Back page but above the fold

[Doug Kerr]

Tuesday night, I briefly stopped in at a "watch party" at which supporters of Barack Obama and local Democratic candidates were following the election results.

A reporter/photographer from the Weatherford Democrat, our local daily paper (don't be put off by its name - it is politically only a little to the right of Louis XIV; its name goes back to when all southern politicians, no matter how right-wing, called themselves Democrats) bopped in, carrying the trusty EOS 10D the paper provided her. ("I hate it. Personally, I use a 5D, and I'm going to get a 5D Mark II as soon as I can.")

She came to the end of the table where I was (mainly because the local Democratic Party public relations rep was there) and asked a couple of us for comments. Then she said she wanted to get a pic of us cheering for some momentous event coming across on the television. She took her position by the end of the bar and framed us up.For five minutes, we watched the election results crawl across the screen: "Willow Hill, dogcatcher: Morgan, 14, Singh, 4").

Finally, tired of all this, I exclaimed, "Wow! Look at that haircut on George Stephanopolous! The whole table cheered, and she got the shot.

Here it is:

That's Jennifer at the near right.

Now, for fans of non-planar, non-Lambertian subject surfaces, we get to see the 10D shooter:

 

[Asher Kelman]

Just getting Newspaper Reporting Facts Confirmed!

Doug,

"Triumph of Rational Thinking" was printed bold and in quotes.

Did you or anyone else say that?

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Doug,

"Triumph of Rational Thinking" was printed bold and in quotes.

Did you or anyone else say that?

As it says in the cutline, I said that.

And indeed I believe that was the central message of this election result. We find people who, for years, voted Republican because - well, they were Republicans - now really thinking about just what they wanted in a president. Previously, the answer - by rote - was always, "Well, a Republican of course."

They now examined what a particular choice might do for their welfare (not just for that of the "Republican base"), or for the welfare of the nation, rather than what might give them the comfort that they had practiced well their "major" scales and would fulfill their obligation to their teacher by performing them well on recital day.

And many of them, having now done that previously unfamiliar exercise, evidently concluded that what they wanted was not a new nozzle for George Bush's old hose (gravity fed from Karl Rove's sump).

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Misuse of staged photo for Obama celebration?

Tuesday night, I briefly stopped in at a "watch party" at which supporters of Barack Obama and local Democratic candidates were following the election results.

A reporter/photographer from the Weatherford Democrat, our local daily paper (don't be put off by its name - it is politically only a little to the right of Louis XIV; its name goes back to when all southern politicians, no matter how right-wing, called themselves Democrats) bopped in, carrying the trusty EOS 10D the paper provided her. ("I hate it. Personally, I use a 5D, and I'm going to get a 5D Mark II as soon as I can.")

She came to the end of the table where I was (mainly because the local Democratic Party public relations rep was there) and asked a couple of us for comments. Then she said she wanted to get a pic of us cheering for some momentous event coming across on the television. She took her position by the end of the bar and framed us up.For five minutes, we watched the election results crawl across the screen: "Willow Hill, dogcatcher: Morgan, 14, Singh, 4").

Finally, tired of all this, I exclaimed, "Wow! Look at that haircut on George Stephanopolous! The whole table cheered, and she got the shot.

Here you brought up the fact that she presented a photograph of spontaneous cheering. What time was it?

Your post, to me discloses her misuse of a staged picture! That in my opinion is the important topic!

Asher

 

[Bill Miller]

Reporter/Photographer need lesson in Ethics

A reporter/photographer from the Weatherford Democrat, our local daily paper (don't be put off by its name - it is politically only a little to the right of Louis XIV; its name goes back to when all southern politicians, no matter how right-wing, called themselves Democrats) bopped in, carrying the trusty EOS 10D the paper provided her. ("I hate it. Personally, I use a 5D, and I'm going to get a 5D Mark II as soon as I can.")

She came to the end of the table where I was (mainly because the local Democratic Party public relations rep was there) and asked a couple of us for comments. Then she said she wanted to get a pic of us cheering for some momentous event coming across on the television. She took her position by the end of the bar and framed us up.For five minutes, we watched the election results crawl across the screen: "Willow Hill, dogcatcher: Morgan, 14, Singh, 4").

Finally, tired of all this, I exclaimed, "Wow! Look at that haircut on George Stephanopolous! The whole table cheered, and she got the shot.

It would seem that Chelsea L. McGowan, the reporter/photographer needs a lesson in ethics. This was a staged photo, as indicated by Doug who was there and present in the photo. It would be probably be safe to bet the photo was taken before Obama was declared the winner.

