LA Times' apology for altered war photo

LA Times ^ | LA Times

[hemogoblin]

On Monday, March 31, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page photograph that had been altered in violation of Times policy. The primary subject of the photo was a British soldier directing Iraqi civilians to take cover from Iraqi fire on the outskirts of Basra. After publication, it was noticed that several civilians in the background appear twice.

The photographer, Brian Walski, reached by telephone in southern Iraq, acknowledged that he had used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition. Times policy forbids altering the content of news photographs.

See the photos here: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb

[hemogoblin]

A friend on the west coast e-mailed me this; I am not sure how publicly this correction is being made. I thought this was of interest, especially for the way the action of the "photo" appears to have been changed. Not to mention the squatting guy on the left who appears twice.

This is my first article post; hope everything is correct ...

[talleyman]

Great job. Now if they'd only apologize for the truth they've altered every day in their copy...

[3AngelaD]

TREACHEROUS MEDIA DISHONESTY ALERT.

[thinktwice]

The Los Angeles Times, nonetheless, constantly -- and hypocritically -- twists the truth in written news and commentary articles.

Go figure!

[LTColRick]

The only thing the LA Times is sorry about is that they got caught.

[onedoug]

Right. They wre caught. The LA Times is essentially a European newspaper.

[lilylangtree]

I just read the announcement on MSN news that the reporter was fired for the altering.

[TomB]

The reporter broke a rule and should be fired.

But is the picture somehow dishonest? It seems to me he altered it to look better, not tell a different story. IOW, he was more interested in getting it published and maybe get some notice, not create negative attitudes toward the war.

[mabelkitty]

No. In the original, the gun and hand were lowered when the soldier spotted the man with the child.

This is blatant anti-troop propaganda.

[jiggyboy]

Nope, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this is the most clearly-definable and therefore best place, otherwise you go straight to the modern American model of a whole quasi-judicial Oprah-like process where a hundred opinions and "feelings" all carry the same weight.

[atomic conspiracy]

The photog's action was completely consistent with this fifth-column bong-wipe rag's longstanding editorial policies. He just got caught and had to be sacrificed for the good of the collective.

[Uncle George]

It's only a band aid put on a large bloody CANCER. This paper (A Commie tool) will soon be "The Late LA Times" Oreilly and the REAL AMERICANS of this Country have HAD ENOUGH. This rag and the NY Times rag are going to change or DIE.

[weegee]

Michael Moore was awarded an Oscar(TM) for Best Documentary for pulling this type of a trick. Maybe the LA Times will receive a Pulitzer Prize for their efforts.

[kellynla]

They need to apologize for their editorial page and front page "news." Robert Scheer's column yesterday was an outrage! Semper Fi

[Sloth]

Actually, I don't think they were lowered, they were just pointed further from the camera.

[Sloth]

Rather, the hand was down, but not the gun.

[TomB]

Nope, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this is the most clearly-definable and therefore best place, otherwise you go straight to the modern American model of a whole quasi-judicial Oprah-like process where a hundred opinions and "feelings" all carry the same weight.

You are essentially correct, IMO. As I said in my first post, he violated a rule, and should be punished. After all, if this kind of stuff is allowed, the paper would lose what little credibility it has left.

That said, looking at the two pictures that were used to created it, nobody can convice me that there is something "anti-troop" about it, and not the other two. If he wanted to create an anti-troop picture with photoshop, he could have done much better.

Actual photos

[Redcloak]

I guess that this means that the Times isn't going to be interested in my exclusive picture of a Klingon Bird of Prey attacking Baghdad...

Oh well... There's always NBC.

[slowry]

No. In the original, the gun and hand were lowered when the soldier spotted the man with the child.

This is blatant anti-troop propaganda.

You say the "gun and hand were lowered" -- maybe I'd say in the combined version it looks like the soldier is less likely pointing his gun at a civilian. Plus the faces of more people -- including the soldier -- are visible in the altered version.

