For those of you who do not believe that the U.S. media manipulates the news

Read about the Los Angeles Times getting caught red-handed altering a Page One war photograph in that newspaper.

www.poynter.org...

L.A. Times Photographer Fired Over Altered Image

By Kenny F. Irby
April 1 may forever haunt Colin Crawford, Los Angeles Times Director of Photography, and Brian Walski, a staff photographer covering the war in Iraq for the paper.

That was the day Walski was fired, after it was revealed that a photo he submitted on Sunday was actually a composite of two images he had captured.

The photo was shared primarily with other Tribune properties via Newscom, the company's internal picture distribution service. Both the Hartford Courant and The Chicago Tribune used the photograph prominently on Monday.

Thom McGuire, the Courant's Assistant Managing Editor for Photography & Graphics, says he is still "sick to my stomach over the whole episode," and has been since Monday night.

On Sunday night, McGuire had edited about 500 pictures from various services when he saw the picture from Walski. He liked the image so much that he called the Times for additional caption information, then published the image across six columns on the front page

"the actual photo" :


What Brian did is totally unacceptable and he violated our trust with our readers," Crawford says. "We do not for a moment underestimate what he has witnessed and experienced. We don't feel good about doing this, but the integrity of our organization is essential. If our readers can't count on honesty from us, I don't know what we have left."

Chicago Tribune Associate Managing Editor for Photography Bill Parker agrees, adding that he is "profoundly saddened by this incident."

The Tribune planned to publish a correction in Thursday's paper.

On Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. Pacific Time, the Los Angeles Times posted an editors note on its website notifying readers about the breach of its photographic ethics policy, the investigation and the subsequent firing of Walski for altering the photo of a British soldier and a group of Iraqi civilians. All three photos -- the two originals and the altered composite -- were published by the Times and the Courant on Wednesday.

"Unfortunately the stain of this photograph will harm journalists collectively," said Betty Udesen, a Seattle Times staff photographer.

Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, in the Persian Gulf, embedded New York Times photographer Vincent LaForet agrees, and feels that as part of the world media, "There is not ever a good time for such manipulation, but this is the worst time. What really differentiates us from other photographers and media is our credibility. We have a history of getting it right, accurately� Our credibility is all that we have."

Nevertheless, LaForet is sympathetic.

"I have a good idea of what he went through," he says, having been assigned to Islamabad during the Afghanistan conflict.

Currently going into day 27 of being embedded, he says, "I know about sleep deprivation. I can speculate that he has been working day in and day out and may have experienced mental exhaustion, and this may have been just a lapse of judgment. But when I look at the level of detail, the intricacy shows that this was reflected upon. I must ask myself why he broke the standard. For me there is no acceptable explanation."

"Being in the desert away from your readers does not mean you have free license to deceive them," agrees Maria Mann, former AFP, North American Photo Director and now the principal of The Creative Eye Consulting.

"The Los Angeles Times acted swiftly and decisively in dealing with a photographer who felt that altering the truth was a viable option," she says.

We may never know what led Walski, a 25-year veteran who had been with the Times since 1998, to deceive the viewing world.

But we do know that to best serve our profession and our readers, we can be ever vigilant and aware of the temptation that modern technology offers.

"I am going to be more cautious," the Courant's McGuire says. "Really, it is not about me, it is about will people trust us to tell the truth?"


[Edited on 10-5-2003 by VzH]

hmmmm.. interesting

Dumb a** Why did he do that. The photo I guess was showing that the solider was telling the iraqi to yeild or something. Stuipid to lose his job over it

In the long run, the most important results of any war are the stories people tell about it. Every war produce many stories. Eventually, one story eclipses all the others. This is the official story, the one most wide accepted, the one that future generations will tell. Long after the facts are forgotten, the official story will be shaping and reshaping History. Just think of the power the WW II story still holds!!!!

The Bush administration tried out several stories for its war on Iraq. Its final winner, the story of "Iraqi freedom" and "liberation," worked so well because it made this war look like WW II all over again. It's a story all Americans know and feel deep in their bones :
A vile dictator, the embodiment of pure evil, terrorizes innocent people. Brave Americans risk their lives to free the innocents. Once again, America fulfills its mission: to liberate people wherever they are enslaved, to spread freedom throughout the world. A successful war story must have a kernel of truth, as this one does. Saddam Hussein was a vile dictator who terrorized innocent people. A successful story must also be simple, as this one is. In fact, this story makes so many Americans feel so good, it is hard to imagine that any other story could become the official story of the Iraq war.
Yet this story poses grave dangers to the world's future. It legitimates the U.S. quest for empire and paves the way to more unilateral U.S. attacks. We should not assume that it will become the official story of the Iraq war!!!

