4 ms·

The most important product of AP (and most serious news organizations) is credibility. Something like this is a cancer to their brand that they have to cut out

The most important product of AP (and most serious news organizations) is credibility. Something like this is a cancer to their brand that they have to cut out in the most absolute terms possible. I don't think there was any malice by the photographer but anyone working for a large news organization should be aware how sensitive they are to this kind of thing - if a reporter made up a source or quotation, I'd expect a similar response.

someone13 15y ago
My thoughts exactly. The photographer probably thought he was doing this innocently, but even a small manipulation like this can seriously change what a picture means. There's a really good example of this somewhere online showing how the meaning of a photo can be changed by cropping the right and left sides of a picture involving a soldier. Sadly, I can't seem to find it. So, here's a couple of other examples: http://familybible.org/israel/conflict/PeacefulTerrorists.htm http://familybible.org/israel/conflict/PeacefulTerrorists.ht... http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/07/unethical-cropping.html http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photogra... AP is absolutely correct to take such draconian measures - they need to be credible. EDIT: Found it! See here: http://www.rhetorik.ch/Bildmanipulation/soldat.jpg http://www.rhetorik.ch/Bildmanipulation/soldat.jpg
- m0nastic 15y ago
  The photographer was a freelancer, so it's possible that he wasn't familiar with the AP's guidelines. That said, not manipulating images is the first thing that gets drilled into you as a photojournalist (either in school, or when you start doing assignments), so it's pretty unusual for someone to not realize the importance. A lot of photo agencies require submission of the RAW files specifically to combat this sort of thing.

someone13 15y ago

My thoughts exactly. The photographer probably thought he was doing this innocently, but even a small manipulation like this can seriously change what a picture means. There's a really good example of this somewhere online showing how the meaning of a photo can be changed by cropping the right and left sides of a picture involving a soldier. Sadly, I can't seem to find it. So, here's a couple of other examples: http://familybible.org/israel/conflict/PeacefulTerrorists.htm http://familybible.org/israel/conflict/PeacefulTerrorists.ht... http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/07/unethical-cropping.html http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photogra... AP is absolutely correct to take such draconian measures - they need to be credible. EDIT: Found it! See here: http://www.rhetorik.ch/Bildmanipulation/soldat.jpg http://www.rhetorik.ch/Bildmanipulation/soldat.jpg

m0nastic 15y ago
The photographer was a freelancer, so it's possible that he wasn't familiar with the AP's guidelines. That said, not manipulating images is the first thing that gets drilled into you as a photojournalist (either in school, or when you start doing assignments), so it's pretty unusual for someone to not realize the importance. A lot of photo agencies require submission of the RAW files specifically to combat this sort of thing.