backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 56 comment(s) - last by kkwst2.. on Nov 24 at 6:02 PM

Original and Digitally Altered Versions of the Dunwoody Photo  (Source: AP)
Army says that photo was altered but did not break Army policies

The digital alteration of photos is nothing new in the world of print magazines and newspapers. Photos on the cover of magazines are frequently digitally altered to improve the appearance of people, places, and products photographed.

The Associated Press (AP) is embroiled in a fight with the U.S. Army over a digitally altered image that was provided to the AP and distributed to the media. The photo in question is of General Ann Dunwoody and shows the general in front of a U.S. flag.

After the AP distributed the photo, it was found that the photo was digitally altered to include the flag. The original photo showed Dunwoody sitting at a desk with photos and a bookshelf behind her. As a result of the digitally altered image being released, the AP withdrew the photo and suspended the use of any photos from the U.S. Department of Defense.

A spokes woman from the DoD insists that the altered photo does not violate any U.S. army polices which stipulate that photos will not be altered to misrepresent the facts or change the circumstances of an event.

Colonel Cathy Abbott, chief of the U.S. Army's media relations department said that she did not know who had changed the photo or which office had released it. Abbot continued saying, "We're not misrepresenting her. The image is still clearly Gen Dunwoody."

AP's director of photography Santiago Lyon said, "For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image." Lyon says that the AP was in the process of developing procedures to protect against this sort of thing happening in the future and that after these procedures were in place he would consider lifting the ban on DoD photos.

This isn’t the first time that the AP has been provided with a digitally altered photo from the U.S. military. According to BBC News, in September a photo of a U.S. Solider killed in Iraq -- Darris Dawson -- was released that showed the soldiers face and shoulders appeared to have been digitally altered.

Abbott said at the time that the photo had been altered because the U.S. army didn't have an official photo of the solider for a memorial service and that the photo had been released to the public by accident.

According to the AP, the digital alteration of any photo for aesthetic or any other reasons damages the creditability of the information distributed by the military to the public and to news organizations. It hardly takes a trained eye to notice that the photo of Dunwoody appears to have been altered. Placing a photo in front of an American flag hardly seems to be a big issue to most Americans.

General Dunwoody was recently promoted to the rank of four star general, making her the highest-ranking female solider in the U.S. military. Many would understand the outrage and ban by the AP of photos from the DoD had they intended to mislead. Something along the lines of what Iran attempted in July when it altered digital photos to apparently cover the fact that one of the missiles in a test had misfired.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Mountain out of a Molehill
By Performance Fanboi on 11/21/2008 12:01:34 PM , Rating: 5
Hard to believe that AP is making an issue of this. The content was not altered in any meaningful way. What's next "this photo appears to have been cropped - ban the source" or "I smell a color correction here" sound the alarm. I'm sorry for the sarcasm but I'm really having a problem believing that this is a big deal and means any more than AP is trying to make themselves look like some sort of crusaders of truth and accuracy.




RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By napalmjack on 11/21/2008 12:17:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
AP is trying to make themselves look like some sort of crusaders of truth and accuracy.


A-f@*king-men!


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By fishbits on 11/21/2008 1:17:47 PM , Rating: 5
Hmm, did the AP react so harshly to when Reuters ran Photoshopped pics of a fighter jet firing missles? Or the NY Times for outright fabrications by Jason Blair? Or the Iranian or N. Korean governments for news release falsifications, as opposed to aesthetic tweaks?

Kinda doubt it. If the US Army is being singled out for different treatment than everyone else, then that's certainly not objective journalism. Wouldn't suprise me in the least to find the leftist AP being guided by its politics instead of professionalism.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2008 1:31:43 PM , Rating: 5
That's a very good point indeed. The AP is still accepting photos from both the Iranian and North Korean governments, despite their far more serious incidents of photographic fabrication.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By werepossum on 11/21/2008 2:37:03 PM , Rating: 5
Well, obviously the AP considers the US military to be an evil empire, unlike the Iranian and North Korean governments; judging those governments would be wrong.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Mitch101 on 11/21/2008 4:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
Its really because she is a part of the Dharma initiative and the photo was altered to hide her connections with the island.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By dnd728 on 11/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By phazers on 11/21/2008 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
AP is just one letter short of being an ape...


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Myg on 11/21/2008 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
If I was working for AP, I would see it this way:

"We expect honesty from the US government, because they have the ability to provide it"

Which would say what about Iran + N.Korea?


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/21/2008 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 5
First off, I'm not sure the AP would have to react very harshly to those other sources (assuming that the AP picked up the content and distributed it). There were plenty of people going after the photoshopped jet, the falsified Times articles, and the Iranian and North Korean press releases (frequently the AP stories covering the official releases from those governments are critical of the accuracy of the information).

The only reason the Army (or any government agency) is being held to the fire on this one is that nobody else is doing it. For the other stories, why get involved if the problem is being fixed by others? For this photo, nobody else cared, so it was up to them to put their foot down.

I'm sure we all understand the slippery-slope argument that can be made in this case. This photo has been altered to turn it into (what could be construed as) propaganda. There's really no other explanation for it.

What's more, why didn't the Army release Gen. Dunwoody's official photo? Officers get them taken regularly in front of an American flag. They get new ones taken specifically for their packets for consideration for promotions, and again after their promotions so they have one with the correct rank in it on file.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 4:25:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What's more, why didn't the Army release Gen. Dunwoody's official photo?


You are reading a lot into the story with this question. The official response from the DOD was that they did not intend for that to be the general’s “Official photo.”

