backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by kkwst2.. on Nov 24 at 6:02 PM


Original and Digitally Altered Versions of the Dunwoody Photo  (Source: AP)
Army says that photo was altered but did not break Army policies

The digital alteration of photos is nothing new in the world of print magazines and newspapers. Photos on the cover of magazines are frequently digitally altered to improve the appearance of people, places, and products photographed.

The Associated Press (AP) is embroiled in a fight with the U.S. Army over a digitally altered image that was provided to the AP and distributed to the media. The photo in question is of General Ann Dunwoody and shows the general in front of a U.S. flag.

After the AP distributed the photo, it was found that the photo was digitally altered to include the flag. The original photo showed Dunwoody sitting at a desk with photos and a bookshelf behind her. As a result of the digitally altered image being released, the AP withdrew the photo and suspended the use of any photos from the U.S. Department of Defense.

A spokes woman from the DoD insists that the altered photo does not violate any U.S. army polices which stipulate that photos will not be altered to misrepresent the facts or change the circumstances of an event.

Colonel Cathy Abbott, chief of the U.S. Army's media relations department said that she did not know who had changed the photo or which office had released it. Abbot continued saying, "We're not misrepresenting her. The image is still clearly Gen Dunwoody."

AP's director of photography Santiago Lyon said, "For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image." Lyon says that the AP was in the process of developing procedures to protect against this sort of thing happening in the future and that after these procedures were in place he would consider lifting the ban on DoD photos.

This isn’t the first time that the AP has been provided with a digitally altered photo from the U.S. military. According to BBC News, in September a photo of a U.S. Solider killed in Iraq -- Darris Dawson -- was released that showed the soldiers face and shoulders appeared to have been digitally altered.

Abbott said at the time that the photo had been altered because the U.S. army didn't have an official photo of the solider for a memorial service and that the photo had been released to the public by accident.

According to the AP, the digital alteration of any photo for aesthetic or any other reasons damages the creditability of the information distributed by the military to the public and to news organizations. It hardly takes a trained eye to notice that the photo of Dunwoody appears to have been altered. Placing a photo in front of an American flag hardly seems to be a big issue to most Americans.

General Dunwoody was recently promoted to the rank of four star general, making her the highest-ranking female solider in the U.S. military. Many would understand the outrage and ban by the AP of photos from the DoD had they intended to mislead. Something along the lines of what Iran attempted in July when it altered digital photos to apparently cover the fact that one of the missiles in a test had misfired.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Mountain out of a Molehill
By Performance Fanboi on 11/21/2008 12:01:34 PM , Rating: 5
Hard to believe that AP is making an issue of this. The content was not altered in any meaningful way. What's next "this photo appears to have been cropped - ban the source" or "I smell a color correction here" sound the alarm. I'm sorry for the sarcasm but I'm really having a problem believing that this is a big deal and means any more than AP is trying to make themselves look like some sort of crusaders of truth and accuracy.




RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By napalmjack on 11/21/2008 12:17:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
AP is trying to make themselves look like some sort of crusaders of truth and accuracy.


A-f@*king-men!


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By fishbits on 11/21/2008 1:17:47 PM , Rating: 5
Hmm, did the AP react so harshly to when Reuters ran Photoshopped pics of a fighter jet firing missles? Or the NY Times for outright fabrications by Jason Blair? Or the Iranian or N. Korean governments for news release falsifications, as opposed to aesthetic tweaks?

Kinda doubt it. If the US Army is being singled out for different treatment than everyone else, then that's certainly not objective journalism. Wouldn't suprise me in the least to find the leftist AP being guided by its politics instead of professionalism.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2008 1:31:43 PM , Rating: 5
That's a very good point indeed. The AP is still accepting photos from both the Iranian and North Korean governments, despite their far more serious incidents of photographic fabrication.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By werepossum on 11/21/2008 2:37:03 PM , Rating: 5
Well, obviously the AP considers the US military to be an evil empire, unlike the Iranian and North Korean governments; judging those governments would be wrong.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Mitch101 on 11/21/2008 4:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
Its really because she is a part of the Dharma initiative and the photo was altered to hide her connections with the island.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By dnd728 on 11/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By phazers on 11/21/2008 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
AP is just one letter short of being an ape...


