I am surprised at the the shock and horror, criticism insofar the manipulation goes. And the setting up of photos. Its not as if the farm administration photographers did not set up photos. Or Eugene Smith? Or as if pictures / expressions on faces/ are never chosen to convey the idea of grief or starvation that exists in either the photographer or the editors’ (business that owns the publishing house)head.

It’s not as if objective reporting exists now, is it? The fact that the photographer is present at the scene with his/her own baggage, ideas, beliefs, culture together with the interests of the business who owns the particular publishing house surely makes it rather obvious that its A truth rather than THE truth. I’m just a little surprised at such naivety that leads to statements such as “The Reuters brand means nothing to me now” especially if the writer feels him/herself to be very knowledgeable in all things photographic. Surely you had to question this inherent the-photograph-does-not-lie quality of photography before? If not, you have more to learn. I think the public should be taught to question all images, footage, articles and be encouraged them to think for themselves.

Democracy counts on a free, objective press to present the truth…Truth and moral clarity are as important than military force in this war the west finds itself in right now. Sadly, our fanatical enemies seem to be able to bend the press at will.

Report the Story.