Greeny News

The Economist has run into a controversy over a cover picture of President Obama that suggested he was standing alone on an oil spill beach.

But, as the above pictures, cover image was "edited" to hide the fact that he was standing next to two other people.

The New York TimesIn identifying photo manipulation , reports that the editing upset Reuters, whose photographer, Larry Downing, took the original shot.

The paper quotes a statement by Thomson Reuters aing: "When it comes to its own photographers, Reuters has stringent standards regarding photo editing. [It] has a strict policy against modifying, removing, adding to or altering any of its photographs without first obtaining the permission of Reuters and, where necessary, the third parties referred to."

The cover was published in The Economist's 19 June issue, and was - as the NY Times wrote - probably chosen "as the ideal metaphor for a politically troubled president" because Obama looked to be standing alone on a Louisiana beach, oil rig in background, head down, looking forlornly at the ground.

So what did the magazine have to say? Deputy editor Emma Duncan e-mailed the paper to explain that the figure on the right - coast guard admiral Thad Allen - "was removed by the crop."

Then the other figure - Charlotte Randolph, a local parish president - was removed "not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers." Duncan went on to say:

We often edit the photos we use on our covers, for one of two reasons. Sometimes â€" as with a cover we ran on 27 March on US health care, with Mr Obama with a bandage round his head â€" it's an obvious joke.

Sometimes â€" as with an image of President Chavez on May 15 on which we darkened the background, or with our "It's time" cover endorsing Mr Obama, from which the background was removed altogether â€" it is to bring out the central character. We don't edit photos in order to mislead.

I asked Mrs. Randolph to be removed, because I wanted readers to focus on Obama, not because I wanted to make him look in isolation. It Wasn 't the point of history.

As for the cover line - "The damage beyond the spill" - that referred, said Duncan, to business in America rather than damage to Obama.

Well, it's an interesting explanation, and I respect Duncan's integrity. But the main headline said "Obama v BP", so am I alone in finding her answer just a little disingenuous?

Source: New York Times

Greeny NEWS