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Myg on 11/21/2008 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
If I was working for AP, I would see it this way:

"We expect honesty from the US government, because they have the ability to provide it"

Which would say what about Iran + N.Korea?


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/21/2008 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 5
First off, I'm not sure the AP would have to react very harshly to those other sources (assuming that the AP picked up the content and distributed it). There were plenty of people going after the photoshopped jet, the falsified Times articles, and the Iranian and North Korean press releases (frequently the AP stories covering the official releases from those governments are critical of the accuracy of the information).

The only reason the Army (or any government agency) is being held to the fire on this one is that nobody else is doing it. For the other stories, why get involved if the problem is being fixed by others? For this photo, nobody else cared, so it was up to them to put their foot down.

I'm sure we all understand the slippery-slope argument that can be made in this case. This photo has been altered to turn it into (what could be construed as) propaganda. There's really no other explanation for it.

What's more, why didn't the Army release Gen. Dunwoody's official photo? Officers get them taken regularly in front of an American flag. They get new ones taken specifically for their packets for consideration for promotions, and again after their promotions so they have one with the correct rank in it on file.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 4:25:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What's more, why didn't the Army release Gen. Dunwoody's official photo?


You are reading a lot into the story with this question. The official response from the DOD was that they did not intend for that to be the general’s “Official photo.”

I can tell you there are a lot of places and sources that press agencies can get photos from and the DoD does not have control over all of them. Don’t believe me, here you go. You can buy any one of these for editorial use and put it in a newspaper tomorrow.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?cont...

I can tell you that mix ups occur. Officially, it is the news outlet’s responsibility to confirm that what they have is a legitimate photo and that they are legitimately using it for what they have rights to use it for. I have had photos purchased and published (animals in nature magazines) that had to have a retraction after it was written that the photo was taken in the wild only to have the magazine check back afterwards and tell them that the photo was taken at a zoo. It was their fault for not confirming the legitimacy of what they published.

Now if this photo did come from someone in some little corner of the DOD, and was given with the express understanding that no doctoring was done, shame on that individual at the DOD and they should be made aware of the DODs policy with regards to talking to the press (and I’d bet the DOD has a pretty extensive policy on that) that’s still not the same as saying this was “officially released” by the DOD.

Most likely though, this photo made its way to someone’s news story layout and was ultimately published due to a number of errors that were not intentional and now the AP is crying fowl even though they should have known better.

-Suntan


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 5:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm reading a lot into this story. The AP contacted (or, more likely, was contacted) by an official DoD PAO, working in their official capacity, who released an, albeit innocently, doctored photo. They chose to release this photo, rather than, say, any other photo of Dunwoody they had on file, including the digital copy of her official file, readily available in her MPRJ (Military Personnel Records Jacket). Now of course that individual who selected that file had their reasons for choosing that file over others available. I'm betting they thought it was the most 'patriotic' photo, but I could be wrong - maybe it was the most flattering - it looks like they fixed her complexion a little, too. The AP, upon discovering the photo technically violated their photo policies, issued a retraction, and has decided not to trust the source anymore. Of course, they should have discovered the violation before, and I think they should give the DoD one more chance - 3 strikes and you're out, you know. But they decided two times was enough.

As for other sources, it seems the AP alleges they got the photo through official DoD channels. But in the long run, it's not like this ban on DoD photos is going to last very long. We all know it's just to try to shame the DoD into being more careful with the photos they release.

(p.s., I hope the AP isn't crying 'fowl'. Not this close to Thanksgiving.)


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By jhb116 on 11/22/2008 2:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
You know this from personal experience?

The only "official" photos I've had are for my Id card. The military stopped taking the "official" photos many years ago - at least mandatory ones that "go in the file" after every promotion.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually, I know this from personal experience.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/R640_30.pdf

There's the Army Regulation covering official photos. Note AR 640-30, Chapter 6. It governs the frequency with which soldiers must get official photos taken, based on rank and position. General Officers must have a photo taken at least every 3 years. They must also have a new photo taken within 60 days of selection for promotion.

Chapter 8 says, "For general officers and promotable colonels only, the photograph will be taken digitally, in color, showing only head and shoulders, with the subject seated, the U.S. flag behind and to the officer’s right side with the appropriate general officer’s flag behind and to the officer’s left side."

