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.