The Economist has admitted that it substantially edited its widely viewed cover picture of Obama. President Obama has been criticized for what is perceived as his detached reaction to the spill for the first few weeks. The cover page showed a solitary Obama in deep contemplation. It was completely manufactured. Not only was Obama not alone in the picture, he was talking to Thad W. Allen of the Coast Guard and Charlotte Randolph, a local parish president. Indeed, his bent figure is not from deep contemplation but apparently listening to the much shorter Randolph.
The picture was shown on the cover of The Economist for June 19th. It was taken on May 28 by a Reuters photographer, Larry Downing. The editing violates Reuters standards — standards that have been strictly enforced since a 2006 scandal involving an enhanced and edited Reuters picture from the Middle East.
Emma Duncan, deputy editor of The Economist, responded and admitted that they edited the photo. However, she does not appear to view it as unethical even though the content and obvious meaning of the photo was changed:
Yes, Charlotte Randolph was edited out of the image (Admiral Allen was removed by the crop). We removed her not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers.
We don’t edit photos in order to mislead . . .
I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story. “The damage beyond the spill” referred to on the cover, and examined in the cover leader, was the damage not to Mr. Obama, but to business in America.
I must say that I have considerable respect for The Economist but that is hardly convincing. First, few people would look at the cover and say “Wow, that really sums up “the damage to business.” Second, and more importantly, the obvious meaning of the photo was substantially altered. The position of the The Economist would rob photojournalists of any status as journalists. If photos can be substantially changed (other than for an obvious joke), why not just Photoshop these images on computers? The Economist took a conference with the President with two officials and turned it into a lonely shot of the President bent down in contemplation. That is obviously a violation of standards in the industry. The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)states as Rule 6 that “Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Here both the context and content of the photo was changed. I understand Ms. Randolph’s position and accept that there was not intent to mislead, but it did mislead the reader. The Economist needs to assure both readers and other journalists that this was a lapse in judgment and will not occur again.
Source: NYT
I read that also. It is interesting. It does not say a different race. Since I am not Jewish I won’t debate it. I will defer to an actual Jew. My children share the Jewish heritage genetically bit I do not.
SWM,
It depends upon whom you ask, the very old Jews would consider themselves to be a race. But as divergent as the Jewish culture is, I am sure you will find that some say yes, some will say no.
What is interesting is when you hear a Catholic speak Hebrew. It happens every so often, when you happen to be Catholic and live in a predominately Jewish neighborhood.
The NYT says different, Smom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?scp=1&sq=Jews%20genetics&st=cse
A genetically discrete and divergent population is the definition of a race.
http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/beingjewish.htm Jews are not considered to be a separate race.
Buddha,
Not bad for a coonass…..Sic em boy….ki pwoblèm ou gen ankò kapab m’ ap di: (what else can I say)
Saying “he was insulting too” is just about the kind of cheap copout I’d expect from someone with your demonstrated character or lack thereof. And save the fake sympathy as we’ve seen you in action too many times. Your true level of empathy was revealed with your “Christ Killer” comments. Being a racist bigot is far worse than being insulting, badtroll. I am insulting all the time yet remain much beloved and credible. Some might even use the words of Ben Grimm and describe me as “the idol of millions”. The same can be said of mespo, both Mikes, AY (He Who Lives To Be Annoying) and several other regulars. Why is it then, that you are generally not well received (other than by Byron)?
The answer is simple.
You sought to discredit Mike (a valued and credible voice of reason in this forum) as a human – not his ideas or his credibility (of which yours are discredited on a regular basis). Racism and bigotry are dehumanizing tactics that scar the user as much (or more than) they harm the target. Your primary utility is still that of a bad example and propaganda tool but like an anosognosiac you can’t seem to fully grasp why. Even as a troll you are being out-shined by the theocratic homophobic willful ignorance that Tootie peddles if that’s any consolation. Remember our now long ago discussion about the different types of trolls? Based on interactions here and offline conversations, most people consider you simply a troll while they consider Tootles . . . something else. Trollish for certain, but a different kind of troll to be sure. You’ll notice I attack Tootie’s bad ideas and lack of character, but all evidence shows that likely I respect her human rights more than she’d ever respect mine – me being a heathen and all.
