The Economist Alteration of Obama Photo: Unethical?

Bingo

 

I won't defend what The Economist editors did - and I realize you couldn't crop the original to come up with the same cover picture - but it is funny that changing the photo through one method is considered ok but changing it through another method is not.

Either way you're altering the original picture.

 

That's like saying that altering quotes and leaving out part of an interview is the same thing.

 

I'll often defend magazines' use of photo illustrations for times like these. They do it all the time -- finding pics of presidents looking pensive, etc., and attaching an issue to them. Sometimes they use real photos, sometimes art. I'm usually not bothered.

However, seeing the original pic of this one has made me change my tune a bit. The magazine cover makes it look like Obama is being reflective or hanging his head in sorrow as he examines the gulf. In reality, his head is down, likely because he is listening to a person who is shorter than he is. Two very different things.

 

At least it was a genuine moment on the beach verses Clinton contrived photo op at Normandy where they had to bring the rocks in.

 

I have a hard time believing no photog got an actual photo of Obama by himself with the oil rigs in the background. You'd think that at some point while touring the area Obama would be by himself, or at least be far enough away for a pic to be taken without anyone else in the frame.

 

But Obama might not have had his head hanging down in the same pose - which in the unaltered photo could be due to his trying to hear the woman beside him
to run the altered photo of him by himself suggests a resignation that isn't necessarily true