The only reason they wouldn't use her official photo that I can see is that they wanted her in ACUs (that's the camouflage uniform she's wearing in the distributed photo) to appear the warrior, rather than in her dress uniform.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By tmouse on 11/24/2008 9:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
The AP accepts photoshoped photos all the time, or they are fools to think otherwise. I can assure you there is not a single "official" Hollywood photo released from ANY of the studios that has not been photoshoped out the Wahoo. As for why you’re not sure why they should not react harshly to the other pictures just because others were also going after them , well THEY are the MAJOR distributer of information to ALL of the other outlets and either you have a policy or you do not, so it is also their responsibility to go after everyone equally. Let’s not forget Reuters has released several pictures to the AP that have been proven to be out right frauds and they still accept photos from them.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By jimmy27 on 11/21/2008 1:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Just because the result of this "alteration" was benign, doesn't mean that AP's policy is wrong. As with the comments below, they should apply it evenly, but I support the effort to make the military communicate in a completely honest manner with the public. This incident is minor, but, yes, cropping could be serious. You can easily change the content and/or connotation by cropping out parts of a photo. There are reasons to do it that do not have to do with misrepresentation, but who is to decide that?


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 2:04:07 PM , Rating: 4
You make absolutely no relevant sense.

What does it matter if you crop a photo after you take it or you crop a photo by choosing to shoot it with a longer focal length in the first place? Is it now a requirement that the military only use 10mm for all pictures taken so as not to “intentionally” crop something important out?

More to the point at hand, what real world problem was created by cutting her picture out and putting her in front of a flag?

-Suntan


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/21/2008 3:10:55 PM , Rating: 1
It's you that is wrong in this case. A fair and judicious application of their rules is a must. What is irrelevant is whether a 'real world problem' was created by their photoshopping.

Picture yourself at a stop light. There's nobody around, and you run the red light. A cop pulls you over. You may argue that you didn't create a 'real world problem' by breaking the law, but you're still going to get a ticket. Because the law must be applied fairly. The same way the AP must apply their photo alteration rules fairly.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed you completely changed the subject you were tooting previously about cropping being a “shifty” thing to do… Yeah, so you agree it was a dumb argument.

Anyway, my question wasn’t if they should follow thru with the dumb policies that they have enacted. My question was, “what real world problem was created by cutting her picture out and putting her in front of a flag?”

-Suntan


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By adiposity on 11/21/2008 7:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“what real world problem was created by cutting her picture out and putting her in front of a flag?”


Besides wasting resourcing talking about it?

Bottom line, this is essentially a non-box cropping placed on an arbitrary background. And while most probably did not think she was placed in front of a flag, it clearly is just a backdrop whether placed before or after the photo was taken. So no real harm there...

However, the point of the "dumb polic[y]" is to prevent misleading by those who provide pictures. Pointing out that no attempt to mislead existed in a specific case does not make the policy itself dumb. Which is why the previous poster did not answer the question you asked, because it's the wrong question.

I can think of plenty of ways "cropping" photos could be misleading. Maybe they are overreaching here but then again, why did the military need to put a flag backdrop anyway...? In any case, the appearance of tampering will make people wonder what the original photo contained, which is probably why the AP is making this policy so strict.

-Dan


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 5:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
And I notice you can't follow who is talking when.

I never made an argument about cropping. Some guy named Jimmy27 made that comment. I made the comment (apparently nobody liked it (hooray, -1!)) that your statement about a real-world problem was irrelevant. That the point of rules is to follow them fairly and evenly, so that everybody knows what to expect, and everybody's kept honest, because the rules are there, written down. I also made the point that, when it comes to rules, sometimes actions are banned that can be harmful, assuming that it is no great burden to follow the rule even when it's needless.

This may be a case where the rule is needless (there may be some fanatics out there that are upset by the AP using material edited to be more patriotic, or more propagandist, as they would say) but that doesn't make the rule useless, nor is the rule difficult to follow. It's easier to submit an undoctored photo than a doctored one, after all.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By FITCamaro on 11/21/2008 5:06:06 PM , Rating: 4
Yes because the media is a bastion of fairness when it comes to their reporting.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 5:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
I'm so sick of this diatribe. Oh, the media's all biased..... Sure. Right. Republicans insist that this is a center-right nation. Then they're upset that the media leans left. Well, I hate to break it to you, but a little left of center-right is.... center.

