Our other mags
Main Guidomedia index

Bloggers 'break' the news (21 August)
Thick, black plumes of smoke pour from buildings in Beirut, an Israeli jet drops three missiles over Southern Lebanon, an elderly woman gazes wistfully at the remains of an apartment building after a missile attack – these are the types of dramatic wartime images we have almost become used to seeing on a daily basis. Except that these particular photographs have sparked an internet crusade by bloggers determined to expose bias in traditional media.
After Reuters released a photograph by Lebanese freelance photojournalist Adnan Hajj which showed thick black smoke rising out of city buildings in Beirut, prominent bloggers quickly revealed it to have been a clumsy manipulation. Denying the allegations, Hajj claimed that he "accidentally" used Adobe Photoshop’s clone tool when trying to clean up specks of dust and fix the poor lighting of the picture. Instead, he was found to have drastically amplified and darkened smoke billowing from recently bombed buildings in Beirut, and, in a second photograph, to have increased the number of flares dropped by an Israeli jet, incorrectly captioned by an editor as missiles, from one to three.
The first picture was published on the Internet on Saturday, and by that afternoon blogger Charles Johnson who runs the popular site Little Green Footballs, having received an anonymous tip, reported that the photo showed "blatant evidence of manipulation". The story spread rapidly through the blogosphere, which immediately began gathering further evidence against Hajj and isolating the techniques used in the manipulation. By Sunday, the story had garnered so much attention that it was seen by a Reuters photographer who reported it to the organization.
Reuters responded quickly, firing Hajj and immediately removing all 920 of his photographs from their databases. But the discovery may have damaged their credibility in a lasting way. Other blogs such as "Zombietime" have latched onto Reuters as an example of sensationalist and biased reporting, raising questions about the veracity of other photos, including allegations of timestamps that do not match up with reported versions of events, posed photos, incorrect or misleading captions, even photographs of the same rubble being attributed to two different attacks, a fortnight apart. Dismissing these claims, senior Reuters editor Paul Holmes attributed the original oversight simply to "human error". Speaking to the New York Times, he said, "On Saturday, we published 2000 photos. It was handled by someone on a very busy day at a more junior level than we would wish for in ideal circumstances."
Image editing software such as Adobe Photoshop has created headaches for photoeditors, whose responsibility it is to determine the legitimacy of each photograph published. In an interview with National Public Radio in the US, Reuters photoeditor Gary Hershorn explained that the only acceptable use of programs such as Photoshop was to provide a digital alternative to traditional darkroom methods. "There has been a basic premise in the world of photojournalism that what was allowed in making prints in the pre-digital days of darkrooms is all that is acceptable today," he said. "The rules are – no additions or deletions, no misleading the viewer by manipulation of the tonal colour balance to disguise elements of an image or to change the context." But, given the sheer volume of photographs pouring in from conflict-ridden areas, it is often difficult for editors to police these rules. In an interview with the New York Times, Mick Cochran, the director of photography for USA today said that photoeditors must also consider other, often more troubling factors. "We wonder, is he behind enemy lines? Is he getting access that isn't normal? How did he get there?"
Of course Reuters is not the only news company to mistakenly publish these sorts of manipulated images – there are several recent examples throughout the US and the world of photojournalists enhancing or altering pictures for the sake of dramatic or political impact. What is notable about this case is that without the attention of the blogosphere, it may have gone unnoticed.
But that isn’t to say that there is no political agenda here. Little Green Footballs and other neo-conservative blogs have seized upon the photos as evidence of a pronounced liberal bias in the mainstream media. Some bloggers have gone so far as to claim that the reason such obviously manipulated photographs were allowed to see publication was that they provided what the media organizations were looking for - sensationalist, pro-Lebanon images.
It seems that in a world where it is remarkably simple to manipulate images to suit a professional or political agenda, bloggers are emerging as an increasingly important source of media critique, exposing these sorts of unethical journalistic practices whenever they are found to occur. While many bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum share a common distrust of traditional media, this controversy may signal a future where traditional media is held accountable by individuals with both technical expertise and the potential for previously unheard-of readership. And, whether it stems from political motives or not, it can only be a good thing for the media as a whole. 
By Kylie Nicholson
Links:
Little Green Footballs story (pictured); Reuters; NY Times article; Reuters interview on NPR (USA);

Dartmouth on digital doctoring; EU referendum -- corruption of media

Return to top

See our media trends archive for earlier stories. See our Benton index for USA media stories.

Use this tool to search our site or the web.

WWW Guidomedia.com

Job Watch
See our jobs page.

Free Newsletter

Try our newsletter. Each week (more or less) we email a free summary of media trends stories in an easy-to-read interactive PDF. See our subscription page.

Movers & shakers
See our selection of speeches & papers on media issues... click

Spin City
The Editor's occasional blog… click