A journalist is supposed to tell the unbiased truth, whether it be in writing or in a photo. We, the readers, have come to rely on journalists to present to us the truth through hard hitting articles or through photos. To learn that someone has altered a photo to make it seem more tragic makes me think: How often have journalists "altered" the truth? I personally think that it is wrong for someone to alter something, whether it be the facts of a story or a picture, because it is expected that what a journalist presents to use will be the truth, and nothing but. In photojournalism I think it is inappropriate to change a picture which in turn changes the vibe or general feel of a picture. By manipulating a picture like Reuters did, I think that it is altering the truth. They made an already dire situation even more urgent, serious and tragic. By altering a picture like Reuters did, it can blow a situation out of proportion making people angrier. It’s like if someone was shot one time in the foot and in the newspaper the published “Last night a man was jumped, attacked and shot multiple times all over the body.” However, I think in some cases it is acceptable to alter a picture. For example, if a picture needs to be sharpened or brightened to be more presentable or attractive then by all means go for it! Just DON’T change it COMPLETELY!



No one will ever really know why the photographer changed the photo in such a dramatic way but one can still speculate and create theories of their own. I think that photographer altered the photo to attract more attention. There are probably dozens of photographers in the same places taking approximately the same pictures as this photographer. So in order to sell his photograph to the press he would have to make his stick out thus alter it and manipulate it. I think in some cases, a person might alter a picture in order to sell more papers or make a larger impact, after all people love watching or reading about other people in pain. Schadenfreude (German word meaning “pleasure taken from someone else's misfortune”). No matter the reason I still think it is immoral for a person to change a picture so drastically.


Reuters is an international news provider and with something like this on record it seriously tarnishes their reputation. When people read or look at Reuters picture they will constantly question wheteher or not what they are being shown or told is the truth or the unaltered truth. Having a blogger uncover this story must be an incredibly humbling and shameful experience for Reuters. To have someone that is not in the industry discover something so simple. It is soo easy to just use the original picture instead of using an altered picture and risk being discovered and in the end discredited. I personally look at mainstream media differently now and wonder how much of what they tell us has been altered. However I still rely on them for pretty much all my information. One incident does not necessarily mean that every other newspaper or has done the same thing.

Help others and get a warm fuzzy feeling when you buy a new red I-Pod or a pair of red Converse shoes or when applying for a nice new shiny red American Express Credit Card. At least this is what GAP, Motorola, American Express, Giorgio Armani, Converse, and Apple have been telling us since the launch of their “RED” branded products. The hope is that the profits from (Product) Red will generate a “sustainable” flow of money to help support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. (RED) is a new idea that was launched alongside the increasingly popular ONE Campaign to Make Poverty History. ONE aims at a long term plan of influencing government and changing policy. (RED), on the other hand is more about the customer’s instant gratification when they purchase a (RED) Product. When a person buys a (RED) Product from one of the participating manufacturers, 50% of the profits will go towards purchasing AIDS drugs for mothers and children in Africa. I know you are probably thinking: 50%! Wow, that’s a lot of money! An I-Pod costs $199 (U.S.) meaning about $100 is donated towards fighting AIDS. That’s great, right? Not exactly. What they fail to mention is that after all the expenses only $10 of $199 is donated, only 5% of the original price.

(Product) Red is the brain child of Bono, the U2 front man, and Bobby Shriver a member of the Kennedy Clan. These two individuals have created a manifesto, a huge fad that taps into the wallets of First World Consumers. (RED) just like the Breast Cancer Think Pink program, draws consumers to a particular product manufacturer and let’s face it these companies benefit greatly from this campaign. However, it has been predicted that (RED) will probably be more successful than Think Pink, since it comes blessed with the Bono stamp of approval and the ever growing cult of high profile Hollywood celebrities lending their faces and voices to the cause. You’ve got stars like Penelope Cruz, Chris Rock, Mary J. Blige, Dakota Fanning, and Steven Speilberg plastered on giant billboards endorsing (RED) paraphernalia. Now Oprah has also jumped on the bandwagon bringing even more publicity to the cause.

The main purpose of (Product) Red is to produce a “sustainable” flow of money to help support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. What happens after the (Product) Red campaign ends? How is it providing a “sustainable” flow of money when there is no money coming in after the campaign is over? You cannot really call it a “sustainable” flow of money when “flow” will stop. In a way, you could say the (Product) Red is bringing more attention to the AIDS epidemic as well as raising money to acquire AIDS drugs for the suffering in Africa. Of course, there is also the hope that once we realize that this is more than just a cause but “an emergency”, as Bono puts it, then we will continue to give money to provide the mothers and children with accessibility to obtain the AIDS drugs. However, how many of us will continue to give money after the campaign is done? Which organisation will continue the work of the (Product) Red campaign?

Bono and Bobby Shriver were smart enough to use on one thing to bring attention to this campaign, First World Consumerism. Why is it that, we who are living in the First World, cannot seem to pay attention or give the time of day to campaigns like these unless there is some sort of toy and price tag attached to it? Why must we buy something in order to give money to charity? The first reason is that knowing that part of the money goes towards charity making you feel good about yourself because you just did a “good deed” and helped our society by buying this new item. The second reason is the instant gratification and euphoria you get when you buy something new and have something new to show off to your friends. First World Consumerism, which needs and wants to always have something new, to have the hot new item, to be the first on the block to get that new electronic gadget or fad.

For manufacturers and corporations supporting and joining the campaign, it is a win-win situation. The corporations get what Bobby Shriver calls the “halo effect”. By giving up a percentage of proceeds to the cause, the company’s products are more appealing, due to their “charitable” nature, in the eyes of the consumers, enticing them to buy more products. In addition, the companies increase their revenue by selling more of their merchandise. In the end the companies are benefiting a lot more by associating their products with Bono’s name and his project than the Global fund is benefiting from the companies.

Most consumers are buying these products because their favourite stars are buying and supporting them. Sure, these people are buying shoes, cellphones and I-Pods to help people but do they really know where the money is going? The companies fail to educate their consumers beyond the fact that the money goes towards AIDS because they are too busy counting their profits. Most people are unaware that 5,500 Africans die every day because of AIDS and that with just two of these AIDS pills a day could bring someone who is at death’s door back to “full health”.

Stephen Lewis, the UN special envoy on HIV/AIDS in Africa believes that any person that can afford to buy a red I-Pod Nano could probably afford to donate same amount to the Stephen Lewis foundation instead. However, when you donate money to the Stephen Lewis Foundation you won’t get a new toy to play with. The Stephen Lewis Foundation, in actuality, will provide a more sustainable flow of money for HIV/AIDS. The Foundation is a long term foundation that allots money to certain areas towards fighting AIDS to ensure that it will be a long lasting flow. While (RED), on the other hand, is only a program that is running for a short period of time. Will these people who are buying the (Product) Red products continue to give money to help support other AIDS research and campaigns? Most people just buy the products because they just want to and not for any particular reason. While others buy them because they know that the money is going towards AIDS. Will these people continue to help fight AIDS after the campaign is done and there are no more toys to give them instant gratification? And what about the “best and brightest of corporate America”? I have to wonder how much the companies themselves are contributing to the project. How about instead of selling us something in order to do something charitable, you encourage people to just donate money, without getting something in return.