SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations.
As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox's website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront.
The image was actually a mashup of photos from different days, taken by different photographers — it was done by splicing a Getty Images photo of an armed man, who had been at the protest zone June 10, with other images from May 30 of smashed windows in downtown Seattle. Another altered image combined the gunman photo with yet another image, making it appear as though he was standing in front of a sign declaring "You are now entering Free Cap Hill."
[...] The image, as displayed on the Fox News website, was spliced with other photos, including a photo of a smashed retail storefront in May, making it look as though the scene was all playing out concurrently in the autonomous zone. "It is definitely Photoshopped," confirmed Ryder. "To use a photo out of context in a journalistic setting like that seems unethical."
[...] "I think it's disgraceful propaganda and terribly misrepresentative of documentary journalism in times like this, when truth-telling and accountability is so important," said Kenny Irby, a photojournalism ethics educator and consultant. "There is no attribution. There is no acknowledgment of the montage, and it's terribly misleading."
Akili Ramsess, executive director of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), said ethical standards clearly prohibit alteration of photos in news accounts.
Previously:
(2020-06-12) Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)
(Score: 1, Troll) by Username on Sunday June 14 2020, @04:54AM (22 children)
I just went on CNN.com (first time) and all their images are edited by photoshop v21. So photoshopping isn't just a FOX thing. It would be nice if all edited images on "news" sites said what and why it was edited. It they could do it for stories as well, be even better. So many times MSM silent edits stories, and only way we can tell is via archive.org's waybackmachine.
Maybe there should be an ISO standard for news.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @04:58AM (2 children)
You need more experience. Take it from me. I've seen quite a few shops in my day. Check the pixels next time.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Username on Sunday June 14 2020, @05:04AM (1 child)
I can spot a collage, but cropped photos, or color changed photos. Like that one cropped photo of that proud boy standing next to black wife and mixed children. Or covington catholic one. Those are hard to see.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:18AM
whoosh [knowyourmeme.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday June 14 2020, @06:53AM (4 children)
There's a difference between adjusting the color balance and cropping an image and splicing different images into a picture of a situation that never happened.
Can you guess what the difference is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:20AM (1 child)
Easy: Whether or not you already agree with the news source in question.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:49AM
True but irrelevant
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday June 15 2020, @12:23AM (1 child)
You may have failed to take into account the mental gymnastics needed to read a story like this, understand the implications and still tell yourself that Fox News is actually a news organisation.
As long as a Republican is in the White House, they don't care.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 15 2020, @02:08AM
I'll let aside the unreasonable expectation of having one RTFA (that's amateurish; well, Olympic level of mental gymnast amateur, but still nor a prostrat) but this is why I dropped my expectation to "take a guess" rather than "know" or "think" (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @09:14AM (6 children)
I just checked some images on cnn.com and found several different software packages were used for different photgraphs, and several without any data showing what they were processed with.
You should realise there is no such thing as an unprocessed photograph.
Every photograph is cropped in the sense that a camera has a limited field of view and can't possibly show everything in a scene. Is adjusting the field of view afterwards somehow more misleading than adjusting it while taking the photo? In Belgium there have been discussions about newspaper photos of shopping streets in which people appeared not to keep 1.5 m distance, which turned out to give a false impression because an extreme telephoto lens was used, which makes people appear much closer together than they actually are. That was a very narrow field of view, extreme cropping while taking the photograph.
In the raw image the camera sensor records each pixel represents either red, green or blue. The full color pixels are calculated from that, and for that different interpolation algorithms with different outcomes exist. Without applying a contrast curve at all to the raw pixel data photographs would be mostly black. When the camera produces a jpeg all that is done using interpolation algorithms, curves and settings the camera manufacturer chose. If the photographer chooses to work with raw images different (and often better) algorithms are used in the software used to process the photograph.
