Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Military The Media

AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo 622

djupedal notes a story up at the BBC about the Associated Press's suspension of the use of Department of Defense photos after a photo of General Ann Dunwoody was found to have been altered (before and after comparison). "The Pentagon has become embroiled in a row after the US Army released a photo of a general to the media which was found to have been digitally altered. Ann Dunwoody was shown in front of the US flag but it later emerged that this background had been added. The Associated Press news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defense photos. 'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,' said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo

Comments Filter:
  • by Ardeaem ( 625311 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:30AM (#25844437)

    Couldn't we focus more on some of the outright fraud shots of the last several years carried by media operators trying to make the soldiers in Iraq look bad?

    No? Okay. I thought I would just ask.

    Their policy covers both. Or are you just trolling?

  • Not Surprised (Score:5, Informative)

    by doomicon ( 5310 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:37AM (#25844509) Homepage Journal

    I served in the Army for 7+ years. Three years of which in a PAO (Public Affairs Office), that handles press releases, photo's, etc. Most people have this idea that there is this all encompassing control in the Army, as well as a focused strategy of deception. Believe me.. there isn't, they aren't that smart (like most companies we all work for).

    This picture is photoshopped badly because just like any small shop in the civilian world, some SPC or PFC got a request for a photo of Gen Whats Herface, thought it would be "cool" to use this new app on my computer. He then shows the photo to the Captain(or Major) who is the "Manager" of the office... He's technically a dud (like most Managers) and thinks it's awesome. So they hand it over.

    Point is, don't forgot the U.S. Army isn't unlike most Corporations when it comes to things other than "War (Training, etc."), they have bad manager's, are poorly run, make mistakes... I've personally NEVER seen a case where they were trying to cover something up, or lie, and I was working during the Cuban Camp setups in Central America (sh!t hit the fan with that one). Nobody even thought about lying or being deceptive, there was just this idea that you just don't do it, because we're soldiers, it's a black eye when the truth does come out, and it always does. (Now, when it comes to Operational Information, ie War. that is different. You don't have press releases that will tell the enemy 'Hey we'll be there next Friday, act surprised')

    On the flipside, when deceptive things happen or poor photoshop jobs are released, it's usually poor decisions by LOCAL offices or commands. It's not an all encompassing strategy.

    Just my personal experience :-)

  • Re:Sharpening (Score:5, Informative)

    by fastest fascist ( 1086001 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @09:57AM (#25844697)
    I'm guessing the left picture is not the original, there's severe compression artefacting for one. But the flag is not the only alteration, you'll notice heavy airbrushing over the face as well as general tonal alterations - although done considerably better than the background switch. The shiny highlights from the flash used have been toned down and they've removed a number of lines on her face, especially around the eyes.
  • by Eunuchswear ( 210685 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:00AM (#25844741) Journal

    Damn, you're so dumb you don't know that AP is not the same as AFP and I'm so nice I didn't even notice.

  • What the flag means. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:17AM (#25844965)

    To most (non-american) people that's just plain bizarre. Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree).

    You have to understand that the US has a history very different than that of European nations, in that we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom. That fight was symbolized from the very beginning by the flag, whose image was used to unite the disparate colonies behind a single goal of American freedom. That flag was commissioned by George Washington, who realized that a nation and an army needed a common identity if the war for independece was to be won. Realize that, prior to that point, America was just 13 colonies. The flag was used to make them a nation.

    Because of that, the flag itself has become a symbol of freedom and the fight for it. That's why our national anthem is a poem written about the flag (in the War of 1812). That's why most lasting image of WWII (for Americans) is four soldiers lifting the flag at Iwo Jima. I could go on...

    As such, particularly for the military, the flag represents both who you are and what you're fighting for. Because Americans fought for their freedom and to create our very existence as a separate entity from a colonial power, our flag means a whole hell of a lot more to us than it probably does for most countries.

    You always take for granted that for which you didn't have to struggle. Americans have been taught about that struggle and what it means, and many of us refuse to take freedom for granted.

  • by CambodiaSam ( 1153015 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @10:59AM (#25845535)
    That's exactly what I thought. It would take a serious amount of work to improve the resolution by hand.

