Thursday, July 08, 2010

Does photoshopping like this make the editorial content suspect?

I don't pretend to know the answer nor even what I think about it yet. But I'm curious to know what you think -- especially those of you interested in media out there. Here's the story with some comments from the editor.


  1. Ok, I've been a newspaper reporter and editor. Once upon a time, all news graphics were drawn, and therefore subject to artistic licence. I think people nowadays expect that photographs in honest news sources will not be altered, and will not even be cropped to be misleading. I think the public still expects that the camera will not lie. The camera, of course is just as capable of lying as the writer or the artist, and so it is the responsibility of journalists to check both text and images for veracity. And if a reliable publication like the Economist publishes a picture that looks like a news picture, then it should BE a news picture. If you want an artistic rendering, find a new Norman Rockwell.

  2. Thanks for commenting, Monica. I think I agree w you. I remember a graphic artist, working on the CBS Evening News w Walter Cronkite, gave Mary Jo Kopechne blond hair & there was all kinds of hell to pay.

    About lenses -- only a 50mm lens most closely approximates what the human eye sees. As soon as a photographer/videographer uses something other than this lens, there is already a POV.

    So how far have we come (in news) that the editor of this magazine states that we should 'get over' the expectations you cite. I think something may be out of whack.

    OTOH, is it our expectations or is this just another facet of a more morally lax America? I'm beginning to think it's the latter & we need a new educational process to deal w it. I wonder what they are teaching in J schools now.
    Read my commentary on news in the digital age @ See if that makes any sense to you.