LA Times fires photographer for altering image

Hey, you were at the LA Daily News in the late 1980s? I was at the OC Register at the time. Interviewed at the Daily News (didn't want to drive down to Orange County every day) but decided not to take the job after they seemed awfully eager for a urine sample (what was up with that?).

(sorry, off-topic)

LOL!

So why palm yourself off as an expert previously, and call me a nimrod for pointing out you don't seem to know photojournalism editing?

can't have it both ways.

(offtopic) yeah, I was a little taken aback at the urine sample. they picked me up at the airport and before even taking me to be interviewed without warning I had to pee in a cup. Not a good first impression. And it proved a benchmark for my whole experience there.
I passed, of course, but at the time I was extremely philosophically opposed to the idea. I felt it was putting employers in the position of law enforcement without any of the legal recourses.
It was not a good fit for me. It didn't help that 2 weeks after starting the new job my first wife had congestive heart failure. I was trying to visit her in the hospital as she lay dying and still work the more than 60 hours a week they required while still under probation.
then, she died, and I had an oppressive job situation with no friends to rely on. sheer hell.
(/offtopic)

editting a photo is not journalism. that's manipulation of the truth.

I have the ability to understand the intent of that particular manipulation.

And what was it, again? I've edited hundreds of photos, and I just can't see what apparently is obvious to you. I mean, it's not like he put a parrot on the guy's shoulder and added an eyepatch. ...

heh

sorry, you don't understand the term "photoediting" in journalism.

It means choosing the correct photo and cropping it. It doesn't mean manipulating the photo.

nice try, though.

tell you what, I'll try not to act like an arrogant expert on architecture, and you stay the heck away from trying to act like an arrogant expert on photojournalism...ok?

LOL!

exactly my point... Walski of the LA times manipulated the photo, that's wrong and it's not journalism.

did i use the wrong term in photojournalism lingo? pardon me, most people would know what i mean.

Wow. Ladies and gentlemen, we've got a mind-reader in the house.

All photographs are edited in one way or another. Hell, choosing which picture to publish is an act of editing, hence the job title editor

the altered photo looks like he's telling the civilian to stay back and is about to point his gun at him.

i've shown the photos to a bunch of people in my office.. it's clear us all that there was some political motivation in that alteration

riiight, and when a girl says "no" she means "yes" too right?

i think this debate would be better served by not getting fussy over semantics.

Thats the first thing i saw too. Definite political motivation in here. It makes hte soldier look like he is some kind of savior to the people. like "please stay down, its gonna be ok, im here"

I would gather there was some political motivation in there

Totally agree. If the people who are so keen to read a political motivation into this would actually have worked in the business they'd realise that this, in all probability, is simply a bad misjudgment by the photographer.

Well, again- I see your interpretation and I think it is perfectly valid. But. I do think there are so many other reasons why he may have done it. I don't see it as clearly politically motivated. We don't know anything about the guy, you know?

I guess you see what you want to see. If it suits you to believe that the LA Times is not only trying to make you believe that, but is also doing a really bad job of it, and then also chooses to fire the guy for doing it, thus revealing the entire thing to the world when they probably could have just gotten by without admitting it, then go ahead. But I'd have to say that you have a rich fantasy life.

I was referring to this statement of yours:



My objection is not to you stating your opinion. my objection is to palming yourself off as an expert who KNOWS the motivation of someone he doesn't know based on your false expertise.

capiche?

But are you sure you can make an impatial judgement call on it? I mean, what with your fairly obvious battle against "liberals" and all. You see here what you want to see. What you want to see is what supports your agenda. And yeah, I took a little trip to your site- you DEFINITELY have an agenda. Far from an impartial observer, you are.

Huh? What are you talking about? Look, when you work on the content of your college radio show you're making editorial decisions. In your case, based on your personal political affiliations.
This guy made a mistake. I can see why he did it, he was going for the dramatic picture. While this is standard procedure in the world of advertising it was the wrong choice to make for a press photographer. But it still doesn't mean that it was politically motivated. I also find it quite amusing that Zim and you both think that it is (politically motivated) yet read the picture totally differently.

[tangent]

I find it funny that the people on the "obvious politically motivated action" side are predictable based on comments in other threads.

Like-wise, the "no it isn't" group are also pretty predictable.

Not passing judgement, just making an observation about the consistency of people's personalities.

I find that consistency oddly comforting and somewhat disturbing.
[/tangent]