I am not for altering photographs for publication, but I don't see how this is "anti-troop"?

It was rather sloppy to actually have people appear twice in the photo, but I think all that happened was the piece of military equipment (Bradley?) in the lower left was replaced by more people.

It does make one wonder how often photo alterations occur.

[ExpatCanuck]

But is the picture somehow dishonest?

You have got to be kidding. I've seen all 3 pictures (the 2 originals and the final copy) and the soldier is made to appear to be threatening and yelling at the guy with the kid in his arms, when in reality that is nowhere close to what was happening. This is beyond dishonest; I would go so far as to say this is treasonous.

The left is eating itself alive over reports that not only are our troops going to extremes to limit civilian casualties, indeed suffering casualties because of it, but that the Iraqis are becoming unafraid enough to actually start displaying gratitude. It completely erodes the left's position that we are an invading force and that the Iraqi people hate our guts and will fight to the last man. This reporter is a piece of sh*t lefty that thinks there is nothing wrong with altering the truth to support the 'correct' viewpoint. He is probably an elitist snob who thinks he was doing a great service to the stupid, ordinary people who read the paper and don't have his wisdom to see things as they truly are.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I've been spending some time lurking at DU over the course of this war, and with a few exceptions, it has become a refuge for the most pathetic group of closed minded wack jobs that must exist on the planet. The most pathetic part is their fundamental belief that they represent mainstream thinking in America, and they view themselves as 'crusaders' (they'll hate that word) who must enlighten the unwashed masses. There will be many comments over there supporting this reporter as a hero.

[TomB]

You have got to be kidding. I've seen all 3 pictures (the 2 originals and the final copy) and the soldier is made to appear to be threatening and yelling at the guy with the kid in his arms, when in reality that is nowhere close to what was happening. This is beyond dishonest; I would go so far as to say this is treasonous.

No, I'm not kidding. If the two original pictures do not make the soldier look threatening, then the composite most certainly doesn't.

This knee-jerk hyperventilating does nothing but make us look petty and reactionary. The guy did this to enhance the composition of the photo, not to commit treason.

[gcruse]

Man, there are some eagle eyes out there. It took me a while to spot the dupe, and I knew what I was looking for.

Thanks for posting.

[ez]

This knee-jerk hyperventilating does nothing but make us look petty and reactionary. The guy did this to enhance the composition of the photo, not to commit treason.

There's no treason her first of all, you're right, but he DID alter the photo considerably. The photog wanted the shot with the soldier aggressively gesturing toward the man w/ baby, but did NOT want the man looking backward toward the source of the real danger.

[slowry]

You have got to be kidding. I've seen all 3 pictures (the 2 originals and the final copy) and the soldier is made to appear to be threatening and yelling at the guy with the kid in his arms, when in reality that is nowhere close to what was happening. This is beyond dishonest; I would go so far as to say this is treasonous.

(By the way, this was a photographer, not a reporter.) I think that once we agree that it's wrong to combine photos, the question is was an effort made to portray the soldier (British?) in a bad light. My answer is definitely "no."

So the guy is yelling. I think it was made clear in the printed newspaper he was trying to get them to take cover from Iraqi fire. Nearly anybody would understand yelling is appropriate in that situation.

You say that in the final version he appears to be threatening the guy with the child in his arms. I say instead that it's less likely he's pointing his gun barrel at them.

I think some people on this thread need to take a few deep breaths and not immediately conclude evil was intended just because an altered photo appeared in a liberal newspaper.

[mewzilla]

Oh, I don't know. There's a procedure for labeling a pic that's been messed with. Remember the NY Post's famous Axis of Weasels front page? They gave credit for a graphic image. Did the Times do that? If not, then they deserve the ration of excrement they're getting. The reader shouldn't have to wonder what's real and what's been dicked with.

