On Monday I wrote at TCS Daily about it. Today, David Perlmutter has further thoughts, over at Editor and Publisher.

Perhaps it would be more reassuring if the enemy at the gates was a familiar one—politicians, or maybe radio talk show hosts. But the photojournalist standing on the crumbling ramparts of her once proud citadel now sees the vandal army charging for the sack led by “zombietime,” “The Jawa Report,” “Powerline,” “Little Green Footballs,” “confederateyankee,” and many others.

In each case, these bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students. And the results have been devastating: news photos and video shown to be miscaptioned, radically altered, or staged (and worse, re-staged) for the camera. Surely “green helmet guy,” “double smoke,” “the missiles that were actually flares,” “the wedding mannequin from nowhere,” the “magical burning Koran,” the “little girl who actually fell off a swing” and “keep filming!” will now enter the pantheon of shame of photojournalism.

...News picture-making media organizations have two paths of possible response to this unnerving new situation. First, they can stonewall, deny, delete, dismiss, counter-slur, or ignore the problem. To some extent, this is what is happening now and, ethical consideration aside, such a strategy is the practical equivalent of taking extra photos of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school. Admit mistakes right away. Correct them with as much fanfare and surface area as you devoted to the original image. Create task forces and investigating panels. Don’t delete archives but publish them along with detailed descriptions of what went wrong. Attend to your critics and diversify the sources of imagery, or better yet be brave enough to refuse to show any images of scenes in which you are being told what to show. I would even love to see special inserts or mini-documentaries on how to spot photo bias or photo fakery—in other words, be as transparent, unarrogant, and responsive as you expect those you cover to be.

I'm not sure that a simple moral crusade is going to revive the profession, though--the temptations to cheat are just too great. We are going to have to figure out some technologies (in addition to having an army of photographers--truth lies in numbers) to address the problem.

I get from the article that Mr. Perlmutter is a teacher of journalism. But like many other journalists he seems to want to distance himself from the "picture takers".

...will now enter the pantheon of shame of photojournalism.

I agree it's PHOTOjournalism that got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar here. But the photojournalists work directly or indirectly for the college trained, word processing, final editing journalists. If there is a widely disseminated news show or newspaper or magazine that features JUST photos I am not aware of it.

These pictures are just the visual efforts of the leftist, special interests of the MSM. What's the difference to the watching and reading public in a doctored picture or a doctored story? Neither is honest nor true.

I have 2 words to say about doctored stories that STILL have legs,,

DAN......RATHER

Is what CBS did with the forged Bush documents any different than a doctored photograph? If it is please tell me how.

The problem here is not just the misreporting or reporting of facts. It's a problem of driving an agenda, an agenda that looks very anti-American. I expect Al Jezerra or an Arab or Muslim reporter or photographer to try this tack. But we also have media outlets in this country, owned here, and working here doing the same things.

This, IMHO, is the same as if NBC had taken Bob Hope off of the radio, and had played shows from Lord Haw Haw, Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose. Or if Murrow's news was taken off, and the news from Berlin or Tokyo had been played.

I've said this to people who say this is a little simplistic. But whether you agree with me on who did what, when, and where, we are in fact currently fighting a war. Any attempt to subvert the truth or to use the media to tell half truths, is wrong. It's aiding the enemy and it gives the impression that we are easy targets.

If you think that's not the way the religious extremists we are fighting really see us, find some transcripts of tapes from Bin Laden, or Al-Zarqawi, or from any nights news on Al Jezeera.

> We are going to have to figure out some technologies (in addition to having an army of
> photographers--truth lies in numbers) to address the problem.

Rand, the technology already exists. Digital SLR cameras (the type used by most photojournalists) can record images in "RAW" format, which is converted to Photoshop format when imported. Photographers sometimes refer to RAW files as "digital negatives."