If she were a member of NPPA, she would be getting censored and a warning letter at this time. This was a clear violation of of their ethics guildlines. http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html

 

[James Newman]

I guess that would depend on what the definition of "is" is.
I would love to see and hear the uproar that would ensue if this had been a photo of McCain followers had he been elected. There would have been an execution demanded I'm sure. Perhaps, just to make sure we are all on the up and up, someone should forward this to the NAPP just to make sure no infraction has occurred.
All of the landslide talk, the huge increase in voter turnout, the increased number of first time voters, etc., was all a load of crap, just like this staged party photo. It is all unsubstantiated bull being put out by the Dems. The only noticable voter increase was the slight 2% increase in black voters, which I hope would be no surprise to anyone, compared to 4 years ago. Other than that, no difference.

 

[Bill Miller]

I guess that would depend on what the definition of "is" is.
I would love to see and hear the uproar that would ensue if this had been a photo of McCain followers had he been elected. There would have been an execution demanded I'm sure. Perhaps, just to make sure we are all on the up and up, someone should forward this to the NAPP just to make sure no infraction has occurred.
All of the landslide talk, the huge increase in voter turnout, the increased number of first time voters, etc., was all a load of crap, just like this staged party photo. It is all unsubstantiated bull being put out by the Dems. The only noticable voter increase was the slight 2% increase in black voters, which I hope would be no surprise to anyone, compared to 4 years ago. Other than that, no difference.

This is the response from NPPA's Executive Director " Thanks Bill, I am relieved to say that Ms. McGowan is not nor has she ever been a member. I will however pass the issue along to our ethics chair. He may want to use it as a case study. I will pass it along to our editor as well just in case."

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Bill,

This was a staged photo, as indicated by Doug who was there and present in the photo. It would be probably be safe to bet the photo was taken before Obama was declared the winner.

It absolutely was taken before that time.

Note that nowhere in the cutline does it say, or even intimate, that Obama had been declared the winner, or that this was what was being cheered about in the phto.

You will note that the cutline says, "Parker County Democrats celebrated at Jorge's restaurant in Weatherford as reports came in that Sen. Barack Obama won several key states in the Northeast." That was in fact the occasion, and the situation.

Perhaps the introductory text for my quotation, "Doug Kerr . . . called Obama's victory a 'triumph of rational thinking' was not fully apt. I was asked, "do you have any comment, Doug?, and I said, "This is a triumph of rational thinking". I was of course referring to the trend at that time, which I saw as very optimistic regarding the possibility of Obama's election.. .

The cheer was bona fide, being (as I said) for George Stephanopoulos' new haircut.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Let me post here a "public" apology to Chelsea McGowan for having improvidently exposed her to this flurry of mean-spirited (and ill-crafted) criticism. I should have realized that an attempt to launch a little levity into an arena half-filled with still-sulking Karl Rove supporters was not a good idea.

I remind those involved in this that the reporter's plan was to get ready to take a shot on the next occasion that provided cheers, so as to illustrate what was going on at this event (there had in fact been recurrent cheering on the occasion of "positive" reports). To call that a "staged" photo is silly at best.

Worse, to claim that this photograph was "presented" as showing a group cheering upon the occasion of the declaration of victory for Barack Obama is an outrageous stretch, an attempt to craft an excuse for a final shot to the right. You do no credit to your presumed interest in objectivity. You should all be ashamed.

dak

 

[James Newman]

Being human, I think, I have been in some situations and have acted in certain ways that I ended up being ashamed about. I guarantee you this is not one of them. Get over yourself. Drink some more Koolaid. Four years from now you might awake and wonder how you could have been so blind. And yes, my good sir, you may find yourself feeling ashamed for having been fooled into letting yourself be so used and abused by someone so inept and unqualified.

 

[Bill Miller]

Reporter should apologize!

Let me post here a "public" apology to Chelsea McGowan for having improvidently exposed her to this flurry of mean-spirited (and ill-crafted) criticism. I should have realized that an attempt to launch a little levity into an arena half-filled with still-sulking Karl Rove supporters was not a good idea.

I remind those involved in this that the reporter's plan was to get ready to take a shot on the next occasion that provided cheers, so as to illustrate what was going on at this event (there had in fact been recurrent cheering on the occasion of "positive" reports). To call that a "staged" photo is silly at best.

Worse, to claim that this photograph was "presented" as showing a group cheering upon the occasion of the declaration of victory for Barack Obama is an outrageous stretch, an attempt to craft an excuse for a final shot to the right. You do no credit to your presumed interest in objectivity. You should all be ashamed.

dak

Doug, the only person that needs to apologize is Chelsea McGowan for deceiving the readers of the Weatherford Democrat Newspaper. This has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with Ethics. Regardless of her reasons, her caption which coupled with the photo make this an ethics violation of NPPA's ethics code, her newspaper owners policy and should be treated as such. Nothing more nothing less. She is the one who has placed her job and career in jeopardy.