Still, I'm not sure why the media even tries to be 'unbiased' in the first place. That's not the 'press' the Founding Fathers were trying to protect. The editorial page is more like the press the Founding Fathers had. Bill O'Reilly would make the Founding Fathers proud, I'm sure. And nobody cherry-picks facts as well as O'Reilly.

I digress.....


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By kkwst2 on 11/24/2008 6:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
But I would argue that this is not "fair and judicious". In fact, I would call it draconian and arbitrary.

I would argue that your example is also poor. If I stop at a red light with clear visibility and nobody else is around, and then decide to run it because there is clearly no other cars, this is quite different than barreling through a busy intersection because I'm stupid, drunk, reckless, or suicidal. That you're suggesting a cop should treat both situations equally seems quite arbitrary to me. Understand that I'm not suggesting that cops don't treat them the same. I'm sure many do, since many cops are quite concrete and draconian in their thinking. That doesn't make it ideal or right.

The enforcement of laws and rules should take into account common sense. Doctoring a photo to put in a prettier background is not the same as covering important information. Suggesting that the rules should be applied arbitrarily suggests that we can't think for ourselves, but are only capable of mindlessly following a bunch of rules.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By ZmaxDP on 11/21/2008 8:00:20 PM , Rating: 3
Take a picture of a bunch of guys on a patrol, with one on one side abusing a civilian. Now, crop out the one abusing a civilian. Hmm, two very different pictures yes?

Personally, I think it's a bunch of bull on the part of the AP, but to suggest that cropping a photo can't change the content is absurd. The most important thing to teach in a photography class is how to frame a photo so you do as little cropping as possible. You can always crop down, but you can't crop up. (Well, unless you're using a 27MP digital camera and just take a picture of, well, everything...)


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2008 10:27:00 PM , Rating: 4
> "More to the point at hand, what real world problem was created by cutting her picture out and putting her in front of a flag?"

She was put in front of a flag, and her appearance was touched up slightly. No big deal, yes?

But assume she wasn't a general, but a politician running for office. Her background of a messy, disorganized office was replaced by a patriotic flag, and her face airbrushed to make her more appealing. For extra emotional impact, let's assume an offensive publication or two was previously visible in the background. The scenario becomes a bit different, eh?

I agree with the AP's policy on refusing to use doctored photographs. I think they're overreacting by banning all DoD photographs, simply because of one small slipup (and probably their own mistake, to boot), but the policy in general is a very good one.

To answer your other objection, intentionally cropping a photo to be misleading is also against good journalistic ethics Since cropping is a requirement of photojournalism, however, a "zero tolerance" policy cannot apply -- one must instead use common sense.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Oregonian2 on 11/22/2008 12:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
What-if the artificial manipulation was done by the digital photographer by putting a flag behind her, one that's not "natural" to the room she was in? What if manipulation was done in a digital camera by the photographer? What if the photo isn't supplied using "RAW" format? If it was a film photo that was digitized, is digital ICE allowed to be turned on in the scanner (removes the natural dust specs off the photo and artificially fills-in where they were located)?


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By croc on 11/21/2008 4:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Most professional quality digital cameras have the ability to not just date and time stamp, but to also embed a digital signature. Any alteration, the signature is no longer valid. Easy solution, keep the original on file as a reference. Any alteration done by anyone will invalidate the signature. This applies to cropping, red-ey removal etc. Any doubts, compare the original to the printed photo.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 4:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Most professional quality digital forgers can get around this very easily.

There was only one camera made (a canon 1D of some version) that, when attached with a special tagging device, would encrypt a photo sufficiently for the purposes of evidence verification.

Besides, looking at the original photo, its pretty clear that a professional with a "professional quality camera" did not take it.

-Suntan


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By euroguy on 11/23/2008 6:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
This is no big deal indeed. But what will be the limit of 'digital alteration of pics' ?

Allowing this opens a pandora box for the future.

It is the principle wich is on stake here !


By OxBow on 11/21/2008 11:43:27 AM , Rating: 5
While I agree that the AP should be upset about being handed a photo that was altered, I'm more upset at the lack of professionalism on behalf of the DoD. They promoted her to 5 stars and as such, set all sorts of precendents. Great. However, they couldn't take 20 minutes to get a proper photographer in to actually take a portrait, instead of a snap shot from a cell phone. That's just plain bone headed.




