A recent article in The New York Times implies that The Economist was in the wrong when they edited a photo of President Obama for the cover of their June 19th issue. The cover shows the President, apparently alone, looking toward the ground with off-shore oil drills in the distance. The headline is “Obama v BP,” subhead: “The damage beyond the spill.” As the NYT blog article shows, the original Reuters photo included two additional people, who have either been cropped or Photoshopped out of the cover photo.
I remember seeing this cover and thinking Obama looked depressed, ashamed…maybe defeated. Turns out he’s looking downward (probably) so that he can more easily listen to someone much shorter than him. But of course, all of this is open to interpretation. Regardless, it seems to me that reputable news organizations should avoid crossing a line when it comes to edits like these. Seems like that line could be made a bit less blurry by creating a decision tree with three simple questions, like below (click for a larger version)
It’s not fool-proof, of course. In fact, flexibility within limits is one of its benefits. Here are my answers—debatable as they are—for the Economist cover photo in question:
(1) Could the edit fundamentally change the viewer’s perception of what the picture conveys?
Full disclosure: I’m an Obama supporter. I (still) believe in his potential to make a significant, positive impact on the U.S.—the livelihood of its citizens, how it’s perceived globally, and so on. That’s a reason to vote for him; it’s not a reason to give him the Nobel Peace Prize. I’ve heard the opposite argument already a few times today, that “the prize seems to be more for promise than performance,” as it’s stated in an Associated Press story headlined “Analysis: Obama’s Nobel honors promise, not action.”
With all due respect, that’s a pretty ridiculous position to take. Sorry to turn this into a semantic argument (hahaha…ug), but a prize is not usually something awarded for promise.
At last Thursday’s sit-down with Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. Joseph Crowley, Mr. Obama drank a Bud Light. At first, this seems like an obvious choice—American legacy, fewer calories than Budweiser (supporting the preventative aspects of his healthcare plan), and fights his image as an arugula-eating snob. But then I remembered that Anheuser-Busch was acquired by InBev, a Belgian company (not traded on U.S. markets), around this time last year. Wouldn’t you think the president would help stimulate our economy a little by drinking a real U.S. beer? Here are some recommendations for next time. Let me know if you have other ideas…
“Welcome, to our viewers in the United States and around the world.” Every week, Fareed Zakaria, acclaimed author and columnist, begins his broadcast with these words. The show is Fareed Zakaria GPS, a weekly international affairs program on CNN, and the topic is public affairs with a focus on international issues (“GPS” stands for “Global Public Square”).
We have been working on a project for a while now that we are very excited about. It is called OpenIDEO and it is launching today. We are hoping that we can create a platform for you to work with us on some i...
Dave Hakkens has created Breaksoap, a new soap concept that removes hand pumps from the equation.
Dave explains, “Most of the hand soap is replaced by soap pumps. However a lot of the soap pumps contain a l...
