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."
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.