    I have to assume that the "original" was actually a poor resolution copy they were able to get their hands on later, not the actual original. Otherwise, I want to hire the guy who can retouch pictures to that degree of accuracy and clarity!
  • Re:yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @11:43AM (#25846183) Journal

    Also dont forget Reuters [zombietime.com] doing the exact same thing.

  • by Kagura ( 843695 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @11:45AM (#25846225)
    The weird thing is, all E-7s and above are required to have a special DA photo taken. This lady was a general, of rank somewhere between O-7 and O-10. She should already have a DA photo taken that essentially looks almost exactly the same as this "faked" one in her file. It's possible that the DA photo in her file was really out of date or perhaps even missing, who knows? Paperwork goes missing in the army all the time.


    DA = Department of the Army
  • by Neoprofin ( 871029 ) <neoprofin AT hotmail DOT com> on Friday November 21, 2008 @11:52AM (#25846337)
    The point of cutting out photo alterations, even cosmetics, is to prevent people from confusing truth and fabrication, no matter how small. If you can show me someone who would have been confused by this mall photobooth backdrop I'd love to meet them.

    If they added extra medals, maybe an impressive book on the desk, maybe made her teeth whiter these are all subtle alteration designed to make you believe the image they're trying to sell. That flag backdrop is less convincing than if they had photoshopped her into nazi germany riding a unicorn.
  • by DittoBox ( 978894 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @12:15PM (#25846631) Homepage

    Photoshop might be the shizzle, but it can't do that. No one's that good.

    There's a higher-quality original out there that was used to construct the fake. Through various workings the AP managed to get a hold of a very low res version. Probably a thumbnail of some sort. My guess would be that the DoD got lazy and didn't scrub the metadata and left the original JPEG thumbnail from the camera in the file. I've had that issue before myself.

  • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @12:39PM (#25846969)

    I don't think the original is really the original. It's a low rez shot with a LOT of compression artifacts. Looks like someone took a picture of the real picture with their cell phone or something. Extrapolating to what the original would actually look like, it doesn't look like they did much manipulation except contrast adjustment, white balance and a really obvious cut and paste job.

  • Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:3, Informative)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Friday November 21, 2008 @01:40PM (#25847845) Homepage Journal

    Fuck you too, AC.

    I started out in the infantry. 11B, you know what that is? Then I went medical and served in Daddy Bush's war. In other words, I've done as much real soldiering as anyone -- and probably a hell of a lot more than you or GPP, whose "knowledge" of combat probably comes from sitting on your fat asses playing FPSs and munching Doritos.

  • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @03:13PM (#25849147)

    Which commentators, pundits and so on? Left wing, right wing, balanced?

    Right wing, mostly. See the links below.

    If you actually had evidence of this, it would be a huge story.

    Indeed, it has [salon.com] been [corpwatch.org] big news [prwatch.org] when evidence [dod.mil] came to light concerning the programs under which the Bush Administration, including the DoD, was paying pundits and news analysts to promote administration programs, or otherwise buying [nytimes.com] the news.

    But you don't.

    If GP didn't (which I suspect is not the case), the web certainly does, including evidence directly from the horse's mouth at the DoD link above.

    So you're nothing but a mindless droning troll.

    I would be careful throwing around insults like that, especially when you clearly don't know much about the subject and are just assuming that the person to whom you are responding to is wrong because of your own ignorance.

  • Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:3, Informative)

    by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Friday November 21, 2008 @04:45PM (#25850491)

    More than that, I'd point out who's actually supported the troops (veteran's benefits, veterans health care, new GI Bill, better gear [youtube.com], equal time at home for the time they were deployed, etc etc) and who's used them as political props.

    Republicans have as much claim these days to supporting our troops and veterans as they do to balanced budgets or family values.

  • Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:3, Informative)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Friday November 21, 2008 @08:30PM (#25853695) Homepage Journal

    Yes indeed. Unfortunately it seems like the right-wingers still have a lot of people hoodwinked -- the default assumption is that conservatives support the troops more than liberals do, no matter what the reality is. It will take at least a generation to change that perception, I think, maybe more. What's most likely to do the trick is for the troops themselves to speak out ...

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...