LA Times fires photographer for altering war photo

[Karl Foster]

Aren't there enough photo-worthy moments in this conflict? A LA Times photographer altered a photo to show a British soldier point his weapon at a child. He was actually pointing the weapons away from the child, and the photographer decided to alter the photo for whatever reason. The LA Times fired the guy. I thought altering photos was an etical no no. So much for ethics in journalism....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/02/photographer.fired.ap/index.html

[TNGTony]

Well, looking at the pictures here http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb it wasn't as bad as it sounded by the description given. The soildier is never pointing a weapon at anyone in particular. I see the reason the spotographer did this and I don't see where the context of the two real pictures was altered in the compilation the photographer made, but just on 100% ethical terms, this guy should have been canned and banned from blacklisted for a little while. Have him ply his trade at some phot-shop or weddings.

See ya
Tony

[Danny R]

A LA Times photographer altered a photo to show a British soldier point his weapon at a child.

Actually it looks like its the other way around, and the photographer altered the picture (http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb) to include a soldier pointing his weapon further away from the child.

[Karl Foster]

Wow. When I saw the story on tv last night, they showed exactly the opposite of the latimes article.

[Nick]

I think he was going for a better composition. For whatever reason, it was unethical and unprofessional.

[Jack White]

Originally posted by karl_f
Wow. When I saw the story on tv last night, they showed exactly the opposite of the latimes article.

Did you happen to be watching The Fox Neocon Propoganda Channel? :)