And Doug Kerr never - never call me a Karl Rove supporter.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Bill,

Doug, the only person that needs to apologize is Chelsea McGowan for deceiving the readers of the Weatherford Democrat Newspaper.

Could you tell me what she deceived the readers into believing? For example, that these people were photographed in the act of responding to some network's declaration that Barack Obama had in effect been elected president? What in the picture and cutline even suggested that?

And Doug Kerr never - never call me a Karl Rove supporter.

Not sure I said that. But in any case, my apology.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Let me post here a "public" apology to Chelsea McGowan for having improvidently exposed her to this flurry of mean-spirited (and ill-crafted) criticism. I should have realized that an attempt to launch a little levity into an arena half-filled with still-sulking Karl Rove supporters was not a good idea.

I remind those involved in this that the reporter's plan was to get ready to take a shot on the next occasion that provided cheers, so as to illustrate what was going on at this event (there had in fact been recurrent cheering on the occasion of "positive" reports). To call that a "staged" photo is silly at best.

Worse, to claim that this photograph was "presented" as showing a group cheering upon the occasion of the declaration of victory for Barack Obama is an outrageous stretch, an attempt to craft an excuse for a final shot to the right. You do no credit to your presumed interest in objectivity. You should all be ashamed.

dak

Hi Doug,

I had no intention to appear "mean spirited". Rather, I interpreted your first post as a satiric demonstration of dishonesty of the press. That was my sincere take!

At times, you are so humorous and satirical and I take it seriously! Now I can see you were just being entertaining to break the levity of the current political and economic situation.

Still, you disclosed that the cheer was signaled against a Stefanopolis idea. That may seem like a silly technical issue for a fun photograph, but I really thought you were pointedly disclosing the technical untruth of it! So there's the gap in what you intended and what was translated! I thought you were making a point about ethics!

We discussed this subject of Ethics in Journalism and also referred by to the in Truth In Photography Movement (TIF) in just artistic Landscape Photography, where even removal of an ugly garbage can or littler is frowned upon. I agree that's so excessive since pictures are supposed to be just fun, as was the setting of your celebratory dinner. Street Photography would have it's own inherent standards, we'd hope, more close to press photography

For sure, such a cheer was surely representational of the many cheers all evening. Still, it did not occur when expected, so was generated for the picture. The press, however, is supposed to merely document the event. Of course this in itself has no serious consequence that might alter public knowledge or policy. Still, the press, itself has set for reporters standards of accuracy. Photographers cannot cross the line. That's what I thought your post brought out.

Yes, I feel terribly bad and almost "disloyal" to accidentally calling attention to it but I thought that's what you were showing us.

Of course, had you known that your report might be remotely considered in a negative fashion, you would have just shown the wonderful picture. We'd enjoy it and that would be that, everyone happy!
So, I can see now you would be upset.

So please accept my sincere regrets.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Hi Doug,

I had no intention to appear "mean spirited". Rather, I interpreted your first post as a satiric demonstration of dishonesty of the press. That was my sincere take!

No, it was just a story of something interesting that happened to me on the way from the fire house to World Headquarters.

At times, you are so humorous and satirical and I take it seriously! Now I can see you were just being entertaining to break the levity of the current political and economic situation.

Still, you disclosed that the cheer was signaled against a Stefanopolis idea.

I know you mean "against" in the scientific sense, but there is a chance it could be misinterpreted here.

For sure, such a cheer was surely representational of the many cheers all evening. Still, it did not occur when expected, so was generated . . .

Precipitated. It would in any case have been generated.

. . . for the picture. The press, however, is supposed to merely document the event.

And indeed she did. She did not cue me to cheer. She did not suggest that I cheer for the first new haircut that showed up on the screen, nor that I cheer at the next news that indicated a Democrat had defeated a Republican for some office higher than dogcatcher. I decided to do the former, rather than wait for the latter.

Would Philby over Judd for tax assessor have been a more legitimate trigger? How about Kay Hagan over Elizabeth Dole for senator in North Carolina? (Boy, what a shot that would have been!)

Of course, had you known that your report might be remotely considered in a negative fashion, you would have just shown the wonderful picture.

No, not without the story. The picture didn't warrant it. The story was the story. No moral, no exposé. No peek into the seamy side of big city political journalism. Just a story of something interesting that happened to me on the way from the fire house to World Headquarters.

So please accept my sincere regrets.

Il n'y a pas de quoi, my friend.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Deleted member 55]

A perfectly good post ruined by the "Internet Police"(a division of the mattress Police).

Doug you have my condolences!

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Commiseration

Hi Doug,

I am so sorry reading about these reactions here and the fact that Mrs. McGowan is wrongfully accused of bending ethics. I have read and reread the text under the photograph and nowhere it says at which particular instance the photo was taken. It says that it is a photo of the ongoing celebrations during that evening. And it was just that.

