RE: [Leica] fired for photoshopping

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Of course it has basis. News of something like this would be out in no
time. The photos would undoubtedly show up on the internet. The only
smart thing for a news organization to do when it errs is to break the
news itself, and reassure its readers or viewers that it considers the
error just that, and will do what it can to see that it doesn't happen
again.

And, yes, the paper would care if this happened in time of peace - the
NY Times recently canned one of its best photographers over what turned
out to be a posed photo.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Henry Ting
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:10 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] fired for photoshopping


I agree, reprimand would be more appropriate. However,
firing the photography AND then PUBLICIZING it, makes
me wonder whether LA Times is using the opportunity
for some self-publicity. For one thing, the "firing"
of the photography might or might not be correct, but
making it into news in itself have no basis.
Especially, there's other more newsworthy war stories.
The way I look at it, LA times couldn't care less if
this had happened during times of peace, and the
reason ? -- who would care. I still think the
photography in this case is a scape-goat from some self-righteous bigwig
who saw a perfect opportunity for some other self-promotion.

- --- Frank Filippone <red735i@earthlink.net> wrote:
> But BD, the comment I made was that this is
> precisely what written word
> journalists do.....  why 2 standards?  Is it beacuse
> you are a photographer
> that the standards are different, and more robust
> for the photographer?  Why
> is it not OK that the paper would publish a 1 side
> point of view on the War
> itself?  Omission is OK but commission is a sin?
> 
> I think the comments about the power of the paper to influence, is one

> that we all accept.  They do this through selective
> reporting, and I believe is
> an editorial driven point of view.   I think I
> accept that the
> photojournalist is entitled to the same standards,
> and thus my opinion that
> his work was acceptable as it did not in my opinion
> and in my memory, not
> change the .meaning of the point of time.
> 
> BTW, I do believe that for breaking the rules of the
> LA Times, the guy
> should have been reprimanded.  FIred?  Maybe, if it
> so states in the rule
> book.
> 
> Frank Filippone
> red735i@earthlink.net
> 
> 
> What is with you folks? Unacceptable to say 'submit
> only those photos
> that you exposed, and none of those that you
> composed?'
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
- --
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