Slashdot Mirror
AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo
djupedal notes a story up at the BBC about the Associated Press's suspension of the use of Department of Defense photos after a photo of General Ann Dunwoody was found to have been altered (before and after comparison). "The Pentagon has become embroiled in a row after the US Army released a photo of a general to the media which was found to have been digitally altered. Ann Dunwoody was shown in front of the US flag but it later emerged that this background had been added. The Associated Press news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defense photos. 'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,' said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography."
Yes, but this sounds more like a 'portrait' shot than one intended to carry journalistic content.
Couldn't we focus more on some of the outright fraud shots of the last several years carried by media operators trying to make the soldiers in Iraq look bad?
No? Okay. I thought I would just ask.
It's good that they're taking a firm stance and everything, but are they absolutely confident that none of their other pictures are photoshopped? Not everybody who doctors image is a clueless muppet.
I'm an American and don't understand it myself; it seems like it's gotten more pronounced over the last decade or so.
All I can offer as an explanation is that, as school children, many of us began each day saying the pledge of allegiance, which really seems quite flag-centric.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands...."
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
And rightfully so. Do not forget that the US military is the single most powerful organisation in the world. Thankfully it's full of our friends.
If the AP really has a policy regarding altered images then they did the right thing.
But the reality of this situation is probably that someone needed a press-suitable head shot of the General, snapped a quick pic in her office and edited in a background. They also appear to have smoothed out her face, but that is part of a professional portrait photo these days.
The exact same image would likely have been fine if it had been done at the local Wal*mart portrait place in front of a flag backdrop and the guy there had blurred the focus a little to have a similar effect on her face.
There are photos that are fact reporting, and there are photos that are PR head shots. This is a PR head shot, and nobody should think that it in any way reflects reality.
My boss, a low-level director at my company, had a head shot done recently for PR reasons. I barely recognize him in it.
I feel sorry for General Dunwoody in this; she was just made the first US female 4-star general three days ago, and now she has to put up with this stupidity.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Actually, I was thinking exactly the opposite. If that original really was that blurry and grainy, and the Photoshop artist made it that sharp and natural looking, it was an incredible job. I'm staring at it, and I don't even know why you would think it was bad. The head is too sharp against the flag?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yeah, my first thought was "how long did it take them to work that one out?"
No kidding. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that people were complaining that Time or Newsweek didn't retouch a photo of Sarah Palin?
I want to shoot the messenger!
Yet changing a stock head shot background from an office to a flag, and touching up skin is a hideous travesty of judgment. Glad to know the AP has standards!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Flags are important to Americans because they are a common unifying symbol outside of ethnicity. Most modern nation-states are organic ethnically based. In those countries, the nation and the ethnicity are the same (for example Danes and Denmark). Ethnic solidarity defines those nations. A Dane does not have to profess adherance to the King of Denmark or the Danish Idea to be a Dane. He is a Dane because, he is ethnically a Dane. This is not the case in Amercia. America is, by design, a synthetic nation. Our entire national identity is based on adherance to common political ideas and there is no ethnic solidarity. Our national solidarity is based common identification with political ideas and with symbols of those political ideas (the flag, the liberty bell, statue of liberty, etc). Therefore, it is important to have regular socialization with and emphasis on those political symbols and ideas, least baser instincts (like ethnicity) boil up.
Few other nations (perhaps Canada) can credibly claim this. France similiarly claims to base its nationalaity on political ideas and common citizenship, but ethnicity and 'being French' seems to still be very important to them (although they deny it).
First of all, there is no such thing as an "accurate" portrait of a person. Factors such as lighting, the background, the time of day, how they have their hair styled at the moment, whether or not they're wearing makeup, their specific physical condition at the moment of the photo, the quality of the camera, etc. all play a major role in how any given photograph of a person looks.
If the AP really is going to take such a ludicrous "zero tolerance" policy, then they had better just stop accepting outside photographs altogether. If they're going to be such sticklers about every single image (even portraits), then they had better get off their lazy asses and send their own damn photographers to take every picture. Because neither the Army nor any other agency or corporation is under any obligation to release unflattering photos of their leaders.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Could be those reasons. Could also be that if it's an exterior shot, they're using t he flags to cover up/hide some Canadianism from filming in Vancouver/Toronto/Montreal/Other Canadian City substituting for a US city.
You should take a trip to Northern Ireland.
Of course, the 'me wave flag' still applies.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
What end publishers may do is their choice, but AP as a wire service intends to pass on originals. If they didn't draw a pretty hard line on this, then you could get multi-generation changes as each user "improves" the picture slightly before passing it on. AP intends to provide "raw" news without opinions, and "original" photos without touchup. What their customers do, whether politically or aesthetically, with the information AP provides is the customers business.
I think the "before" picture has been passed through a relatively high compression *since* being used to create the after, thus producing the colour shift and the artefacts.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
It's also a convenient way of throwing up a smokescreen.
