Like I said, bloggers aren’t always journalists
Oh, waily, waily, waily goes the blogosphere — the Washington Post, it was said, Photoshopped an image of Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson.
Let the hand-wringing begin. “[S]o if they’re willing to change the photo in a story, is there any reason to think that they wouldn’t change a story’s facts or exaggerate things?! Mainstream media is turning into a complete farce” wrote one commenter.
Problem 1: The photo wasn’t in the Washington Post; it was in the paper’s free weekly pub, Express. But saying “Doctored photo in the Washington Post!” sounds better.
Problem 2: The photo was real. It wasn’t Photoshopped.
Chris Combs, photo editor at the Washington Post Express, weighed in on BoingBoing:
This is a Getty photo and I ran it verbatim. I don’t have time for Photoshop.
The one error to which our sports editor will likely admit is that it is credited to “Stuart Franklin/AP,” whereas it is “Stuart Franklin/Getty Images” that took the photo. Here is the picture on Getty’s site.
And thus, once again, we see the difference between bloggers and journalists. Bloggers don’t have to check facts, they can rely on the truthiness of something — their gut feeling — to make a claim of fraud. But a journalist couldn’t get away with just saying something is true because, gosh darn it, it feels true. He would have to, you know, check facts.
One of the more famous examples of this was when right-wing extremist Michelle Malkin claimed that the Associated Press had fabricated a source, citing her “contacts.” In fact, the source was real, the AP produced him, and Malkin issued a half-hearted apology.
Journalists check facts. And when they don’t, the whole world knows — right, Dan Rather?
So while bloggers can talk about the imminent demise of the mainstream media, they really don’t have anything better to replace it.
Rhonda R Shearer says:
I agree with you that Bloggers should contact the editors or photographers that they will soon accuse of wrongdoing and give them an opportunity to respond BEFORE they publish.
However, I don’t agree that ” Journalists check facts. And when they don’t, the whole world knows — right, Dan Rather?”
We at Stinkyjournalism .org have 40 cases in the pipeline, in addition to our published reportage (see http://www.stinkyjournalism.org ) where evidence proves that many journalists not only don’t check their facts or photos for veracity, but when they are caught, they won’t behave properly and none of their fellow MsM want to report about it.
Some of us on the Internet do serious investigations into media wrongdoing. It’s the dirty work that MsM will not do themselves with the rare exception–like Dan Rather. However even in this case, the “investigation” pulled punches . Even though evidence of fraud was overwhelming, the committee of insiders paid by media outlet left it inconclusive as to whether the document was fraudulent.
What is your evidence for declaring the photo is real? Because the Express photo editor said so? Or
because the photo is found on the Getty site? Surly this is not independent evidence or expert analysis? I would not say the photo is real based upon the facts that you present here. I think further research is required.