‘Daily News’ Photoshops Boston Bombing Photos on Front Page (NSFW)

This article contains images and/or video that the editors have flagged as NSFW (Not Safe for Work).
To view this content you must be logged in to your Fstoppers account.
‘Daily News’ Photoshops Boston Bombing Photos on Front Page (NSFW)

Following the terrible events that happened in Boston yesterday leaving at least 3 dead and more than 170 wounded, the Daily News is under the spotlight of criticism for doctoring photos. While they have appeared to have doctored the photo because of its graphic nature, they still maintained many other graphic images on the cover of the publication. So why?

The photo, showing an injured woman with what appears to have shrapnel damage to her leg, was doctored to be able to use for the front page of their publication. While the original photo, by Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki, is perhaps too graphic for cover publication, The Daily News still maintained plenty of gore and blood on the cover of their paper.

 

 

By altering the original image, the paper violated one very basic journalistic principle concerning credibility. The National Press Photographers Association states in its ethics code “Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context” and "Do not manipulate images ... in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."

 

 

In moments of tragedy, journalistic integrity is exceptionally important. So why would a publication the size of the Daily News doctor photos for their cover, especially since the doctored image still shows stark gore and violence?

It goes without saying, everyone here at Fstoppers has all those affected by the Boston Marathon bombings in our thoughts and prayers.

 

[via Capital]

 
Log in or register to post comments

17 Comments

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

Though this is newsworthy, I've been waiting for a while now to see when Fstoppers would write an article about the positive work done by all the photojournalists that were at the Boston Marathon. So many ran TOWARD the explosions just like the first responders.

However, it always seems anything photojournalism related gets overlooked unless there's something there that can stir the pot of drama.

You guys missed a great opportunity to do something with some amazing photos. Sports Illustrated picked up a photo from a photojournalist for their front page. So much photo news happened beyond that. Its just disappointing.

Jason Vinson's picture

agree!

Patrick Hall's picture

There is no doubt the first responders and those covering the event did a lot to help those in need during this horrible event. I think the real story will be how we catch the criminal(s) who organized this event through images and video taken at the race and at stores where the materials were purchased.

Just because you run toward danger to take a photo, doesn't mean you're special. To compare photographers to first responders is WAY out there.

why...just because he's a photographer?
It's not just about getting the shot...
we're quick to note the news photographer who goes after the shot of imminent death...
but not when that same photographer comes to the aid of a victim.
That comment denigrates photographers and photography in general...
and makes us all less human.

Whaaaaa........look at me....whaaaaa. please go away. it's not about photojournalists!!

Every attack is terrible, but next time the media in the west should put some bombed Afghan children on the front page. Happens every day! The world sick and full of hypocrits.

Agreed

I understand why they photoshopped the image, but I believe ti's flawed journalism and sets a dangerous precedent. We depend on the news to present an objective truth. (We can get in to philosophical debate about truth and photography but let's not.) We all know editorial decisions like cropping can be problematic (http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cnn_lies.jpg) but at least that represents an editor's view of a story. In this case, selectively blurring the image would have been an acceptable editorial decision, clearly indicating to viewers that paper decided to obscure something it deemed too graphic for the general public. Removing or adding elements isn't editorializing though, it's creating fiction. This isn't what happened an, as painful as it may be to see, we deserve the truth.

That left one should be Faux news ;P

Oh snore, how is this a story?.... I would have retouched the image going on the cover of a newspaper that could be seen by children in the newsagents too....

slow news day?

should have used a different image then?

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

You wouldn't be working in any respected news media then.

No i'm not working in news media. But i can appreciate how hard it can be. These images are sold, its money, it's business.

If a news channel came to you and said "i have a cheque, it has a few zero's on it, you can make a bit of money here... it's just a shame its a little graphic, a tiny change to the image and the cheque is yours...."

most people will edit the image and take the cash.

It's an unfortunate situation, which is why this story shouldn't be the news. What about the power of photography and how images are being used to build evidence? How about the fact that with so many images they can get a full timeline of events?

There are a lot of real and interesting stories that can be told... this isn't one of them.

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

No, most people wouldn't, because they'd never work in journalism again.

You don't sacrifice morals or ethics for cash, because you do it once and you'll never have the chance to do it again.

You have no concept of what journalism ethics mean, so please don't tell people who do what is and isn't a story. That's your problem, not ours. Please don't be ethics police without a semblance of understanding.

the real irony is that FStoppers retouched the image with a big NSFW warning so the graphic image didn't appear in the header and thumbnail...

Zach Sutton's picture

There is a difference between censoring an image because of graphic nature, and editing an image.

What you're seeing by fstoppers is a censored image.