Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Byron isn't the politics student, that's me
by Whistler
(quotes)
Byron, stop thinking like a politics student at uni for one moment and stop to smell the coffee
Posted: 13:24 Mar 13 2004
Editors 'clean up' bomb photograph
If you've seen the broadsheet front pages today you will have probably seen the photograph of one of the train wreckages from yesterday's bombing in Madrid. It has emerged that the photograph has been digitally altered in all UK publications to remove what appears to be a detached limb from the image.
Full story here
I have to confess that out of some kind of morbid curiosity I re-checked the Guardian front page to see if I could spot the grayed out section and I couldn't find it, though i didn't spend too long looking.
Digital manipulation of photographs has been mentioned in the press quite a bit recently particularly with refernce to the "photographs" of John Kerry with Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally way back when. The old adage that the "Camera never lies" just isn't true anymore.
So... Were UK news editors right to alter the picture? Is it ever right to digitally alter images used in the press weather its to airbrush a model's thighs to get rid of a bit of cellulite or to protect peoples sensibilities in the face of a gruesome massacre?
EDITED to correct spelling in subject title *rolleyes*
(Edited by Sydney 14/03/2004 20:21)
Full story here
I have to confess that out of some kind of morbid curiosity I re-checked the Guardian front page to see if I could spot the grayed out section and I couldn't find it, though i didn't spend too long looking.
Digital manipulation of photographs has been mentioned in the press quite a bit recently particularly with refernce to the "photographs" of John Kerry with Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally way back when. The old adage that the "Camera never lies" just isn't true anymore.
So... Were UK news editors right to alter the picture? Is it ever right to digitally alter images used in the press weather its to airbrush a model's thighs to get rid of a bit of cellulite or to protect peoples sensibilities in the face of a gruesome massacre?
EDITED to correct spelling in subject title *rolleyes*
(Edited by Sydney 14/03/2004 20:21)
32 Replies and 4318 Views in Total. [ 1 2 ]
Posted: 13:24 Mar 13 2004 
They didn't omit part of a photo. They *added* details that don't exist outside a photoshop package and presented them as real.
by Avenger
(quotes)
Yes maybe there is but, as in this case the editor has clearly omitted part of reality (just as if another similar photo had been available with no body parts and had been used in preference for the same reason) rather than created a false reality, I'm not really sure what your point is.
Ergo, a false reality.
Posted: 13:38 Mar 13 2004 
Just to try and understand your stance on this, would you have a problem with it if they'd covered the limb with a black square? They wouldn't be deceiving anyone because it would be quite obvious that they had removed something from the photo. But they would still be doctoring the photo and showing something that couldn't exist without the use of some picture editing software. They'd still be "adding details", it's just that the detail would be a black box rather than a bit of subtle blurring.
by Byron
(quotes)
They didn't omit part of a photo. They *added* details that don't exist outside a photoshop package and presented them as real.
Ergo, a false reality.
Posted: 18:53 Mar 13 2004 
They may doctor photos, add bits, take away bits but at the end of the day, as Whistler quite rightly said, some children and some people read these newspapers, see the news footage, the graphic photos and such like on the TV news. And while it is hard hitting news, pictures of detached limbs and dead bodies are too graphic for children to see. If it has to be shown, save it for post watershed. I just thought the coverage from SKY news just a tad insensitive.
Posted: 19:20 Mar 13 2004 I'd disagree, but if the paper clearly signpost any censorship, at least they're being honest. (The image wasn't just blurred; the background was carefully superimposed over the offending limb.)
by PictureOfFlowers
(quotes)
Just to try and understand your stance on this, would you have a problem with it if they'd covered the limb with a black square? They wouldn't be deceiving anyone because it would be quite obvious that they had removed something from the photo. But they would still be doctoring the photo and showing something that couldn't exist without the use of some picture editing software. They'd still be "adding details", it's just that the detail would be a black box rather than a bit of subtle blurring.
I'm glad the Indy printed the photo unedited and treated its readers like adults. If newspapers feel the need to constantly second-guess whether their content is "family friendly", you're left with a pretty distorted worldview! I think responsibility lies with parents, not publications: who's better qualified to decide what children can and cannot see?
Posted: 20:17 Mar 13 2004 
Well, the Indy's photo was black and white and wasn't on the front cover, both of which make its use of the photo more family-friendly. I don't know whether these were deliberate decisions or not.
by Byron
I'm glad the Indy printed the photo unedited and treated its readers like adults.
Both options of which were available to other newspapers, of course.