Being number one is not always a good thing.
Being a troll doesn’t always mean you aren’t even occasionally almost right about some things. It just means you are an actor with proven and demonstrated bad character and any “credibility” you may have should be examined in that light. You dug that hole all by your lonesome, bdaman. I’m just keeping up for Mike in his absence and saying, “Hey, that guy’s in a hole!” Aside from your demonstrated flaws, you are likely not a bad person, but merely (as I’ve said before) a person with bad ideas combined poor timing and technique.
And I’m curious. After all your hard work to be resident troll?
How does it feel to be number two?
As you can see (or maybe not), insult is a form of satire and/or parody and should not be used unless you have mastered the other forms of discourse – foremost in this forum the art of logical dissection. Critical thinkers like the ones who frequent here dislike sloppy thinking above all, but they dislike poorly executed sloppy thinking even more so and care for delusional raving even less. Tony C seems to be willing to take you apart on another thread as I write this. You may have missed his dismembering of Byron recently, but fair warning, you’re getting into the ring with a logic gorilla there too. Have you noticed that you are getting better reception now that you’ve largely abandoned the use of the pointy sticks? Sure, you still spout an awful lot of talking points nonsense without applying much or any critical analysis, but let’s address one bad habit at a time.
Why did you fail so miserably at insult? And fail in such a way that it is haunting you?
Maybe it’s because you don’t use them well and/or for their proper purposes. Maybe it is your poor target selection.
Maybe the effort to get you to think well starts with getting you to think period but especially before you break out a sharp tool. Measure twice, cut once. It reminds me of something that happened to my grandfather on a job once. A new guy said he knew how to use a circular saw. My grandfather told him to take some studs and cut them down to four foot lengths. The guy took a stud, laid it across his lap and then promptly cut it to a four foot length while slicing a chunk out of his leg. Needless to say, it was his first and last day on the job. But not, I suspect, his first ride in an ambulance.
Here endeth the lesson.
Tar balls are washing up on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/tar_balls_reach_lake_ponchartr.html
Oh well, it’s not like he never insulted me. It’s a two way street.
How is he anyways. I was near him in Del Rey a few weeks ago and he entered my mind on more than one occasion.
Hope he is well and things are working out for him, medically speaking.
You are a bigot, bdaman. Quit selling yourself short. But you are also a racist as genetically speaking Jews are a race in addition to being a religion. You scored a two-fer when you insulted Mike.
Oh high Buddha. Sorry, you are correct also.
Correction. I’ll take laziness over being corrupt any day of the week.
P.S. I thought it was bigot.
He also needs to learn the difference between “incompetent” and “corrupt”.
Except for when bdaman calls Jews “Christ Killer”‘s.
Swarthmore Mom:
I can say with almost metaphysical certainty that Bdaman is not a racist.
I said it seems to me that’s all he does. Didn’t say that’s all he does.
Of course he does more. You know, like attend all the party’s and concerts at the White House.
Racism? surely you say that in jest.
You said all he does is play basketball or golf. Racism is insidious. Be happy bdaman. It looks like Boehner and your republicans are going to take over.
Bdaman:
no he isn’t lazy, he and his crew are busy making mischief on the body politic.
Obama is not “lazy”
You are also right SwathMore Mom.
However I would accept laziness over incompetence any day of the week.
Obama is not “lazy”. I get the drift of “that’s all he does”.
You got that right. How bout this whistle blower from the DOJ. The civil rights commission announced today that they are sending out a new round of subpoenas. There is trouble brewing from all directions. How many more times will the media show Obama and his swing or his jump shot? Seems to me that’s all he does. Do I golf today or shoot some hoops. What Oil
Bdaman:
well it seems only fitting since the press made him they can now take the consequences. Most of what passes for journalism in this country is nothing but op-ed.