We can snipes on the story from the edge. We can point out its lies and inconsistencies. If the US are so devoted to freedom, why did they supported Saddam for so many years? Why are they keeping such tight control over the Iraqis' political future, and their oil??? Why won't the US support independence for the Kurds?
However, no story is ever defeated by truth and logical analysis. You can beat a story only with a better story...................
Remember, a good story must contain truth (the more the better). It must be simple. And it must make people feel good. Here are a few of the familiar alternatives i can offer you :

The U.S. helps a dictator gain and keep power as long as he serves U.S. interests. When the dictator stops serving U.S. interests, the U.S. deprives him of the weapons the U.S. had furnished, and then destroys his government, depriving him of power. The U.S. then installs another hand-picked ruler in the same country. It is obvious to people everywhere (except in the U.S.) that the objective of this policy is to continue U.S. domination of that oil-rich country.
The U.S. weakens a nation with six weeks of bombing and twelve years of economic sanctions. Then it invade and take over the country, arrange a new government for its victim, says it will leave at some unspecified time in the future, and calls this "liberation." Such arrogance and hypocrisy foster anger and resentment against the U.S. around the world. The U.S. government makes a series of unproven claims to justify invading a country that has never attacked the U.S. When foreign nations ask for evidence to support these claims, the U.S. government turns public opinion against a scapegoat of these foreign nations (France) and accuse it of aiding and abetting a dictator. This lets the government continue basing its foreign policy on lies. The U.S. government let a major Middle East country, with the world's second largest oil reserves, into political and economic chaos. The government has no clear idea what the outcome will be and no clear plan to deal with the contingencies. It risks sparking much more anti American sentiment in Arab and Muslim communities. It risks playing havoc with the world's oil economy. The U.S. government will finally admit that it is determined to remain, forever, the world's leading military power. It declares its right to destroy any nation it thinks might threaten its military dominance. To demonstrate that it will act like this, it invades a country with virtually no military capability (twenty tanks..... and you are searching for WMD????) and destroys that country military in just three weeks. The goal is to show all other nations what they face if they question the U.S. right to military preeminence. This actually encourages other nations to build up their own military strength, to resist the U.S. bid for omnipotence (the actual EU debate on a common european defense).

This story can be easily understood. It contain more than a piece of truth. Could it make people feel good? If we tell them to prove the wickedness of America, then will it not make most Americans feel good, and they have no chance of becoming the official story.......................;
So then..............
We should give to this story the same simple moral as the "official story" of the Vietnam war :
This war does not reflect US true national values or aspirations. Americans are really decent people. They all want the U.S. to be the very best nation it can be. Sometimes they make a mistake. When they do it, they admit it, learn from their mistakes, and resolve to do better things in the future.


[Edited on 10-5-2003 by VzH]

Excuse me but Saddam did not just terrorize people he made their flesh small enough to fit upon a Ritz
Cracker. And for the record that does relate to the
official story.


AS far as why did we supported Saddam its probably related to the issue of not knowing the above
was true.

The difference between 12 years ago and now is with respect to who tried to stop the attack on Iraq, a clear example being Aljezera (sp).

Just watch ABC news to see how the media manipulates the news with propaganda a bull sh^^t.

Originally posted by Toltec
AS far as why did we supported Saddam its probably related to the issue of not knowing the above
was true.

Ignorance is not and excuse.

cargo it was the UN who is responsible for making such a detrmination as well as the Arab press for reporting what was going on.

Both did not do what they did as a reuslt of ignorance, they simply did not give a dam.

A big difference

[Edited on 11-5-2003 by Toltec]

This by far is my new favorite thread!

LoL

More are aware of the Propaganda machine. Hopefully none forget.

This brings up one of my favorite subjects which concerns me but doesn't seem to worry anyone else. That is the possiblity that digital media can be manipulated to produce false evidence (which could be used in a court of law). Of course we all remember "The Running Man" and its scene dealing with video manipulation. Looks like it's not science fiction anymore. Everyone should be concerned about this issue because of the very real possiblity that digital media (such as photographs) can be easily modified to make someone look guilty of a crime. Relying on the honesty of the police and the prosecutor just won't work. There must be developed rules of evidence and techniques that can be used to validate such evidence. Here is a simple example: The local police wants to shut you down because of your political activities. They get a search warrant and sieze your computer. The next day, you are charged with the possession and distribution of kiddie porn which the police have just "found" on the hard drive of your computer. I think by this time you get the point.

Have you seen them on US medias????

the strike...........



the shooting...........

Not suprising cinsidering it was the LA Times. As long as they get their anti-war rhetoric out, the care not how they must deceive. Borrowing old tricks from Aljazeera and Iraqi Information Ministry. So what if the image is altered, its all for the best of the people. Liberla news and liberal policies: the end justifies the means.

They have been altering things for years, thats why i have come to not trust any media source, period. Just about all of them have some sort of agenda. Journalists tend to be a very cuthroat lot.

I have seen the pictures, tho, on US tv, showing the protests and stuff in Iraq against the US military presence. Seen an article once that said Iraqis approached US compounds and military areas screaming Allah is great, # you. Sounds about right, based on my experiences.

But anyone could see that coming long before the war started.

"New York Times in shock as reporter's lies are uncovered"

media.guardian.co.uk...