By Suntan on 11/21/2008 11:56:03 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but it doesn't sound like the DOD was really pushing it as her main portrait for public use. Sounds like it was doctored up and used on something inconcequental by some little corner of the department, then got transfered into the APs hands and they used it.

I sell stock photos for editorial as well as promotion/advertising. It is the purchasers responsibility to amke sure the photo they are about to use is ligit for the purposes they are going to use it for (requirements of a model/property release, authenticity, etc.)

Come on AP, its not like anyone with brain-one for photography could not tell that it was a matter of Pshop putting that flag in. Its realatively obvious.

-Suntan


By Souka on 11/21/2008 12:35:37 PM , Rating: 1
Well... would you rather alter a photo they had or quickly took?....then digitally modified by a army staffer making $14/hr?

Or would yuo have our tax dollars spent on hair, makeup, props, lighting crew, etc....

Why are people so upset? We invaded iraq based on modified photos... that was bad. But this???? come on...


By phazers on 11/21/2008 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
As long as they were at it, couldn't they have made her look like Jessica Simpson in a thong bikini?? Now that would have been newsworthy :)


By napalmjack on 11/21/2008 12:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's 4 stars, by the way. Promotion to 5 stars is an extremely rare and special occurrence.


By afkrotch on 11/21/2008 1:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you don't work in the military. Pretty much anyone that is a commander of some sort, really doesn't have a whole lot of time on their hands. I'd say even less so as a 4 Star. They can't stop their work every time someone wants a photo.

Now I also do find it a bit ridiculous that they didn't already have a better picture to hand out. Every commander has a good portrait taken to be framed and put on display within their commands. Where the hell was this picture?


By Parhel on 11/21/2008 2:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now I also do find it a bit ridiculous that they didn't already have a better picture to hand out.


No kidding. This is an awful Photoshop job. Not only do the cut-and-paste job over the flag and the colors look totally unnatural, but she's been stretched out horizontally, making her look fat.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 6:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Do you? The Army? Because then you might know the Army's official photo policy, and know that she's required to drop everything and get an official photo taken every 3 years, and when she gets promoted. Well, more accurately, she has a staffer schedule an appointment for the photographer; if she's an ass, she has the photographer come to her, if she's nice, she goes over to the photographer's little setup on post; everybody else drops everything and she just walks over, gets the photo taken while dozens of people who have been waiting for hours stand aside; then she may shake a couple hands, give out a coin or two, and goes back to her office to watch that awesome YouTube video where the Warthog totally shoots up those terrorists while 'I Need A Hero' plays in the background....

Okay, maybe not the last part.


pussies
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 11:48:32 AM , Rating: 5
Zero tolerance policy = Zero thought-required policy

Seriously, zero tolerance anything is just a big cop-out. Whether it is getting all hot and bothered about an inconsequential portrait, or banning a kid from highschool because he had a boxcutter in his car from his job at the local grocery store.

How about we use a little common sense here people? Too bad these kinds of places don’t have the cohunes to make a common sense decision on a case by case basis, and then a thick enough skin to ignore the crack pots that inevitably come out to rail against the common sense decision. Right now their scapegoat is to just say, “Sorry, we have a ‘zero tolerance policy’ our hands are tied.”

-Suntan




RE: pussies
By surt on 11/21/2008 12:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Zero tolerance = cheap. When you apply a complex, flexible policy, you need to have smart people do that work, and that is pricey. No organization can realistically afford that from schools to the AP. So you put a cheap zero-tolerance policy in place, and force the cost of compliance onto the other side. In this kind of economy, its the only policy that makes sense.


RE: pussies
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?story...

They basically had about 4 or 5 different school board meetings over the flap that this made once the local news stations got hold of it. The meetings were full to the rafters with people coming in to say that the school board was being stupid for its insistance on its zero-tolerance policy. In the end they 'expelled' him, then put him on immediate 'probation' such that he would not miss any school and would still graduate like normal...

I'd propose that the school's principle telling him to "leave it at work next time, ok?" would be a cheaper policy.

-Suntan


Wait... what?
By therealnickdanger on 11/21/2008 11:49:48 AM , Rating: 4
You mean the press embellishes stories and alters photos??!? Say it ain't so!

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,...




