Journalist's being kept from oil the oil spill?

C

Canceled2

Banned
It appears that our government in collusion with BP are wanting to keep journalists away from damning photo-ops

__________________________________________________________
Read more here

Barred from the Beach Julie Dermansky for The Atlantic writes of her experience being invited by "Grand Island Street Superintendent Christopher Hernandez ... to see firsthand that BP is hardly doing all it can to clean up the oil." Hernandez "was dumbfounded when he was barred from stepping onto the oil-polluted beach without having his hands and shoes decontaminated. He found it absurd that his slightly soiled shoes could make the beach worse." She herself, walking along the beach, "withing minutes" found herself followed by "two men in a beach buggy":

They blocked my way and told me I would have to wait until a crew came to decontaminate me. I asked them whom they worked for, and they told me vaguely that they were under the umbrella of BP.
 
Kind of weird, if true. Every imaginable horrific photo has already been put out there, and that's not even counting the live feed of oil spewing into the Gulf 24x7...
 
Onceler said:
Kind of weird, if true. Every imaginable horrific photo has already been put out there, and that's not even counting the live feed of oil spewing into the Gulf 24x7...
Click to expand...

It's the idea of making the story go away by stopping any "more" photo's. If this is true, and according to numerous reports it is, then we have serious First Amendment violations.
 
LOL She has to wash her hands and feet before going onto the polluted beach. This is right up there with the EPA not allowing oil skimmers to dump the 99% clean water back into the ocean so they can operate 24/7 instead of a few hours per week.
 
Ice Dancer said:
It's the idea of making the story go away by stopping any "more" photo's. If this is true, and according to numerous reports it is, then we have serious First Amendment violations.
Click to expand...

I saw this last night on the local news and cable news networks. CNN is even complaining about it, so it cannot be attributed to Fox hysteria as so many here are wont to do.

I believe some journalists have been told they would be arrested if they tried to get too close.

Now that the tar balls are showing up in Lake Pontchartrain it sounds like they want to put the brakes on this runaway disaster, like yesterday.
 
Obama's rep dent as I'll call it now is the tip of the iceburg for what's coming. I love him but the way he took joy in tagging Bush with Katrina is going to bite him on the ass with BP. And lest anyone forget, Bobby Jhindal has a list 50 items long of what the feds won't let him do to PROTECT HIS OWN STATE.
 
Topspin said:
Obama's rep dent as I'll call it now is the tip of the iceburg for what's coming. I love him but the way he took joy in tagging Bush with Katrina is going to bite him on the ass with BP. And lest anyone forget, Bobby Jhindal has a list 50 items long of what the feds won't let him do to PROTECT HIS OWN STATE.
Click to expand...

Katrina has nothing to do with it. Hannity, Beck & the rest would still be hammering him 24x7 on BP even if Katrina never happened....
 
Onceler said:
Katrina has nothing to do with it. Hannity, Beck & the rest would still be hammering him 24x7 on BP even if Katrina never happened....
Click to expand...

It does have a lot to do with it to non lefties. If you can tie bush losely its very easy to tie Obama to BP. When if fact his agency responsible was know by him to be weak and he got Zip done in 18months.
You may not want to except it, but most democratic strategist will admit BP is a big blow to Obama's image of whether he's capable of getting things done. Expect a lot of "He's great in front of the prompter, but shitty in the war room" from republican and it will resonate with Gulf Coast voters if not Nation wide.
 
Onceler said:
Kind of weird, if true. Every imaginable horrific photo has already been put out there, and that's not even counting the live feed of oil spewing into the Gulf 24x7...
Click to expand...

Geez, you think it could be that even the most respected publications can't be counted on to be honest?

"It's just not quite the same for a president to be glancing down at the water while chatting with others on the beach as it is for the president to be solemn and depressed and alone while contemplating oil-soaked sand.

But the Economist didn't have a picture of the latter. So they made one:

economist-photoshops-obama.jpg


It was the ideal metaphor for a politically troubled president.

There was President Obama on the cover of the June 19 issue of The Economist, standing alone on a Louisiana beach, head down, looking forlornly at the ground.

The problem was, he was not actually alone. The photograph was just edited to make it look that way.