Making a lot of hoo-ha about an obviously manipulated photo leads you to believe in their integrity. Which then allows them to slip far more subtly doctored and 'serious' photos through the net.
Now where's my tinfoil hat?
why does Americans see the need to constantly surround themselves with US flags? [...] Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state
I think that's wrong. In Paris there flag poles on the street that serve no other purpose than to wave the French flag around. In Germany, following the last Euro cup, many people kept the German flags they had been displaying during the competition on their houses and cars (following a very long history of flag-taboo in that country, granted). In some neighbourhoods of my hometown of Montreal, hundreds of people display the Quebec flag on their porch for no other reason that affirm their patriotism.
I think we all have a natural tendency to notice flags much more when they have a negative connotation to us. Nationalist Quebecers notice Canadian flags everywhere but Quebec flags are invisible to them. Many people outside the US don't associate very positive thoughts to the Star-Spangled Banner, and the slight irritation it causes makes them notice it more.
And the picture we're discussing here is a military picture. Of course they're going to pose in front of their flag.
Just my $0.02 of course. Maybe the flag/capita ratio is indeed higher in the States than other countries, but I think that's the sort of domain where we're all heavily biased in what we notice and what we don't, so until I see actual figures I'll keep an eyebrow raised.
My wife is a photographer and according to her with today's digital photography it is common to use a green screen background for portrait shots and the digitally add in the desired background. If the AP really objects to this they are NUTS!
This photo of the General looks like it was a quick snap from a cell phone then altered to make it presentable as a public relations head shot. The AP is so far out of line on this they border on being absurd.
To me it looks like the kooks at the AP were searching hard for a reason to deny the DoD access to the media. They have more than once rejected the DoD versions of a story claiming "bias" when they openly welcome stories from those with a real bias (aka terrorists) against the DoD or U.S. Government.
For me the AP had lost all credibility ages ago.
I didn't look at the comaparison until I read your post, but for me it jumped out without looking. Guess I've been doing this for too long. The lighting is very different on her and the flag. The mask line around the hair is VERY sharp... Masking hair is difficult to get right. Then I looked at the comparison and was amazed at how good a job they did on HER. They put strands back in her hair, warmed the flesh tones, the eyes look natural... If you look at the collar of her inner shirt and a little bit of her outter shirt on the left collar (my left) you can see that some of the layer used on the flesh got on the shirt. I find it funny such care was taken in cleaning her up, but then just slapping that flag behind her... It's as though someone decent did the body, then later some nobody came by with the Magic Lasso and masked out the room.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
This website present the two photographs side by side. The photographers removed the fencepost appearing to stick out of her head.
There is a time difference of 25 years between the two photographs. The original one was publish in 1970. The second
one was Photoshopped in 1995.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
To defend the flag? Not the Republic, not the Constitution, not 'We the People', not liberty or equality, but the flag?
That's dangerous. Flags are whores; they'll flutter for anybody who sticks a pole up them. Anyone can wave a flag; it's no guarantee that they're worth defending. If your allegiance is only to the flag, and not to anything really worth fighting for, then sooner or later you'll find yourself supporting someone truly loathsome just because they're the ones waving that flag.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Yes, my thought exactly.
I've been doing Photoshop work for years, played with a number of fractal algorithms, used such "miracle" filters as greycstoration, and I've never seen anything like this.
I don't believe that the "before" picture is accurate at all. I think it has already been degraded from the original, and the "after" more closely represents the quality of the source image.
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
. . . we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom.
It would be interesting to compare flag behavior in the States to other nations that have fought revolutions in the last few hundred years, e.g. France, Finland, Russia, China, Cuba, Romania.
It might help us answer whether that 232-year old revolution is the explanation of the way flags are used in the States today.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Which commentators, pundits and so on? Left wing, right wing, balanced?
If you actually had evidence of this, it would be a huge story. But you don't. So you're nothing but a mindless droning troll.
I often wonder how posts like this get modded "insightful" when they should be modded incitement.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The record will show that not even the military really claimed him until the voters said they had to call him boss.
Military tried to kick him out.
The populace gave him the highest job in the land.
Listening to the populace blame the military and call them stupid...priceless.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Your tax dollars at work in the propaganda war.
Propaganda's an important part of war. I'm no more against the propaganda portion than the "collateral damage" portion. It's not like, "Well, it's one thing when they kill a bunch of people - but they've really crossed the line with that MISLEADING PHOTO!"
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Reminds me of the book Photon - Thieves of Light, based on Lasertag... there was a scene where the protagonist was explaining fictional movies to some alien, and him being shocked, because in his culture, video depictions are strictly reserved for factual account of real events, and creating illusions is a severely punishable crime.
Wish I lived in such a culture.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
So, by "pundits, commentators and so on" you mean one case. Got it.
and "still is" isn't quite accurate either, I totally forgot about it. And most idiots never even knew about it. I'm sure it is "huge" in the leftwing blogosphere like "theleftcoaster".
You need to get outside your bubble. It isn't nearly the story the left wanted it to be. Nobody cares, really!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.