RE: Wait... what?
By Aarnando on 11/21/2008 11:57:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, in this particular case, it was the DoD who altered the photo and then provided it to the press. The AP is mad that they distributed the DoD provided photo prior to realizing it was altered.


get real
By mabright on 11/21/2008 12:23:05 PM , Rating: 3
There is nothing wrong with what was done here.
What is the difference between having a professional photographer and a make up artist come in and set everything up, clean her up etc. or doing it all digitally? Cost and convenience. Quit trying to stir things up and concentrate on reporting REAL news.

MB




RE: get real
By Parhel on 11/21/2008 2:54:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Quit trying to stir things up and concentrate on reporting REAL news.


The news here is the way that the AP reacted, not what the DoD did.


the TRUTH
By Dreifort on 11/24/2008 3:00:26 PM , Rating: 3
The photo shows American pride. AP wants you to know that America doesn't deserve pride and wants someone to pay at the pentegon for trying preach such a message of American pride.

Damn it ppl!! Hasn't NBC, CBS or PBS taught you anything? Now the AP has to teach you. American pride is sign of oppression - 'how dare Amercia force such values on other countries'.

Get it right... AP says only pride that CAN exist in America is Obama pride.

Didn't our American media teach you puppets anything the past 10 months??

(and for those who clearly missed it - yes, that was truth hidden by sarcasm)




RE: the TRUTH
By Dreifort on 11/24/2008 3:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
oh...and btw - if an Obama O-Flag had been placed behind her....AP would have said NOTHING.

The US Army would have inquired and AP would have said US Army was oppressing the general's right to show support for the Offical Newly Voted New Title In American History of President Officaly Elected Soon To Be President Obama.

(I'm not saying the Gen voted for Obama, I'm just saying, if had been an Obama flag....)


This may be a stupid question, but...
By chaos386 on 11/21/2008 4:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
...why is she wearing camo in her office?




By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 6:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on where you are stationed, the camouflage uniform (ACUs, they're called these days, for Army Combat Uniform) is the 'uniform of the day'. There are locations where people wear the dress uniform (Class A's or Class B's) daily, or certain days of the week, but those are places like the Pentagon. For most assignments, the uniform is ACUs. Generally speaking, it's only places where the Army is working closely with civilians wearing suits that officers wear their dress uniforms.


Agree and Disagree.
By snownpaint on 11/21/2008 3:59:03 PM , Rating: 1
When dealing with the Gov't following the rules to the T is needed and required.. They shouldn't have doctored the photo.. If I was her I would have taken personal time for a good photo for PR. AP on the other hand is making a hoopla out of this as to not look like Fox or CNN, and scoop themselves. yawn..

As for time needed for a Photo shoot and busy schedule, she received the honor and was in full uniform, why not then. I'm sure she had her hair done to receive the honor. The photographer could adjust her vampire complexion with lighting (some good lighting can be as good as PS) and have the standard "flag and books" in the background.

Is this really the photo you would want when some looks up "first 4 star women general"




RE: Agree and Disagree.
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 4:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
By the same argument, the AP could have ponied up a little dough to buy a real photo from the ceremony. They certainly have a Getty account.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?cont...

My guess is that the original photo in question was not taken with the express understanding that it would be used for a major story (the AP does provide powder puff news articles suitable for the 4th or 5th page of newspapers) and its entirely possible that she did not realize it was going to be used for editorial use of any kind.

-Suntan


The real reason...
By GGA1759 on 11/21/2008 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
the photo was edited was because you could see the title of the book on the bookshelf behind her. Mein Kampf.

/joke




BLOG POST
By crimson117 on 11/21/2008 12:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
With all the spin in this article, this needs to be a BLOG post, not a DT news article.

"Placing a photo in front of an American flag hardly seems to be a big issue to most Americans."

In a news article, you must quote a survey or something backing up this assertion. Otherwise, make this a blog post if it's going to include your direct opinions.




Removing cigarettes
By tallredeye on 11/21/2008 4:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how the politically correct AP feels about cigarettes being removed from original photos.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2681219.s...




Airbrushed or not .....
By phxfreddy on 11/21/2008 6:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
........she is still a sight for sore eyes. Very sore.




And then...
By Graviton on 11/22/2008 7:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
Tomorrow's headline: AP bans all yearbook pictures and celebrity photographs - replaces with photos of Ahmadinejad holding a 500lb trout in one hand and his BFG 9000 in the other




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan
Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki