Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New York Times Says Magazine Photos Manipulated (Altered Pics of US Public Housing Pushed as Real)
Fox News ^ | 06/10/2009 | Fox News

Posted on 07/10/2009 8:06:55 AM PDT by Dallas59

NEW YORK — The New York Times inadvertently published digitally manipulated photographs in the latest issue of its Sunday magazine, the newspaper said Thursday.

In an editors note, the Times acknowledged that Edgar Martins, a 32-year-old freelance photographer based in Bedford, England, digitally altered the photos. The shots have been removed from the newspaper's Web site.

Readers pointed out alterations to the photo essay, titled "Ruins of the Second Gilded Age," on the blogs MetaFilter and PDN Pulse.

The photos showed run-down housing construction projects across the U.S. that had been hit by the recession. In an introduction to the spread, the magazine said the photos were created with long exposures but not altered by computer.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: fake; fraud; medialies; nyt; photojournalism; photos

1 posted on 07/10/2009 8:06:55 AM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

2 posted on 07/10/2009 8:08:37 AM PDT by Dallas59 ("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

The New York Times would NEVER alter the news to suit their needs!

/sarc


3 posted on 07/10/2009 8:09:10 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

Interesting that the Times didn’t have the expertise to vet the photos on their own.


4 posted on 07/10/2009 8:10:12 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

That is not what is alleged. The English photographer told the Times they were not digitally altered, and they believed him, but it turns out that they were.


5 posted on 07/10/2009 8:11:40 AM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker

Interesting that the Times didn’t have the expertise to vet the photos on their own.
:::::::
They did, but like all leftist pinko operations, THEY LIE.


6 posted on 07/10/2009 8:12:03 AM PDT by EagleUSA (if)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
The English photographer told the Times they were not digitally altered, and they believed him, but it turns out that they were.

Does anyone know if the Photos were DIGITALLY TAKEN? I.E. No Film?

7 posted on 07/10/2009 8:13:46 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
The English photographer told the Times they were not digitally altered, and they believed him

Ignorance is no defense.

8 posted on 07/10/2009 8:14:22 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

If I had paid for this story....Would the NYT refund my money?


9 posted on 07/10/2009 8:14:33 AM PDT by Dallas59 ("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker

Misinformation and shoddy fact checking...sure, I’d pay $5/month for that...yeah, right.


10 posted on 07/10/2009 8:17:29 AM PDT by shteebo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

No thanks. I wouldn’t pay any amount of money to read this rag.


11 posted on 07/10/2009 8:18:57 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

That’s a pic of a rundown housing project?


12 posted on 07/10/2009 8:19:14 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
""Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay," the editors note says." . . .

. . . but, since the pics fits the editors' template, they were easily fooled.

13 posted on 07/10/2009 8:23:03 AM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
Have to admit that photo is evidence of Squalor, I tell you!!! (sarcasm).

Nice foyer. What! you say.... Public Housing???

14 posted on 07/10/2009 8:25:06 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
What is the significance of this photo?

Why are some areas highlighted?

15 posted on 07/10/2009 8:31:40 AM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
The fox piece got it wrong. It should say
inadvertently got caught publishing digitally manipulated photographs
I doubt they mind publishing manipulated images but they do mind when someone finds out.
16 posted on 07/10/2009 8:47:27 AM PDT by LostPassword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

Split photo. Both sides are the same.


17 posted on 07/10/2009 8:51:24 AM PDT by Dallas59 ("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The New York Times would NEVER alter the news to suit their needs!

Its seems the photographer photoshopped the pictures (mirror imaged one side to the other). When discovered, the pictures were removed.

How did these alterations "suit the needs" of the New York Times?

18 posted on 07/10/2009 9:03:40 AM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
What's 'run down' about that home? Looks more like someone opened those nice french doors for a few minutes and let some leaves blow in. A broom will take care of that tout suite!
19 posted on 07/10/2009 9:10:54 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Looks like that. I never saw the original story other than it about unfinished housing.


20 posted on 07/10/2009 9:12:10 AM PDT by Dallas59 ("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
The photos showed run-down housing construction projects

At first, I thought the article was about public housing projects, but after digging some, I find it was about McMansions.

21 posted on 07/10/2009 9:14:38 AM PDT by razorback-bert (We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

“Does anyone know if the Photos were DIGITALLY TAKEN? I.E. No Film?”

The only photographers who use film any more are “art photographers”. Everyone else uses digital.


22 posted on 07/10/2009 9:26:49 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Don’t know why the headline says “Public Housing.” The photo essay was on unfinished and unoccupied condos and high-end residential property.

It focused on private building projects that have been abandoned due to the economy.


23 posted on 07/10/2009 9:38:37 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
Dallas59 said: "Split photo. Both sides are the same."

If that was the only issue, then the markings/debris on the floor would be symmetrical. This may mean that the debris was photoshopped in as well.

24 posted on 07/10/2009 9:43:13 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

Odd huh. I was about to apply for public housing after seeing that pic. ;-)


25 posted on 07/10/2009 10:28:27 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
"Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay," the editors note says.

In other words, "Let's do the nasty deed and then apologize for it later."

26 posted on 07/10/2009 10:41:03 AM PDT by upchuck (Psalm 109:8 ~ Let his days be few; and let another take his office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson