gepetto Posted August 8, 2006 Share #21 Posted August 8, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I found this interesting short showing just how manipulated the news apparently is from the middle east. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 Hi gepetto, Take a look here Reutters photographer sacked for manipulation. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
albertwang Posted August 8, 2006 Share #22 Posted August 8, 2006 Indeed, at least if wikipedia is fabricated, they make it more interesting to read. Newspapers are just plain boring in fact. I rather get my kicks through some factual fiction here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 8, 2006 Share #23 Posted August 8, 2006 So being satisfied with fabrication on the web is 'critical thinking', oh well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 8, 2006 Share #24 Posted August 8, 2006 Read the stories of Jorge Luis Borges. There's critical thinking for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted August 8, 2006 Share #25 Posted August 8, 2006 I found this interesting short showing just how manipulated the news apparently is from the middle east. Who says that this video about Pallywood's staging war is not staged...? ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 8, 2006 Share #26 Posted August 8, 2006 Hi Howard, the 'flare' photograph was a different one showing a jet firing flares. The BBC news here in the UK had both versions of the photograph. In the original there was a single flare fired from the aurcraft. In the doctored version there were four or so. Thanks for correcting me, Steve. The Israelis seem to be doing well enough with single launches... --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 9, 2006 Share #27 Posted August 9, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Reuters' response at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002952394 --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 9, 2006 Share #28 Posted August 9, 2006 Howard - It is always advisable to get the complete facts before commenting. Precisely, Conrad. That's why I asked for a source. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 9, 2006 Share #29 Posted August 9, 2006 I think that a lot of Israel's news gets staged but I can't disclose my sources. I know secondhand from someone who has been there. In fact, every country stages news... how else do newspapers make money if nothing happens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 9, 2006 Share #30 Posted August 9, 2006 "Referring to the smoke photo, Hershorn told NPR, "This one slipped through the system. It just came in. A photo editor looked at it and coded it and sent it to our clients" Mundane pedestrian stuff, someone elses fault Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
etanguero Posted August 9, 2006 Share #31 Posted August 9, 2006 some german article at telepolis by heise.online: TP: "Digitale Fotografie hat den Fotojournalismus mehr als jemals zuvor verwandelt" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikej Posted August 10, 2006 Share #32 Posted August 10, 2006 IMHO, as technology makes it ever easier to manipulate images (and to make manipulation undetectable) only the ethical standards of PJ professonals will stand between honest reportage and editorializing. Same as it ever was? Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krabat Posted August 10, 2006 Share #33 Posted August 10, 2006 When comparing the one manipulated image with the original one - some dark smoke has been added - I still do not completely understand why this manipulation has been done. Everybody knows that smoke is produced when bombs have been released, and smoke is also in the original image - so why take the risk of beeing accused and sacked? Moreover, the manipulation was carried out really amateurishly, so that it can be discovered at first sight. Was it the intention of the manipulation to make us more suspicious about all the reports about the desaster the war is bringing? Who will ever know? Regards, Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 10, 2006 Share #34 Posted August 10, 2006 I had a friend who for a short while was a photographer for a small newspaper. He said that many times his editor would ask for more dramatic photographs as an article described an enormous event but when the photos arrived it seemed somewhat tame. This is long before Photoshop or digital. I sure that still applies but now photographers can do something about it. ps I understand that the aircraft that was shown dropping three flares was also shown dropping three bombs - but it couid only carry two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted August 10, 2006 Share #35 Posted August 10, 2006 It is some sort of a self-healing process. However, there must be a wound first. :-( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.