The Economist Alteration of Obama Photo: Unethical?

[Point of Order]

Lady gets 'shopped out and replaced by Gulf water to make it look like Obama is standing there alone. Editor says "We removed her not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers."

Whaddya think? Is it ethical? Seems like a pretty big stain on The Economist's impeccable rep to me.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/on-the-economists-cover-only-a-part-of-the-picture/

 

[dooley_womack1]

"Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!"


Anyhoo, I dunno if it's a stain, but it is dodgy.

 

[Armchair_QB]

It's not Time Darkening OJ's Mugshot Bad but it's still not a good idea.

 

[cwilson3]

One simple question: was it labeled as a photo illustration? If it was then, no, it is not unethical.

 

[Armchair_QB]

One simple question: was it labeled as a photo illustration? If it was then, no, it is not unethical.

I don't think it was.

 

[RickStain]

The "we put a 9-point label in the corner so it's all okay" thing is silly. If it looks like a real photo at a glance, it needs to be a real photo.

 

[reformedhack]

Magazine cover photos are edited all the time in ways far more radical and objectionable than this. This is nothing egregious. It's not meant to be a literal, spot-news image -- it's illustrative.

That said, it's also not a direction I would have gone, as a glossy-magazine editor myself, but there's no harm done with The Economist's decision.

 

[joe_schmoe]

If it's their photo, I don't have too much of a problem with them doing it. I have a problem with the editors' response" "the presence of an unknown woman". What? Your reporters aren't skilled enough to figure out who is with the president at this moment?

Seriously, unless he's out doing PR and shaking random hands, people don't just get to stand by the president randomly. She was there for a reason. even if you can't get a name, you can figure out if she's on the president's staff, governor's staff, BP, etc...

 

[ringer]

This smells rotten on several levels

(1) The importance of that particular photo. It was the most incredible we've-absolutely-gotta-run-it-on-the-cover photo they could possibly find? Dubious

(2) The rationale: the unknown woman would have confused readers. Yeah, right, because everyone knows that Obama never talks to locals or experts.

(3) Double standard: a photographer would be hung if he/she had staged the photo by asking the woman to move, but if an editor wants to stage a photo (by using photoshop), it's OK?

(4) Bottom line: manipulating photos is a major breach of journalistic ethics. A disclaimer doesn't excuse it.

 

[BTExpress]

I have a problem with the editors' response" "the presence of an unknown woman".

I think they meant in the readers' eyes it would have been an unknown woman.

Reuters ID'd the woman in its caption. So she was never "unknown" to anyone at The Economist.

 

[Boom_70]

No more unethical that Newsweek putting the Runners World photo of Sarah Palin on their cover.

 

[DanOregon]

What bothers me more is that the Economist could have hired a shooter and said we want a good shot of Obama on the shore examining the damage - even better if you can get some oil rigs in the background.
Instead they looked at a bunch of spec or wire photos - chose one and screwed around with it.
If a writer needed a quote from someone for a story and just pulled a quote from some other story, unaware about what, if any, question prompted the quote - and stuck it in an article - they would be looking for a new job - (or a new stringer or assistant if you worked at the New York Times).

 

[Harry Doyle]

(1) The importance of that particular photo. It was the most incredible we've-absolutely-gotta-run-it-on-the-cover photo they could possibly find? Dubious.

This is it.

The photo isn't that good, unless crop it in tight on Obama. Forget that he's looking at anything, if you take it out of the picture he is sorrowful and regretful. Changing the photo makes a political statement, even if it wasn't your intention. As an editor, you have to be aware of that.

It's a great cover. The best an editor could dream up. Which is exactly what happened in this case.

 

[Sic semper tyrannis]

One simple question: was it labeled as a photo illustration? If it was then, no, it is not unethical.

I don't think it was.

either way its unethical, particularly involving a changing political story and the president. It alters the meaning of Obama's pose. Perhaps he's leaning down to hear what she's saying. Removing context changes the meaning.
Its what pisses me off about photoshop. If you can't get the shot you want, just create it. In the "old days" photogs took tons of pics from tons of angles and if even then they didn't get the shot, you lived with what you had.
Anything else is plain dishonest

 

[joe_schmoe]

I have a problem with the editors' response" "the presence of an unknown woman".

I think they meant in the readers' eyes it would have been an unknown woman.

Reuters ID'd the woman in its caption. So she was never "unknown" to anyone at The Economist.

In that case yes I do have a problem altering it. That, to me, is them altering the photo to make some type of statement. Otherwise there's no need to crop her out.

 

[21]

I don't know if it's unethical, but it's dishonest.

Editorially, the cropping completely changes the mood of the image. Instead of standing with a couple of people, meeting and talking and interacting, the cropped photo portrays solitude and despair, a president alone with his intense thoughts. Not at all what was happening at that moment.

Dishonest. Which I suppose makes it unethical.

 

[Sic semper tyrannis]

I don't know if it's unethical, but it's dishonest.

Editorially, the cropping completely changes the mood of the image. Instead of standing with a couple of people, meeting and talking and interacting, the cropped photo portrays solitude and despair, a president alone with his intense thoughts. Not at all what was happening at that moment.

Dishonest. Which I suppose makes it unethical.

I was going to ask what's the difference?

 

[Lollygaggers]

I think it's more lazy than unethical. Sure, Obama wasn't doing some major reflection in this shot, but I'm sure he's had moments in the past few weeks where he has done some serious, lonely reflection (at least I hope there has been), and that's what the cover and the cover story are getting after.

If they put an illustration note somewhere, then I don't think there's much unethical. But they should have worked harder to get a legitimate shot that has Obama actually reflecting rather than tweaking one. I'm sure there's one out there or they could have asked someone there ahead of time to look out for a good moment to get a photo like that. It's a fine line between being lazy and unethical, but I think this one was just more on the lazy side.

 

[EagleMorph]

Yeah, definitely smacks of laziness more than anything. Obama looks to be in thought - either within his own mind or gathering what the other people with him are saying and processing that - so I don't think the edit really changes anything.

But you're telling me THIS is the best photo you could come up with for your cover story? Pretty weak.

 

[britwrit]

(2) The rationale: the unknown woman would have confused readers. Yeah, right, because everyone knows that Obama never talks to locals or experts.

One time I saw this photo of Douglas MacArthur wading ashore on a beach somewhere. There were a whole bunch of guys in olive-green uniforms with him. It always confused the heck out of me. I mean, who were these folks?

Eventually, I figured out that General MacArthur was on vacation and that these men were park rangers. Problem solved.