To me these reactions can only indicate that some people need to learn to relativate things. Sometimes an entertaining story is just that, nothing more, nothing less.

I am really saddened by this. if this were a magazine, I would probably cancel my subscription.


Cheers,

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Will,

A perfectly good post ruined by the "Internet Police"(a division of the mattress Police).

Doug you have my condolences!

Thank you.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Cem,

I am so sorry reading about these reactions here and the fact that Mrs. McGowan is wrongfully accused of bending ethics. I have read and reread the text under the photograph and nowhere it says at which particular instance the photo was taken. It says that it is a photo of the ongoing celebrations during that evening. And it was just that.

Thank you for your observations. Your clear head is such a resource to us here.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Doug,

I am so sorry reading about these reactions here and the fact that Mrs. McGowan is wrongfully accused of bending ethics. I have read and reread the text under the photograph and nowhere it says at which particular instance the photo was taken. It says that it is a photo of the ongoing celebrations during that evening. And it was just that.

Cem,

"nowhere it says at which particular instance the photo was taken" but Doug, in his introduction did disclose how the cheer, not having occurred for 5 minutes, was generated or instigated or made happen for the photograph to the appearance of Staphanopolis' hair cut.

By all your standards, nothing of consequence happened. That would also be so if the picture was directly posted here directly. Then, of course, protests would be silly!

However, the press, here in the USA, at least, are given special protections and privileges above other citizens. In return the ethic has been developed that trimming the hair or removing a mole or else having a picture staged in anyway is just as serious as a composite image. This extraordinary strictness is a reaction to the manipulation of people by concocted new photographs. Therefore, news photographers have made for themselves a zero tolerance policy which might seem extreme and even bizarre.

In the value systems taught and expected in and of the photojournalism schools, newspapers and professional organizations for photojournalists, it's accepted only to


document what happens without the photographers intent driving the picture


and then disclose what special circumstances allowed that picture if it can be misinterpreted from what it appears to be. Triviality has little bearing in this matter.


My reading of Doug, the technical fellow's description, was to have revealed the mismatch between a cheer for a hair cut and for the candidate's success. That story, if disclosed by the reporter in her writing would have added humor and made the picture more delightful! When it was Doug who relates the detail, albeit it now appears, without anything serious in mind, unfortunately, it discloses the discrete fine mismatch between the topics shown and implied inference. This must trigger the question of a possible ethics violation.

However trivial this may seems, the gap, at least, seems to be there. This case, might well be discussed in ethics classes. Maybe it will get dismissed but maybe not! If people would "get it" that even this might be a trespass, then photojournalist would have a protective fence around their reporting standards. The idea of the ethical expectations is to have utter transparency and clarity of meaning for the receiver of the news.

I'm so sorry this seems trivial, but in truth it is necessary to our way of life with a special "estate" reserved for the press. However,from outside of this perspective, such strict standards of photojournalism appear Draconian. If one really considers this, the ultimate benefit for the community outweighs the fanatic nitpicking you find so silly and annoying.

Yes, on the surface it's foolishness. That I cannot debate, but then that's just on the surface.

Asher

 

[Bill Miller]

Hi Doug,

I am so sorry reading about these reactions here and the fact that Mrs. McGowan is wrongfully accused of bending ethics. I have read and reread the text under the photograph and nowhere it says at which particular instance the photo was taken. It says that it is a photo of the ongoing celebrations during that evening. And it was just that.

To me these reactions can only indicate that some people need to learn to relativate things. Sometimes an entertaining story is just that, nothing more, nothing less.

I am really saddened by this. if this were a magazine, I would probably cancel my subscription.


Cheers,

Hi, Will,


Thank you.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Cem,


Thank you for your observations. Your clear head is such a resource to us here.

Best regards,

Doug

Cem, Will and Doug,

You fail to see where an violation of ethics standards occurred. Here is the issue. The photo shows people cheering. The caption "Parker County Democrats celebrated at Jorge's restaurant in Weatherford as reports came in that Sen. Barack Obama won several key states in the Northeast. Doug Kerr, pictured at left cheering, called Obama's victory a 'triumph of rational thinking'"

The facts are:
1. Photo of people cheering
2. Caption talking about Obama's winning.
3. Doug Kerr at the beginning of this post stated ""Wow! Look at that haircut on George Stephanopolous! The whole table cheered, and she got the shot."
4. She was standing there, she knew the cheer had nothing to do with Obama, but she used the photo with a caption talking about Obama's win.
5. The photo was taken before 10:00pm EST and Obama had not been declared the projected winner.

The ethics violation is the photo and caption together do not depict the truth of the moment. That is the ethics violation. Very simple. Read back to an earlier post and you will see what the Director of NPPA said.

When the truth and accuracy of journalism is allowed to be clouded, it will never be trusted. Again read in detail the guidelines. http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html