Above Left: Cover of The Economist; Right: Original, unedited Reuters photo.
The Economist is under fire by the New York Times for editing a photo for their recent cover. To their credit, The Economist fully admitted to editing the photo and here’s what they had to say about it…
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.
I was going to write up a lengthy post stating my opinion on this, but instead I think I will just go with: “What Stephen Colbert said…”
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Economist Photoshops Obama’s Picture | ||||
|
||||
Comments on this entry are closed.