The usual disappointment settled in when I first read about "Reutersgate."
"It was an honest mistake; I probably would have missed that, too," I thought. After I learned that the dark plumes of smoke hanging over Beirut were enhanced by Photoshop, I realized I was part of the problem, along with Reuters and the New York Times.
I haven't yet acquired enough technoknowledge to determine whether someone had doctored the photo. Sure, I know that Tom Cruise would die if he took the 20-foot plunge on a motorcycle like his character did in Mission Impossible. Anyone could tell that the film's producers used special effects. But the subtlety of the changes in the smoke photo required a trained eye.
Not to mention the blatant photo fabrications, which even casual readers pegged as fakes.
The problem goes deeper. The news media's excessive cost cutting has decreased the quality of journalism. How can these lapses in judgment occur when the industry boasts 20 percent profit margins? The news media certainly have the money to hire technologically savvy workers.
Tim Rutten writes that a year ago, Reuters decided to save money by consolidating all three of its operations into one photo desk in Singapore. Washington D.C.-based Reuters employees refused to relocate to the Southeast Asian country, where they would have earned a fraction of their former salaries.
Recently, the freelancer sent the sham photos from his laptop in Lebanon to a Reuters' photo desk in Singapore where employees reviewed them and added cutlines before they were sent to news organizations throughout the world. Shareholders may be receiving sizable dividends, but at the expense of quality journalism.
And whatever happened to employee background checks? Problem is, it's harder to manage freelancers.
Reuters could have avoided the embarrassment if it had doled out the dough for some decent, fulltime correspondents. But I guess I'll have to deal with the news media's ineptitude until I'm willing to stare at photos in Singapore for $18,000 a year.
Post your comments, please. Did you not get the earlier one?
News, it would seem, is not a natural profit center for these businesses. Sure, you can pull twenty percent profits out of a news outfit, but in doing so, you create the expectation of those profits and *poof*, here we are. Nice post!