Reuters Withdraws Doctored Photo

[volinbham]

Normally, I wouldn't post from a blog but most news agencies haven't run a story on this yet (that I can find).

However, Reuters has posted an explanation on their own site.

Apparently, a Reuters employee also threatened the blogger that uncovered the photo to begin with.

Reuters Boo-boo

 

[therealUT]

Normally, I wouldn't post from a blog but most news agencies haven't run a story on this yet (that I can find).

However, Reuters has posted an explanation on their own site.

Apparently, a Reuters employee also threatened the blogger that uncovered the photo to begin with.

Reuters Boo-boo

They have actually withdrawn 3 doctored photos now...

The most disappointing thing about this, is it further limits my news sources.

 

[utvolpj]

They have now pulled all 920 photos by that photographer.

link

 

[therealUT]

They have now pulled all 920 photos by that photographer.

link

Maybe they should pull all articles and photos that were ok'd by that editor...

 

[CSpindizzy]

Considering how many photos actually are taken and generated, you'd back off these people. They look for the most 'newsworthy' pictures. Considering the hundreds of photos they run through to pull one for a story, I'm shocked doctored photos haven't popped up more often. If you let photos determine your news sources, you obviously aren't too concerned about the news stories themselves. AP, Reuters, etc. usually run photos on the wire and let local papers pull from a list. Most of these photos aren't even seen unless it is someone browsing the actual sites running through all of the photos. This photo wouldn't have even made the news unless someone was looking for something like this. I guarantee you a majority of media outlets using Reuters never even saw this picture.

 

[volinbham]

I guarantee you a majority of media outlets using Reuters never even saw this picture.

Opinion? Anyone know which (if any) media outlets ran the "original" photo? Haven't found a story about that (another example of the press policing itself).

 

[CSpindizzy]

No fact....check on how many of those 900+ pics Reuters recalled you or anyone else has seen.

 

[volinbham]

No fact....check on how many of those 900+ pics Reuters recalled you or anyone else has seen.

I was referring to the one in question - the extra smoke one - photos are primarily used by print and since I don't scan the print media from around the country or world on a daily basis I would hardly say that since I didn't see it; no one ran it.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I see little coverage of Sen. Mike DeWine doctoring the WTC images for his own website and commercial posted there. Doctoring an image such as that should mean a louder outcry but nothing is said.

 

[volinbham]

I see little coverage of Sen. Mike DeWine doctoring the WTC images for his own website and commercial posted there. Doctoring an image such as that should mean a louder outcry but nothing is said.

Clearly, altered images implicitly endorsed by a legitimate news org. should raise more concerns than the manipulations of a political candidate -- afterall, Lamont showed an ad morphing Lieberman into Bush.

Still doesn't address the issue - how many news outlets ran the photo? It was out on Saturday (in time for Sunday editions) and not pulled until Sunday.

 

[Lexvol]

They have actually withdrawn 3 doctored photos now...

The most disappointing thing about this, is it further limits my news sources.

The Onion and Jon Stewart are sufficient for me.