May30 |
 |
Daily News’ Photoshop Use Under Attack
The Daily News once again put Jocelyn “Bonnie” Kirsch on its cover yesterday, after she got in trouble again and was put on house arrest. The paper used one of the shots of her lounging at poolside, only they Photoshopped in an ankle bracelet on her. Get it? This didn’t sit well with Kirsch’s lawyer, Ron Greenblatt, actually released a statement on the cover:
And then NBC 10 did a whole story on it, complete with person-on-the-street interviews. DN Editor Michael Days — no stranger to answering controversy about political cartoons that are accidentally funny — said “[i]t’s just that kind of a story.” Yes, that’s about as good of a response as you can get. Redlasso clip after the jump; NBC 10’s site has a clip too.
|
||
|
|
Joyce in Logan = priceless
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that it was bad for the newspaper to alter the photo. Even though, in reality, the photo didn’t do any harm, it is unethical to put a fake picture on the front page without indicating that it is fake.
I don’t think it was a big deal to alter the photo. The newspaper claimed it wasn’t to harm anyone, and whether or not the public believes that, I don’t think it harms Jocelyn’s reputation on account she was ordered to wear one anyway.
i feel that showing the picture really wasnt a big deal. She was sentenced to wear the bracelte anyway who cares if they altered the picture with her wearing it
I don’t think it was a big deal to alter the photo. The paper claimed it wasn’t to harm anyone, and whether or not the public believes that, I don’t think it harms Jocelyn’s reputation on account she was ordered to wear one anyway.
PERSONNALLLLYYYYYYY.i dont think showing this pricture was a bad idea because it attracts readers to read about the story.. its not aa big deealfaaa sho. if she is embarressed about the picture, then she shouldnt have gotten herself into the position. its called karma honey. its not really of public concern but it is of public entertainment. okayy. peace out joccy.
FA SHO.
why is eryone crying it just a lil joke i dnt think dat eryone shuld make a big fuzz over it! i like dat pic fo sho aint no thang but a g thang ya heard! woo ha love them philla daily news peeps !peace!
Yeah, if you don’t see why a newspaper - a term applied to the Daily News in surely its loosest sense - publishing an altered photograph on its front page is bad, you don’t get to use the word “journalism” in your name.
Also, you’re a fucking idiot.
This isn’t about Kirsch’s reputation, it’s about journalistic integrity. The DN pretty much published false information.
Since someone brought up the DN publishinging false information: In today’s 25 years without a title quiz, they said that Jon Leiber pitched the 1st game at Citizens Bank Park in 2004, yet it was Randy Wolf. Too bad Jon Lieber was a Yankee in 2004. Idiots.
Funny how in this item decrying the Daily News’ lack of journalistic or ethical standards, PW and Dan McQuade completely mislead readers by failing to mention the key fact that the altered photo was identified as such right there on the front-page photo itself, with the well-understood phrase “Photo Illustration.” By leaving this crucial piece of info - one which completely negates the point of the story - out of its coverage, this blog, and PW, make it crystal clear who needs to “at least be held to minimal journalistic ethical standards.”
Who wants to bet that that last comment was by somebody at the newspaper?
At the same time, it’s true that the PW left out a crucial bit of info. It hardly “negates the point” of the item, since the label was in tiny print, and anyway, including “photo illustration” doesn’t give you a free pass to be scummy.
KettlePot: The phrase “Photo Illustration” in small print may clear the consciences of you journalism insiders, but to the larger world out there it means nothing. It’s unlikely to even be noticed, and it doesn’t really say, “We made up this tacky photo; it doesn’t represent reality although it very much looks that way to 99.9 percent of non-journalists.”
Though labeling this image “photo illustration” looks good in print, the actuality of the minute type detailing this image was in fact doctored is inaccessible at best and imperceptible at worst. While this detail was left out of the PW/Phila Will Do piece, it’s rather inconsequential when you have the paper in your hands physically — as a journalist, I actively pursue tags such as these. That caveat’s important though, as I am trained to look for stuff like that. A person not trained to do so would likely assume the image was a photo like always, as seen in the NBC clips’ interviews.