Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Seeing is Not Believing...

By: Don P. Jason III
Dj320306@ohio.edu

Upon my first reading of the article titled “L.A. Times Photographer Fired Over Altered Image,” I felt that the L.A. Times was much too hard on Brian Walski by firing him because his deception was almost unnoticeable, but after reflecting on the reading I changed my mind. I have come to the conclusion that the L.A. Times was right to publicly fire him and expose the alteration of the photograph.

After all, any media outlet only really has is its reputation to sustain it. The general public picks up a copy of the New York Times, L.A. Times or Washington Post because they expect it to be true and accurate every time. We as journalists are judged the same way. The public judges us on our last broadcast, or article or photo. As was discussed in class, it is human nature to forget a lifetime of good work and dwell on one mistake.

The one mistake is not bad in itself; however, it creates doubt, and doubt cannot be present if a news medium is to succeed. From this point on, anyone who is at a newsstand looking to buy a newspaper may opt to buy a competitors paper instead of the L.A. Times because they will have a split-second feeling of doubt. When a consumer looks at the L.A Times and remembers the case of the altered Iraq war photo that graced the front page, he or she will think the newspaper lacks credibility.

The article “Distorted Pictures” got at the ease at which people can alter photographs and gave the story scope. The article zeroed in on Allan Detrich who had altered 70 plus photos dating back as far as 2002 and had them published in the Toledo Blade. The article said that Detrich would insert elements and delete elements in news photos as he saw fit.

Both articles named PhotoShop as the tool used by the culprit in both instances of tampering. In many of our classes here in Scripps we learn PhotoShop. We learn how to enhance images by manipulating the contrast, size, color and mega pixel arrangement; so, are we as guilty as Walski and Detrich?

No comments:

Post a Comment