LA Times reporter fired for 'photochopping' photos

I understand the ethical concerns, but is this really that big a deal? When I first read the headline at Drudge, I was thinking he added some stuff that wasn't even there in the first place.

 

This isn't a big deal considering a lot of the crap that has gone on in the Stock market and with companies lately...

Give a brother a break...It's not like he altered it showing him shooting someone...

 

I can see why he got fired....it's an understood ethics thing.

What I can understand is why it made news anywhere.....big deal...people get fired every day.

 

It's almost like he got fired for being artistic, but credibility is everything, and rules are rules.

 

I think it is a pretty big deal. There is a reason why journalistic ethics frown on this behavior. Photographs do a lot to mold the perceptions of the readership. When you show things that didn't actually happen, you're essentially lying to the public. In one particular event, the effect may be inoccuous but it sets a precedent for next time and creates an atmosphere of tolerance for this practice. Then, it won't be such a jump to be manipulating the photos not for composition so much as for effect and you start trying to manipulate public opinion with your lies. I'm glad the guy got fired. I think a newsroom should have an atmosphere that lets everyone know that deception will not be tolerated.

 

This is one of those things that most newspaper people take extremely seriously. It is a huge deal to them.... not so much to the average person, though.

 

Absolutely, JV. And it's symptomatic of the state of the public's perception of journalism's ability to report the truth, as best they can, that so many might think this isn't a big deal. Stephen Ambrose is paying quite a price right now for uncredited use of sources, indeed, plagerism, in one or two of his works. I wish I could remember which ones, sorry. Do a google.

With the technology at our diposal today, isn't it even more important for the press to maintain as much integrity as they can.. before the public becomes as cynical as they are about politics? I can't count the number of times I've heard people I otherwise respect tell me they didn't bother to vote because "they're all the same, they're all in someone's pocket... it doesn't matter who I vote for, so why bother??". Which drives me nuts.

How long will it be before we dismiss our news media, enshrined in the Constitution and whose freedom is paid for in blood, because we can't trust anything they put out? Anything? I think it's a big deal.

 

He could always get a job with Al Jazeera they have no ethics.

DD

 

or Fox News.

 

If you don't like them, fine. Don't watch. But to say that Fox News has no ethics borders and stupidity

 

He was right to be fired.

 

I agree. I thought it was a complete BS photo, but after looking at the other two he took. (or were taken by someone else)it is not much of a big deal that the 3rd photo was made.

 

I'd say the same about dismissing al Jazeera.

 

Did you see the piece on MSNBC about the difference in what Al Jazeera is reporting and what the rest of the media is reporting.

Al Jazeera is a propaganda station, they are SOOOOO far off base in facts that it is ridiculous.

I still say the USA needs to get a television station up in Iraq and broadcast to the entire Middle East that is counter programming to Al Jazeera.

DD

 

Do you really believe that there's no difference between Fox News and al Jazeera?

 

"Attack of the Giant Brit!"

 

I have watched only a little bit of Al Jazeera but on what basis do you claim that Al Jazeera is a propaganda station and unfactual while, say Fox News, is not?



This is not a rhetorical question but a serious one.



Al Jazeera is showing mostly the Iraqi side of things, (civilians killed, etc) it does seem like propaganda to us but this is also what interests Arab viewers the most. On the other hand, don't US stations show things like how US soldiers are heroes, run stories about rescues of US POWs, all sorts of pundits saying how this is to "liberate" Iraq and such.



What exactly is it that Al Jazeera is doing which you object to which isn't done similarly by US sources?

 

We learn about the deaths of Iraqi civilians here in the US as well, and I'm interested in knowing about them. I don't want innocent people dead. I've even heard some criticism of our soldiers who shot and killed some civilians when the car wouldn't stop, even after warning shots.

Here's my question: Does anyone think Al Jazeera is reporting that Iraqi civilians are needlessly being put in the way of harm by Saddam? Are they hearing that our soldiers most likely wouldn't feel the need to shoot if they didn't have to worry about fake surrenders, soldiers in civilian clothes, and suicide bombers? I doubt that's a message coming through loud and clear on Al Jazeera. It doesn't serve their purposes.