check out the bottom right corner of this photo taken from the nyt web site. that is the worst cut and paste job i have ever seen.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/2...LIDESHOW_4.html

That's pretty funny.

Yeah, lol, it's rather odd why the photographer (or whomever was responsible) would insert a black man's face. Surprised it isn't the mugshot of bleeding, Lebanese refugee escaping an Israeli airstrike.

 

What makes it strange is someone actually put time into locating an appropriate headshot. They had to find a photograph where the lighting would appear consistent with its surroundings. It does accomplish that, but unfortunately, both the clothing and the extra inches visible behind his head gives it away.

Edited August 9, 200619 yr by Flash Tizzle

I am confused, are you saying this is an admitted doctored photo, or just speculating that is has been altered?

What's there to speculate?

 

That photo needed some FLAVA!

I am confused, are you saying this is an admitted doctored photo, or just speculating that is has been altered?

He's speculating, although there really isn't much to debate. Look behind (and slightly above) the man's head. Or at the actual clothing.

What's there to speculate?

 

That photo needed some FLAVA!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmmm, something is different...

 

Edited August 9, 200619 yr by mr_genius

Every photo is a doctored version of the events depicted. In a 360 degree view, the photographer pick a narrow slice to shoot. To further doctor the photo, by adding elements, should be labeled as such. This would place it at the same level as a courtroom painting. We know that is doctored and accept that.

Why would the NYT, be anti-Israel?

 

All NYT class-b share of stocks are owned by the descendants of Adolph Ochs, a jewish-german immigrant. Class B shares are not publically traded and vote for a majority of the board of directors.

 

Its interesting how the "liberal media bias" changes to suit the argument of the day. Prior to this Israeli conflict, the liberal media was always the friend of the jews, or the jews were controlling the liberal media to advance their own causes.

 

Now its the liberal media is against the Israeli's.

 

Very interesting that the NYT would be considered anti-Israel, especially as the NYT has historically been controlled by jewish people.

Every photo is a doctored version of the events depicted. In a 360 degree view, the photographer pick a narrow slice to shoot. To further doctor the photo, by adding elements, should be labeled as such. This would place it at the same level as a courtroom painting. We know that is doctored and accept that.

 

 

well, thats different than adding someone to a picture for political reasons.

 

however, in defense of the NYT, that photo could be real.

Wiconsin has black people at the school.

 

Its just an unfair picture, they are taking a picture of the stands, when clearly all the black people are actually on the playing field.

 

What could possibly be the reason for putting a black man's head over a Lebanese woman's head?

What could possibly be the reason for putting a black man's head over a Lebanese woman's head?

Perhaps some intern at the Times tried sneaking one past the editors and it worked.

Wiconsin has black people at the school.

 

Its just an unfair picture, they are taking a picture of the stands, when clearly all the black people are actually on the playing field.

 

 

LOL,

 

Plus that picture was used for advertising and marketing, not news. Biiiiiig difference.

Perhaps some intern at the Times tried sneaking one past the editors and it worked.

 

That's what I'm thinking.

Perhaps some intern at the Times tried sneaking one past the editors and it worked.

 

interns submit photographs for the NY Times to use? i doubt it, but if they do that's hilarious.

Who cares? This story (and offshoots of it) is/(are) getting old. So there's an agenda. Surpirsed? I think not.

Who cares? This story (and offshoots of it) is/(are) getting old. So there's an agenda. Surpirsed? I think not.

 

Who sets the agenda and how?

 

More likely scenario, there is competition among freelancers to sell photos. If the papers do not buy, you don't make any money. So they create a photo that will sell. The newspaper buys it, expecting it to be accurate, and they get duped. I know that worldwide conspiracy theories are way more fun, but I just can't take that leap of faith that all teh worlds newspapers are getting together to elect Presidents and publish lies.

Any good photo editor at a newspaper should know what they are looking at. It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda.

It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda.

 

agreed.

Any good photo editor at a newspaper should know what they are looking at. It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda.

That hits it on the head.

Its not just Rueters under scrutiny for doctored pictures...