[TomB]

Oh, I don't know. There's a procedure for labeling a pic that's been messed with. Remember the NY Post's famous Axis of Weasels front page? They gave credit for a graphic image. Did the Times do that? If not, then they deserve the ration of excrement they're getting. The reader shouldn't have to wonder what's real and what's been dicked with.

Let's try this again. NOBODY on this thread, from what I can tell, feels that what the photographer did was right. We all agree that it is inappropriate to alter pictures without attribution. So the Times was correct in firing the photographer who did it once they discovered the problem.

The question that arises is, essentially, was it malicious in intent? I say that, looking at the originals and using my limited photography experience, it is more than obvious that the photographer was looking for a better composition, not to portray the Brit soldier as threatening.

[ExpatCanuck]

If the two original pictures do not make the soldier look threatening, then the composite most certainly doesn't.

Your logic is distorted, because the soldier is indeed threatening in all 3 pictures, but he is presented as less humane when pointing his gun at a man with a child instead of at some other perceived threat in the distance. And that, I believe, was the effect the photog was going for. Unless one reads the story (and most people won't), the perception is that this soldier is behaving in a threatening manner to unarmed civilians.

[DouglasKC]

and the soldier is made to appear to be threatening and yelling at the guy with the kid in his arms, when in reality that is nowhere close to what was happening. This is beyond dishonest; I would go so far as to say this is treasonous.

That was exactly my impression of the doctored photo before reading any comments. At first glance until you read the caption, it looks like the solider is threatening the man and his child.

[TomB]

Your logic is distorted, because the soldier is indeed threatening in all 3 pictures, but he is presented as less humane when pointing his gun at a man with a child instead of at some other perceived threat in the distance.

We aren't discussing logic here, we are discussing perception. And if you think that the composite picture is "less humane" as the second original, where the gun actually looks like it is being pointed AT someone, then there is nothing else to say. But it should be pointed out to lurkers who scan this site looking for silly, reactionary posts, that many here don't think there was malice in the intent of the photographer. For the simple reason that if this guy wanted to make a picture that makes this Brit soldier look bad, he could have done a MUCH better job.

[Timesink]

Welcome hemoglobin!

Bill O'Reilly just led tonight with this story. The LA Times' credibility is totally destroyed, because they finally got caught.

[Timesink]

MEGAPING! THE ULTIMATE VIOLATION OF JOURNALISTIC ETHICS BY THE LOS ANGELES TIMES!

[Timesink]

I just read the announcement on MSN news that the reporter was fired for the altering.

He was fired for getting caught.

[rolling_stone]

I think they have no problem with made up photos that fit their propoganda as long as they are made well enough not to get caught, that is the real story here, its ok to deceive, just don't get caught...

[Keith in Iowa]

JOURNALISTIC ETHICS IS AN OXYMORON

[Timesink]

It does make one wonder how often photo alterations occur.

It's not really capital-J Journalism, but there's not a non-news magazine cover in America that isn't Photoshopped out the wazzoo first.

[SENTINEL]

O'Reilly just reported that the picture was doctored to make it look as though the Brit Royal Marine was pointing his weapon at a civilian !

I'm no fan of the LA Times, but what O'Reilly just pulled is worse. The Marine's rifle is pointed at folks in both pictures, and it should be.

I'm disappointed with Bill, dangit what is it with folks ? They get a little power and almost invariably abuse it. I won't be lied to by reporters, and that includes FOX !

[Copernicus]

Posted to *CCRM

[Ciexyz]

But is the picture somehow dishonest?

Sure is. The doctored photo shows the gun pointing at the civilians -- making the soldier appear to be threatening them.

This propaganda is similar to what CNN was showing last weekend: a soldier aiming a rifle around a corner of a building, with an Arab woman walking nearby. The implication was, the soldier was aiming at a civilian, or was aiming and didn't care if a civilian was approaching.

I'm sure the truth was, the soldier was rounding the corner and sticking the gun out first for protection. Isn't that standard policy?

