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

[stratoman]

The bottom line is we don't know what his intensions were but if we look at the left slant of the LA Times, then one could make an educated assumption that his motives may have slanted towards that of the newspaper.

[aREDSKIN]

And just one more example to the millions already expended by the leftist-

A front-page article on Tuesdays' NY Times about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against."

A sublte omission but really changes the meaning of the quote.

I know, I know it was just an editing error and not systemtic bias with an intent to decieve.

Mad Mike-

I define yellow journalism as an intent to decieve with an agenda.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

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.

Mad Mike NAILS a 3-point shot from half court.

I'll just wonder out loud here and question whether the photographer would have been fired if his transgression had been discovered prior to the photograph's publication. Obviously the LA Times had to protect their journalistic integrity in the face of public scrutiny, so they were left with no other option than dismissal.

I'll also go out on a limb here and challenge the liberal bias motive for altering the photograph.

Feel free to set me straight Mad Mike as you are certainly more qualified to speak to this than I, but aren't media photographers really motivated by print exposure? In other words, a photographer's worth is measured by how often his pictures make print and their proximity to front page news.

Now I suppose one might argue that the editors at the LA Times are liberally biased, so photo selections reflect that tilt. But as Mike said, newspapers are driven by one thing, PROFIT. So rather than Left or Right ideologies determining what photos make print, whatever creates the most sensationalism will be the ruling factor.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Now I suppose one might argue that the editors at the LA Times are liberally biased, so photo selections reflect that tilt. But as Mike said, newspapers are driven by one thing, PROFIT.

Yes make a profit and sell more newspapers. It just happens to be that the bulk of there customer base leans to the left so they want to include content that reflects that and appeals to that customer base.

[JimboDaMan]

Yes, a characteristic shared by EVERY news organization, left or right leaning. You won't find a lot of moaning about upper-class tax cuts in the Wall Street Journal.

The Washington Times prints more advocacy advertising than any other US newspaper. Wanna guess why certain groups push in line to fork their $$$ over to the Times?