Interesting Article for Discussion

[smcilree]

This weekend, the Sacramento Bee fired a staff photographer for Photoshopping a picture which the paper published. Bob Garfield of the Guardian wrote this opinion piece ('Photographer Photoshops image' shock | Bob Garfield | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk) which in essence questions why photojournalists should be held to a higher standard than other members of the Fourth Estate. I'd like to hear what folks here think of this issue.

[Biomech]

Sounds like they just wanted to get rid of him and used that as an excuse. Happens a lot unfortunately

[Biomech]

Oh and my opinion; I believe about 99% of journalist shots are fake or staged. Somewhat heartening as I've always wanted to get those pulitzer prize type photos but have now found out that those type of photos are nearly always staged.

[NathanFranke]

Was it National Geographic where there was a kerfuffle about moving one of the Giza Pyramids so it wouldn't be in the fold? Did that guy get fired too?

[Krusty79]

They don't even put the image in question in the article? Instead it's a video of a rapper flipping the bird?

People don't expect to see staged/altered photos from our newspapers, even though it does happen frequently.

[kokabeel]

Originally Posted by Krusty79

They don't even put the image in question in the article? Instead it's a video of a rapper flipping the bird?

People don't expect to see staged/altered photos from our newspapers, even though it does happen frequently.

Setting it straight: Photo manipulated - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

[Krusty79]

Thanks kokabeel. I see it now. It is manipulation, but I would rate this about a 1 on a 1 to 10 scale. It's not like the meaning of the image was changed. I wouldn't think a person would get fired over that.

[Jim Bryant]

[QUOTE=smcilree;1401444]This weekend, the Sacramento Bee fired a staff photographer for Photoshopping a picture which the paper published. Bob Garfield of the Guardian wrote this opinion piece ('Photographer Photoshops image' shock | Bob Garfield | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk) which in essence questions why photojournalists should be held to a higher standard than other members of the Fourth Estate. I'd like to hear what folks here think of this issue.[/QUOTE

Why, because as members of the press, we need to be factual and be honest in our news gathering such as reporters. We need the readership's trust. If you are a commercial photographer you don't need to be honest, but skilled needed to make Jane Doe look younger.

Sure, I've seen photographers, especially the TV types, always staging or recreating images and scenes. However, most of the "Professional" still photographers I know, don't ask their subject to recreate or stage. There are some that do, but mostly reporters with cameras, who don't know any better.

[SwissJon]

Hmmm.. Photojournalism and staging photos.. Nothing new there:

An Eye-Opening Look at How Many Conflict Photos Are Staged

While I agree that the photo is a 1 in the 1-10 of how bad photo-faking can be, unfortunately the 10 end of the scale can lead to extending wars and conflicts and people being killed because the people involved misread the situation that they see in the press purely because the papers want to sell more.

However where do you draw the line? 1? 2? 5? or maybe 10? Who decides whether something is a 1 or a 10? All the paper decided was that the line was drawn at 0 because they wanted to maintain their integrity.. Good for them.. The photshopping isn't bad though, I'll bet the hack doesn't stay unemployed for long.

[Doug Sundseth]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Why, because as members of the press, we need to be factual and be honest in our news gathering such as reporters. We need the readership's trust.

That ship has already sailed, for both PJs and reporters.

Are there honest reporters? I'm sure there are. I see no way to winnow the wheat from the chaff from the outside, though. And when "Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted" is the priority for a significant percentage of journalists, "factual and ... honest" simply isn't.