I can tell you there are a lot of places and sources that press agencies can get photos from and the DoD does not have control over all of them. Don’t believe me, here you go. You can buy any one of these for editorial use and put it in a newspaper tomorrow.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?cont...

I can tell you that mix ups occur. Officially, it is the news outlet’s responsibility to confirm that what they have is a legitimate photo and that they are legitimately using it for what they have rights to use it for. I have had photos purchased and published (animals in nature magazines) that had to have a retraction after it was written that the photo was taken in the wild only to have the magazine check back afterwards and tell them that the photo was taken at a zoo. It was their fault for not confirming the legitimacy of what they published.

Now if this photo did come from someone in some little corner of the DOD, and was given with the express understanding that no doctoring was done, shame on that individual at the DOD and they should be made aware of the DODs policy with regards to talking to the press (and I’d bet the DOD has a pretty extensive policy on that) that’s still not the same as saying this was “officially released” by the DOD.

Most likely though, this photo made its way to someone’s news story layout and was ultimately published due to a number of errors that were not intentional and now the AP is crying fowl even though they should have known better.

-Suntan


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 5:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm reading a lot into this story. The AP contacted (or, more likely, was contacted) by an official DoD PAO, working in their official capacity, who released an, albeit innocently, doctored photo. They chose to release this photo, rather than, say, any other photo of Dunwoody they had on file, including the digital copy of her official file, readily available in her MPRJ (Military Personnel Records Jacket). Now of course that individual who selected that file had their reasons for choosing that file over others available. I'm betting they thought it was the most 'patriotic' photo, but I could be wrong - maybe it was the most flattering - it looks like they fixed her complexion a little, too. The AP, upon discovering the photo technically violated their photo policies, issued a retraction, and has decided not to trust the source anymore. Of course, they should have discovered the violation before, and I think they should give the DoD one more chance - 3 strikes and you're out, you know. But they decided two times was enough.

As for other sources, it seems the AP alleges they got the photo through official DoD channels. But in the long run, it's not like this ban on DoD photos is going to last very long. We all know it's just to try to shame the DoD into being more careful with the photos they release.

(p.s., I hope the AP isn't crying 'fowl'. Not this close to Thanksgiving.)


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By jhb116 on 11/22/2008 2:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
You know this from personal experience?

The only "official" photos I've had are for my Id card. The military stopped taking the "official" photos many years ago - at least mandatory ones that "go in the file" after every promotion.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/22/2008 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually, I know this from personal experience.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/R640_30.pdf

There's the Army Regulation covering official photos. Note AR 640-30, Chapter 6. It governs the frequency with which soldiers must get official photos taken, based on rank and position. General Officers must have a photo taken at least every 3 years. They must also have a new photo taken within 60 days of selection for promotion.

Chapter 8 says, "For general officers and promotable colonels only, the photograph will be taken digitally, in color, showing only head and shoulders, with the subject seated, the U.S. flag behind and to the officer’s right side with the appropriate general officer’s flag behind and to the officer’s left side."

The only reason they wouldn't use her official photo that I can see is that they wanted her in ACUs (that's the camouflage uniform she's wearing in the distributed photo) to appear the warrior, rather than in her dress uniform.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By tmouse on 11/24/2008 9:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
The AP accepts photoshoped photos all the time, or they are fools to think otherwise. I can assure you there is not a single "official" Hollywood photo released from ANY of the studios that has not been photoshoped out the Wahoo. As for why you’re not sure why they should not react harshly to the other pictures just because others were also going after them , well THEY are the MAJOR distributer of information to ALL of the other outlets and either you have a policy or you do not, so it is also their responsibility to go after everyone equally. Let’s not forget Reuters has released several pictures to the AP that have been proven to be out right frauds and they still accept photos from them.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By jimmy27 on 11/21/2008 1:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Just because the result of this "alteration" was benign, doesn't mean that AP's policy is wrong. As with the comments below, they should apply it evenly, but I support the effort to make the military communicate in a completely honest manner with the public. This incident is minor, but, yes, cropping could be serious. You can easily change the content and/or connotation by cropping out parts of a photo. There are reasons to do it that do not have to do with misrepresentation, but who is to decide that?


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 2:04:07 PM , Rating: 4
You make absolutely no relevant sense.

What does it matter if you crop a photo after you take it or you crop a photo by choosing to shoot it with a longer focal length in the first place? Is it now a requirement that the military only use 10mm for all pictures taken so as not to “intentionally” crop something important out?

More to the point at hand, what real world problem was created by cutting her picture out and putting her in front of a flag?

-Suntan


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By foolsgambit11 on 11/21/2008 3:10:55 PM , Rating: 1
It's you that is wrong in this case. A fair and judicious application of their rules is a must. What is irrelevant is whether a 'real world problem' was created by their photoshopping.

Picture yourself at a stop light. There's nobody around, and you run the red light. A cop pulls you over. You may argue that you didn't create a 'real world problem' by breaking the law, but you're still going to get a ticket. Because the law must be applied fairly. The same way the AP must apply their photo alteration rules fairly.


RE: Mountain out of a Molehill
By Suntan on 11/21/2008 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed you completely changed the subject you were tooting previously about cropping being a “shifty” thing to do… Yeah, so you agree it was a dumb argument.

Anyway, my question wasn’t if they should follow thru with the dumb policies that they have enacted. My question was, “what real world problem was created by cutting her picture out and putting her in front of a flag?”

-Suntan