Beware of Reuters photographs from Beirut

  • Thread starter Thread starter Keltoi
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 15
  • Views Views 2K
Keltoi

Keltoi

IB Legend
Messages
5,061
Reaction score
463
http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=2728

Here is a link to a story covered by most news outlets. Apparently some Reuters photos were altered by "photoshop" to create the appearance of more smoke and destruction. I realize photographers need to take good pictures, but this obviously goes to far. Media outlets should be more aware of the forgery and alteration being done to many of the photos we view in our morning newspapers.
 
At one time stories were written to explain pictures. I think today we will see more incidents of when pictures are embeleished to explain pre-written stories.
 
Never believe anything until you see it with your eyes......Photo editing has become so easy, even I can do it :D
 
I'm not sure what the motivation was behind doctoring these photos, whether it was a journalistic agenda or simply trying to create a better picture. Reuters does have a history of altering news stories and photos, most of which are meant to put the U.S. in a bad light. A specific example was the female soldier rescued in Iraq..uh..Jessica something I believe. In any case, Reuters doctored a news story from the local paper from her home town, throwing in sentences like "hero for American imperialism"..not a quote but a paraphrase. I will try to find a link to that specific story and edit.
 
I saw the picture before the altering and after the altering. The altering was pretty minor, mostly the adding of smoke to the picture.

The altering didn’t cause me too much concern, it was the excuse given by the independent reporter\photographer as to why he altered the photo.
He said it was to cover up dust specks and lighting glares. If you look at the un-altered picture, it is clear to see that there was no need for the altering due to dust specks or lighting or sun glares.

Perhaps the smoke was much thicker just before he got set-up to take the photo? Perhaps he just wanted to show things as they were right after the explosion?

If that was the reason, I would have felt better if he had just said so, because it clearly was not done for the reasons he states.

Thanks
Nimrod
 
WEll we should be aware of photo's but I seen enough video images of destruction in Lebanon to last me for a.....
 
No matter who it is intended to help. Any discovered lie, or altering will tend to discredit the credibility of a news source. It is a poor practice at the least it tends to cloud the truth.

Yes it can be legitimate to enhance or clarify a picture, but it should be stated that was done.
 
Woodrow said:
No matter who it is intended to help. Any discovered lie, or altering will tend to discredit the credibility of a news source. It is a poor practice at the least it tends to cloud the truth.

Yes it can be legitimate to enhance or clarify a picture, but it should be stated that was done.
Click to expand...

It was a poor fake, I seen better fake than that. It might well have been done diliberately for the observer to realize it.

I will not beat the bush too much with the photograph.
 
Why would the photographer intentionally alter a photograph so people would realize it was altered? That logic seems unlikely.
 
Keltoi said:
Why would the photographer intentionally alter a photograph so people would realize it was altered? That logic seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Exactly, why would someone post a fake that is so obviouse?
Unless he must be blind.

I don't wan't to go to reason, because I simply don't know. but

However it does not mean their was "no reason", behind it.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top