Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Martin Now you are acting as an apologist for one of your own kind. He didn't "accidentally" send the altered pic. And the editor at the other end, probably said. "This will wow them! Print it and trash the other two", not knowing that it was a composite. Jerry Martin Howard wrote: > Tina Manley wrote: > > > Here is Walski's apology and the reaction from the Times: > > > > http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082 > > Again, this raises some interesting questions. What if Walski had > claimed that the photo was never meant to be sent off to the paper? > What if he'd just been playing around with it for private purposes, and > then sent a bunch of pictures from the wrong folder? Perhaps some were > obviously manipulated (Santa Claus riding across the sky in the > background, the Easter Bunny brandishing an M16) while others were less > so? Would the responsibility lie with the photographer, the picture > editor, or the person who wrote the obtuse interface to the software > program used to upload the images? > > Taking a systems view, it's clear that the *paper* (LA Times) screwed > this one up. After having read this article, it's much less clear that > the sole responsibility lies with the photographer. > > The "bad apple" theory is an easy one to grasp and provides the > comforting illusion that the problem has been dealt with swiftly and > efficiently. A systems approach would consider the systemic > vunerabilities and address those. > > I'm not so sure any longer that firing the photographer was the right > thing to do. > > M. > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html