Newsweek cheat?

wxwax

We've talked many times about the ethical use of Photoshop in making our images.

One big time journalism no-no has always been inserting or removing things from the original shot. And yet, Newsweek magazine apparently takes the position that there are times when it's OK. Even when it's hard to tell.

They call it a "photo illustration' and reckon their readers are savvy enough to tell the difference between a 'photo illustration' and a real shot.

Oh really? Check out the image in the attached link, and tell me how obvious it is that the image of Martha Stewart isn't actually a photo of her?

Newsweek story link.

Charlie Brown

cool, i wonder how long it will take them to start making up world events as they go. if they keep pulling this crap, they wont be much more believable that the weekly world news.



charlie

dragon300zx

Personally I think photoshop is a great tool. And deffinatley has its place in journalism for getting the exposure right, retouching something if needed. Simple basic editing stuff. And it has its place in design and art for work like this. But I can't take their articles seriously when they are pulling stuff like this. In my mind it puts them on the same level as "The Globe". News isn't supposed to be made up, and that includes whats supposed to be photo's of the news. I mean after all news and news photos are supposed to be real right. Not fiction. Guess it all kinda boils down to the decline of "Ethics" in todays society. But thats a whole different rant now isn't it.

ian408

Shame on Newsweek.
If I had seen it, I would have wondered why Martha was out doing a
photo shoot when she was supposed to be in jail.

I expect it in the Weekly World News not Newsweek.

Ian

mercphoto

dragon300zx wrote:

But I can't take their articles seriously when they are pulling stuff like this. In my mind it puts them on the same level as "The Globe". News isn't supposed to be made up, and that includes whats supposed to be photo's of the news.

My thoughts exactly. They wouldn't take the same liberty with a quote, or with the facts, correct? (I hope not!). So why a photo?

My other thought was that "photo illustration" was missing the word "journalism" in it. What happens when people stop trusting the photos they see for fear they have been edited to skew a story?

wxwax

I'm very curious to know how much grief they're getting for this, and whether or not it will change their practices.

trippy64

The soviets went to gtreat lengths to edit their history before we even had digital cameras. Wjhat is stopping Newseek? Look at CBS and their document scandal. They even tried to pass it off as "well the documents are fake, but the story is true". I am beginning to wonder about the effects of digital editing will have on all the information we are provided by the major media.

dragon300zx

Trust nothing, suspect everyone, and keep drinking the coffee no matter how bad the jitters get. :twitch

In all reality though (not going to get into a political debate) how much of anything we hear anymore can you truly beleive. With the new media age everythign (<--- I was going to fix that but then again it could be from the jitters from the triple expresso, coffee, three cokes, and handfull of caffinated mints) is spun to fit someones agenda. But then again that could go back to the decline in "Ethics" and people being more concerned about the superficial than the real.

mercphoto

trippy64 wrote:

The soviets went to gtreat lengths to edit their history before we even had digital cameras.

That reminds me of a fascinating book called "The Race : The Complete True Story of How America Beat Russia to the Moon" by James Schefter. American media was free and open. The successes were touted, but so were the failure. In Russia something interesting happened. Rocket failures were kept quiet. Once they tried to put a small object into orbit around the moon. Instead it flew past the moon, so the headlines were "Russia sends an object past the moon!". Then they tried to hit the moon, but instead went into orbit. You can guess at the headline.

What is scary about new technology such as digital cameras and Photoshop is not what can be done, but how easily, how quickly, and how convincingly it can be done.

And the sheer number of people who don't see anything wrong with doing so. (speaking only from a photojournalist or historian standpoint, of course)

Angelo

Charlie Brown wrote:

cool, i wonder how long it will take them to start making up world events as they go. if they keep pulling this crap, they wont be much more believable that the weekly world news.charlie

They already do. Don't you remember the one about WMDs?

Angelo

mercphoto wrote:

My thoughts exactly. They wouldn't take the same liberty with a quote, or with the facts, correct? (I hope not!). So why a photo?

My other thought was that "photo illustration" was missing the word "journalism" in it. What happens when people stop trusting the photos they see for fear they have been edited to skew a story?

Ahem! I just coughed up my coffee!

mercphoto

Angelo wrote:

They already do. Don't you remember the one about WMDs?

As if Sadam's stubborn refusal to follow UN guidelines, and the UN's unwillingness to show any teeth, didn't have anything to do with it either... As if the Democrats don't do the same amount of spin when it suits them...

wxwax

It would be nice if this thread didn't revisit the old political wars. Let's allow that tired debate to take place elsewhere, OK?

Thanks.

dragon300zx

dragon300zx wrote:

....though (not going to get into a political debate) ........

I was good see.

Angelo

wxwax wrote:

It would be nice if this thread didn't revisit the old political wars. Let's allow that tired debate to take place elsewhere, OK?

Thanks.

If available I'd be posting a emoticom here with a "zipped mouth"

wxwax

dragon300zx wrote:

I was good see.

wxwax

Angelo wrote:

If available I'd be posting a emoticom here with a "zipped mouth"

Angelo

wxwax wrote:

wxwax

Angelo wrote:

Angelo

wxwax wrote:

well, I'm stumped. What does that emoticon mean?

Are there keystroke commands for any of these?

Mongrel

In response to the original...
post-

No, I don't like it. I think as photographers we can all appreciate the utilization of 'tools' to assist us with adjustments and corrections. And as photo-artists we can appreciate the manipulation of photos to add artistic elements.

But...

I believe our reliance on photojournalists to bring us images of people, places, and things we would not normally see carries with it the responsibility of presenting those images sans manipulation.

It's a shame that a major news media player would manipulate a cover photo with apparently *no problem*.

I think it could go two ways though...

One, people in general could care less and it won't bother them, so it will happen again.

Two, enough people will have an issue with it that Newsweek (and other publications), will refrain from doing it again. At least in a manner that will allow it to be detected.

I'm not sure at this point which way it will go...

Mongrel

4labs

wxwax wrote:

I'm very curious to know how much grief they're getting for this, and whether or not it will change their practices.

Sid they aren't getting that much grief. I listened to Don Imus grill Howard Fineman who writes for them on it and
Fineman said they were blatanly trying to make her look better as a spoof of teh fact that she lost weight and looks great despite being in jail. He refered to a piece where they doctored up the first George Bush and said it was common practice and that they didn't recieve that much flack at all. In this case I think that they did a terrible job of making their intentions obvious.