Before digital photography there were different types of film to choose from, different chemicals to develop them, which could be used with different temperatures, concentrations and durations to influence things like the sensitivity, graininess and contrast of the film. There even was a technique that while developing the film enhanced contours lines, much like sharpen filters in image editors do. Then there were different kinds of paper to print on, with again a choice of chemicals, concentrations etc. With color photography enlargers had color filters influencing the result.
Photography *is* image processing, it's utterly impossible to produce a photograph without doing processing, and that processing cannot be done without making choices in how it is done.
What matters in news media is that the photographs are a faithful representation of a situation, they document it. Cropping an image may be a lie if it leaves out something important, but it may also be a focus on what's important and only leave out a part that's utterly irrelevant to the situation. A well chosen contrast curve may emphasize something important going on in the photo and thus may tell the story rather than lie about it. It can also be used to hide something important and tell a lie. This kind of processing/editing isn't inherently good or bad, but it has to be done with integrity.
What FOX did was insert a guy with a gun that wasn't there. That doesn't emphasize or hide anyting about the situation as it was, it adds something that simply wasn't there and that's highly relevant to how it is perceived. That's a blatant lie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @03:05PM
Is this the same news organization that said Birmingham (UK) was a no-go zone under Sharia law?
The only way the viewers will care about being told lies is if it hurts them financially. They are obviously the suckers in the game, but how to exploit them?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @03:16PM (4 children)
What Fox News did was create and promulgate Fake News.
Let me be clear here what I mean when I say "Fake News" [c-span.org] (~27:30):
These photos fit that definition pretty exactly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Monday June 15 2020, @12:25AM (3 children)
--
Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Others gargle.
(Score: 1) by Fragholio on Monday June 15 2020, @03:44AM (2 children)
I'm glad someone other than me remembers that one. Ever forward, Mr. Determined!
Also, if "fake news" is so important to call out, why hasn't Trump called this one out? I'm being serious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @05:23AM (1 child)
I'll give you a serious answer then. Trump doesn't "call this one out" because Trump doesn't actually call out "fake news." Trump calls out what he *calls* fake news. What he calls out is almost always generally factual reporting about stuff that reflects negatively on Donald Trump or were spun in a way he doesn't happen to like.
Note the definition of "Fake News" [c-span.org] I posted earlier (the best definition of fake news I've heard):
See the difference? Trump doesn't call out actual fake news, he calls stuff that's *not* fake news 'fake news'.
As such, it's no surprise that he doesn't call this out -- because he pretty much *never* calls out actual fake news. Make sense?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @08:20AM
Alternative facts?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 14 2020, @11:32AM
I totally understand using photoshop to tweak an image for "production readiness." On the other hand, the original - as captured by the image sensor - image should be contained in the meta-data, and if there was editing done for privacy type concerns the only editing done on the metadata image should be simple blackout zeroing of pixels with an explanation of why it was necessary to do so.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @01:42PM
Which images? Please provide links to *manipulated *photos that show people in places they were not, with reporting^W lies claiming that they were, as was done in the photos referenced by TFA.
Have the photos you mention been *manipulated* to show folks in places and at times they were not, or do they purport to show events that have not happened, as is the case with the Fox photos?
And yes, I get your little "joke" about Photoshop, which is a widely used tool. But despite the vernacular usage of "photoshopped" images, mostly the tool is used to crop/resize/change contrast, etc.
Just give me two images on the CNN site *right now* that have been *manupulated* as the photos mentioned in TFA were.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @03:05PM (4 children)
It has been obvious for about 3 years they have been turning up the 'orange' levels in pictures with the president. Sometimes they forget and suddenly he is white again.
Selective editing is a news thing. Can't have the 'fine people' narrative without it.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @03:10PM (3 children)
I saw this weird photoshop of Trump standing in front of group of soldiers in DC holding aloft a Bible. Does it signify endtimes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @04:04PM
It signifies you want to fight with random strangers on the internet with snark. I am sure you are 'fine people'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @06:03PM
Endtimes for him at least.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:28PM
Check to see if someone removed the images of four Norsemen with paperclips.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!