The unaltered image, shot on May 28 by a Reuters photographer, Larry Downing, shows Adm. Thad W. Allen of the Coast Guard and Charlotte Randolph, a local parish president, standing alongside the president. But in the image that appeared on The Economist’s cover, Admiral Allen and Ms. Randolph had been scrubbed out, replaced by the blue water of the Gulf of Mexico.

When it comes to its own photographers, Reuters has stringent standards regarding photo editing. “Reuters 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,” Thomson Reuters said in a statement on Sunday.

The Economist then followed up with this wishy-washy statement:

Emma Duncan, deputy editor of The Economist, told us this about the cover in an e-mail message on Monday:

"I was editing the paper the week we ran the image of President Obama with the oil rig in the background. Yes, Charlotte Randolph was edited out of the image (Admiral Allen was removed by the crop). We removed her not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers.

We often edit the photos we use on our covers, for one of two reasons. Sometimes — as with a cover we ran on March 27 on U.S. health care, with Mr. Obama with a bandage round his head — it’s an obvious joke. Sometimes — 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 — it is to bring out the central character. We don’t edit photos in order to mislead.

I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story. “The damage beyond the spill” referred to on the cover, and examined in the cover leader, was the damage not to Mr. Obama, but to business in America."

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/on-the-economists-cover-only-a-part-of-the-picture/
 
Damocles said:
LOL. They washed out two people to make their "pose"...
Click to expand...

Actually they only washed out the woman...and like BFD! The reporters rationale is not only believable, but makes the point that the woman was unknown.

Now, after that meaningless distraction by the boards female nigel, how 'bout the barring of media from the oil spill????
 
Ice Dancer said:
Actually they only washed out the woman...and like BFD! The reporters rationale is not only believable, but makes the point that the woman was unknown.

Now, after that meaningless distraction by the boards female nigel, how 'bout the barring of media from the oil spill????
Click to expand...

The rationale was lame. It doesn't make a difference that the woman was "unknown."

The airbrush is unethical, by journalistic standards.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Actually they only washed out the woman...and like BFD! The reporters rationale is not only believable, but makes the point that the woman was unknown.

Now, after that meaningless distraction by the boards female nigel, how 'bout the barring of media from the oil spill????
Click to expand...


Barring reporters is bullshit. A reporter from Mother Jones has been working this angle for weeks and it has been ignored. Maybe now that the big boys are reporting on it something will be done but I doubt it.
 
Onceler said:
The rationale was lame. It doesn't make a difference that the woman was "unknown."

The airbrush is unethical, by journalistic standards.
Click to expand...

It made a difference to the reporter who did it...and as to being unethical? The only point that was unethical was not the airbrushing itself, that's done all the time, it was apparently failing to get permission first...hardly relevent to this thread!!!!!
 
Damocles said:
LOL. They washed out two people to make their "pose"...
Click to expand...

:rofl: And you call me a hack.

Repubs were peeing their pants over photoshopped pix of Palin, but there's always justification if it done to Obama or another Dem.

Remember this NON-photoshopped cover, and the outrage it garnered by some on this board?

sarah-palin-newsweek.jpg
 
christiefan915 said:
:rofl: And you call me a hack.

Repubs were peeing their pants over photoshopped pix of Palin, but there's always justification if it done to Obama or another Dem.

Remember this NON-photoshopped cover, and the outrage it garnered by some on this board?

sarah-palin-newsweek.jpg
Click to expand...
? I have no outrage for that, she has nice legs. Yeah, you are a hack. They shopped it to make him "appear thoughtful" because they had no pictures he actually appeared that way... I wonder why?

;)

I think it is funny.
 
Damocles said:
? I have no outrage for that, she has nice legs. Yeah, you are a hack. They shopped it to make him "appear thoughtful" because they had no pictures he actually appeared that way... I wonder why?

;)

I think it is funny.
Click to expand...

Pot...kettle. :palm:

Note the title. "Obama v. BP...The Damage Beyond the Spill". They weren't trying to make him appear "thoughtful", they wanted him to look depressed and alone.

Reuters criticized The Economist for using their photographer's picture this way. But nice attempt on your part to defend shabby journalistic ethics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top