This is what you call "a knee jerk reaction" even though I agree that the images were not altered in a way to change the story, they have to be that way or things will go too far, once you alter a photo a little and it's OK, then the next day you do it a little more, after a while it could get way out of hand.

Hmm this is a double edged sword of sorts...

Now if you are inclined to resign for touching up one photo i guess we should sack all the makeup artists and editors eh... i mean man special effects artists have to go aswell.. or perhaps those pesky lieing poloticians who chop words like we chop pictures...


basicallly anyway you look at it.. its his own damn fault for resigning... or accepting aa forced resignation...

either way this has set somwhat of a presedent.

i wonder if they will cancel east-enders because the characters are fictional... oh and all those special effects on the news aswell.. and different fonts cos conveying a message in any kind of way other than direct in order to sell more papers is deception...

and thats how i see that going to far...

There was this guy who got fired by a paper, and all he did was increased the red in his picture, that was kinda dull and greyish.

Can I presume that this will mean an end to all that airbrushing of models who happen to have been having an "off day". We get to see them "warts and all".
Yeeeeuch! Keep the airbrushing!!!!!

chop or not?

pretty clear that it is real, splodge, no mistake about that. And f it is chopped, then the guy must be a photoshop-genius..

You know I find this kinda funny, you all have good points but at the end of the day, ya not gunna know if what the paper prints is true or not, real or chopped. There are so many famous stories and photos in most cultures history to prove that point.

I do work for a newspaper and we will fit stories to suit the image, play with the words, use a photo that shows the person in a different light. There is no reason to beleive that any image you see in your paper has not been chopped, editorial has the right to manipulate any image submitted by a press photographer that features in a publication as long as it has the copy rights..just like we can with our own images. Is that wrong has any laws been broken...no not really.

This is not the only trick newspapers use, nothing beats a good photo of a politition with a good story, small print...and you add a headline of a different story over the top or just under, in big print...ie..."RAPIST RELEASED cont on page3"

Most people see the front page, with picture and headline...we do it all the time, makes ya buy the paper. Is that not just as wrong as changing images?
Think about it, now you are never gunna trust what ya read or see again are ya.

If it isn't a chop then the bomb makers have been very creative at making the plumes look like puppy dogs.