to make the British soldier appear more aggressive (move the gun or his gun hand).

This is your original post.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by OPM

JimboDaMan,

The second part was an unsupported jab at the LA Times.

This is not.

That you chose to question me when I said in reply to your original post that you were making sh!t up seems to me to be an indication that you have a problem with my position. So wich is it? Are you saying that you did not make it up? Is it your unsupported opinion? Ether way my original response to your original post was correct. You made it up. End of story, game over, admit it and move on.