[plusone]

'wag the dog'...

[TomB]

I'm disappointed with Bill, dangit what is it with folks ? They get a little power and almost invariably abuse it. I won't be lied to by reporters, and that includes FOX !

It gets worse. Tony Snow was on earlier and reported the same thing. He actually said the doctored picture made it look like the soldier was threatening the man. I just can't see how they would think that. The whole episode makes them look bad.

[Samwise]

You mean this was doctored? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

[TomB]

The doctored photo shows the gun pointing at the civilians -- making the soldier appear to be threatening them.

You mean to tell me that this picture:

is more threatening than this one?

I just don't see it. The bottom picture actually looks like the soldier has his weapon pointed at the people. In the doctored pic, he only has one hand near the weapon, so he can't be aiming. And he is obviously telling them to get down.

The second pic is MUCH more threatening.

[Timesink]

You mean this was doctored? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

That wasn't Photoshop. I think they needed to bring in stonemasons for that one.

[Maeve]

The L.A. Times is one sick newspaper. One can only hope a micro-earthquake will take out its buildings (sans casualties of course).

[Timesink]

Tom, I think the problem here might be that you're arguing from the point of view of someone with a brain who's actually spent a minute or two examining and analyzing the photos, and tried to figure out what was going on in this idiotic photographer's mind. Meanwhile, the rest of us are just going on what the average Moron-on-the-Street saw and thought: "Hey, that marine's aiming his gun at innocent civilians! BASTARDS! Duuh, where'd I put my doughnuts?"

Unfortunately, I believe that doctored photo affected many more members of the Moron Crowd than those of the Thinking Crowd.

[bootyist-monk]

What incredibly sloppy Photoshop skills. There is so much repetitive imagery in the BG of the civilians that you can catch three or four instantly. Ten more minutes to clean this thing up and this guy would still have a job.

[Ciexyz]

TomB (Post 42), the original photo shows the soldier with the gun pointed DOWNWARD, not at the civilians. That's how a soldier stands, correct me if I'm wrong. The gun is at the ready but not pointing directly at the civilians.

The second photo shows the soldier's hand stretched out in a potentially-threatening manner, and the gun is pointed in the direction of the civilians.

[Zon]

We aren't discussing logic here, we are discussing perception. And if you think that the composite picture is "less humane" as the second original, where the gun actually looks like it is being pointed AT someone, then there is nothing else to say.

The photographer is doing his job. He knows which photo will benefit him most. So he went with the one that was eventually put on the front page. He didn't think of the actual consequences of being caught. He has probably been altering photos for better composition all along and been selecting the one that best reflects on his photographer skills. He inherently knows what the publisher is looking for and that plays into his process. It's second nature. You can't remove the logic from it. Well, you can try to, but it won't pass muster. What is the LA Times looking for? Is honesty and integrity its strong suit? I don't think so.

But it should be pointed out to lurkers who scan this site looking for silly, reactionary posts, that many here don't think there was malice in the intent of the photographer. For the simple reason that if this guy wanted to make a picture that makes this Brit soldier look bad, he could have done a MUCH better job.

"Silly reactionary posts"!??? I suppose you said in 1998 that it was just about sex and people were being silly and reactionary. Perjury is misrepresentation regardless of whether it's on the witness stand or on the front page. Honesty and integrity do matter.

[TaxRelief]

Bull. In the photo that has a defensive hand up, the gun may be pointed at people, but it is in a relaxed position. When the gun is aimed higher, it is above people's heads. By combining the two, it looks like the civilians are afraid that they are about to get shot, particularly with the defensive hand lined up with the barrel of the gun. Time for all the leftists to crawl back under their DU rock.

[Anamensis]

I agree, I don't think anything seditious is afoot here, this is just some dork trying to make his photo more dramatic. He took the photo of the soldier which had more dynamic body language, and the photo of the man where his face is showing, to draw interest. Shouldn't have done it, no. But evil plot? No.