>> >I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are >> >quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I >> >think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot. >> >> Agreed. First hand experence. >
On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures >shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. He or she presents their work to be published by a news organisation. It is up to the integrity and honesty of that news organisation to be questioned, if necessary. The profession is dedicated to providing visual actuality for reproduction. It would be very easy for any link in that chain to be corrupted and misrepresent the facts as they were witnessed. In my experience, this would be a very rare occurrence, and the result would be a disgraced and unemployable individual. Most people working in news pride themselves in their work (I do) and strive to excel in being the first and the best. Reputations stand or fall on this, and any hint of tampering with the truth would invite the most serious of consequences in terms of credibility and commercial viability. Look at the paps - how easy would it be to superimpose a library shot of a semi-naked actress on a few different beach scenes? Yet the paps are out there stalking their prey (much as I personally disagree with such activity) in new and different situations. Even the lowest of the low have standards! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