Posted: 21:48 Mar 13 2004 Oh, the irony.
by Byron
If newspapers feel the need to constantly second-guess whether their content is "family friendly", you're left with a pretty distorted worldview! I think responsibility lies with parents, not publications: who's better qualified to decide what children can and cannot see?
I agree that the picture wasn't suitable for a newspaper's audience. Kids may not buy them, but they may still have access to the pictures, so perhaps the front page isn't the best place for dismembered bodies. I also agree that I wouldn't want photographs of a family member's remains printed and reprinted all over the world for "news" suppliers to make a profit from, which (to be frank) is what they're doing it for in the first place.
Although its fair to say that it is not the Newspaper's responsibility to censor the images they present, it is their responsibility to demonstrate good taste and certainly a respect for the victims.
Posted: 23:49 Mar 13 2004 I'm finding it hard to understand where you actually stand on this. On one hand you seem to be aggravated because they didn't show the limb and hence didn't show the full horrors of the incident. On the other you seem to be against it because they've deceived they're readership and doctored a photo.
by Byron
I'd disagree, but if the paper clearly signpost any censorship, at least they're being honest.
If it's the first then you would be equally as upset if they had chosen to use one of the other photos that didn't have any body parts in. And to be honest if you felt like this you'd have to be a pretty morbid individual (though I don't mean this personally
).If it's the latter then putting a black square on it would also be doctoring the photo as would be converting it to black and white surely? And choosing a different photo would also be deceiving the readers.
Posted: 00:51 Mar 14 2004 Just to sumarise your view as I'm currently understanding it: if someone moves the limb from the scene, so that it's not there, then takes a photo, that's ok, but if they take a photo, then alter it to make it appear as if the limb isn't there, exactly the same photo, but that's 'decieving their readers'?
by Byron
(quotes)
They didn't omit part of a photo. They *added* details that don't exist outside a photoshop package and presented them as real.
Ergo, a false reality.
Byron, I'm normally in agreement with you when you post on censorship issues, etc, but you've totally lost me on this one!
(Edited by Avenger 14/03/2004 11:17)
Posted: 11:13 Mar 14 2004 I think Byron has made it perfectly clear where he stands in this issue.
by PictureOfFlowers
I'm finding it hard to understand where you actually stand on this. On one hand you seem to be aggravated because they didn't show the limb and hence didn't show the full horrors of the incident. On the other you seem to be against it because they've deceived they're readership and doctored a photo.
By airbrushing the picture and making it look like there was nothing there in the first place, when there actually was, is creating a false reality. by sticking a black box over it, yes it's deleting it, but you can tell that they are covering something up that they don't want you to see, and hence are being honest. what's so difficult about that?
Personally i agree with Byron and Maffrew on this issue. why not show it like it is, rather than half the story? i wouldn't necessarily chose to gawp at blown off limbs, but that's what happens when a bomb goes off and people are there. not showing this makes people think that you just basically die, in one piece, whereas this isn't always the case. the true devasting effects should be shown so people can understand what it is like. i know it's never gonna happen, but the papers could at least be honest about it and wack a big old censored block over it.
Posted: 12:37 Mar 14 2004 When he says things like this, in response to the statement "You don't need to show the actual image":
by lil_miss
I think Byron has made it perfectly clear where he stands in this issue.
By airbrushing the picture and making it look like there was nothing there in the first place, when there actually was, is creating a false reality. by sticking a black box over it, yes it's deleting it, but you can tell that they are covering something up that they don't want you to see, and hence are being honest. what's so difficult about that?
And this:
by Byron
Yes, you do.
...
Sanitise the images and you sanitise the world.
Both of which seem to demonstrate the first viewpoint I mentioned and not the one you think he has. I'm sure you're right, it's just he seems to have two different arguments going on at once which is clouding the issue and hence causing mine and other's confusion.
by Byron
I'm glad the Indy printed the photo unedited and treated its readers like adults. If newspapers feel the need to constantly second-guess whether their content is "family friendly", you're left with a pretty distorted worldview! I think responsibility lies with parents, not publications: who's better qualified to decide what children can and cannot see?
Anyhoo, it's not nice to talk about people in the third person when they're present, so I'll stop.
Posted: 15:55 Mar 14 2004 
I didn't say he was a politics student. I said he should stop thinking like one for a few minutes
by Maffrew
(quotes)
Byron isn't the politics student, that's me
Posted: 16:59 Mar 14 2004
Pof -- yes, I did put forward two arguments: my opinions on censoring pictures in general; and this censorship in particular. Sorry if I muddied the water.
Posted: 18:39 Mar 14 2004 [ 1 2 ]