| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/07/2004 03:20:42 PM · #1 |
This is really disturbing and disgusting that a photographer would do something like that...
//magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature4/special.html
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:24:07 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:30:48 PM · #3 |
I find it highly suspicious that with the HIGH volume of accurate and credible stories which get cut from each issue, that they would publish a story which they weren't able to confirm.
Sounds like they knew about it and got busted by the readers and are now setting up the photographer to take the fall.
Politics my friends. I may be wrong, but it's definetly an option.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:32:42 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I find it highly suspicious that with the HIGH volume of accurate and credible stories which get cut from each issue, that they would publish a story which they weren't able to confirm.
Sounds like they knew about it and got busted by the readers and are now setting up the photographer to take the fall.
Politics my friends. I may be wrong, but it's definetly an option. |
Quite possible, but I think the Editor needs to take the blame too. However this does NOT in any way exonerate the photographer for lying.
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 15:33:45.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:40:51 PM · #5 |
I think if they were aware of the fake photo and wanted to publish the story anyway, they would have removed to numbers. After all, if they were going to lose their integrity, it would be better to do it in house than before the whole world. It would have been such an easy thing to do. Blame the photographer for being dishonest and not fessing up when he was questioned before the story was published.
It's a shame they didn't catch it. Sorta lowers the overall respect for the magazine. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:42:08 PM · #6 |
It is a shame.
I hope this isn't thread hijacking, but it's also interesting and raises a question in my mind. Many companies (people) distinguish themselves by how they conduct themselves in the face of adversity. Sometimes adversity brings out the best in people and companies. Sometimes not.
It seems to me that National Geographic is taking the "High Road" in the matter and attempting to behave with integrity. Given that the incident has already happened, it seems to me they are trying to be open, forthright and correct the root cause of the incident. But that's just my opinion.
Setting aside the lamentable photographic incident itself: Do you think more or less highly of National Gepgraphic based solely on how they are handeling it? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:43:33 PM · #7 |
Very sad, indeed.
I agree, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt as it would have been silly for the editors to allow the photo with the numbers visible...
Also, I can't see the numbers on the tusks...where are they? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:44:26 PM · #8 |
| Babu(to Jerry Seinfeld): "You bad man! You very very bad man!" |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:45:50 PM · #9 |
I feel about the same - they're human, they've made a mistake, they're admitting to it, apologizing, and seemingly learning from it. It's what I would expect of any institution that values integrity.
edited to fix poor spelling
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 15:52:57.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:47:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Very sad, indeed.
I agree, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt as it would have been silly for the editors to allow the photo with the numbers visible...
Also, I can't see the numbers on the tusks...where are they? |
You can't see it on the web photo but you can see it quite well on the magazine photo itself.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:50:54 PM · #11 |
I like the way National Geographic responded. They could have just said .. well there were no tusks but that doesn't really prove anything - these people did intend to kill the animals for their tusks. A bit like how the world works today.
But they have said we're wrong and you are right. I see that as a huge positive step. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:54:46 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
It is a shame.
Setting aside the lamentable photographic incident itself: Do you think more or less highly of National Gepgraphic based solely on how they are handeling it? |
I think that it's amazing how often this has happened recently. The NY Times, Fox, and other news agencies have come upon these types of abuses in amazing proximity to one another. I wonder if journalists are becoming less ethical or news agencies are becoming more stringent?
I don't think one shady photographer can make much of a dent in the long-standing reputation of NG, just as the NY Times still stands as a strong institution despite the behavior of some staff members. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:59:38 PM · #13 |
| I think they did the right thing. Consider the number of people that might not see the apology and have lost their faith in the quality of reporting in the magazine. It might stop someone else from doing that in the future and that is good but as far as their credibility goes, well, often one mistake can lose a lot of readership. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:59:42 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by xion:
I like the way National Geographic responded. They could have just said .. well there were no tusks but that doesn't really prove anything - these people did intend to kill the animals for their tusks. A bit like how the world works today.
But they have said we're wrong and you are right. I see that as a huge positive step. |
Almost like the Wildlife challenge and the zoo. Don't ask, don't tell...
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 04:26:32 PM · #15 |
I'm a cynic, I always have a feeling in my gut that companies are up to no good and that 'integrity' is just a faint veil of cover for them to use to their advantage: to sell.
I don't trust corporations, big or small. And I don't believe that any company, if you dig, has integrity. Especially not National Geographic once they did a story on my home town area. It was so ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 07:06:10 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I find it highly suspicious that with the HIGH volume of accurate and credible stories which get cut from each issue, that they would publish a story which they weren't able to confirm.
|
It does happen. Not every journalist has high ethics. And the pressure to make deadline will inspire people to do foolish things. NG has a rep for hiring excellent pjs. So there is a level of trust there. Every few years a story or image sneaks through the cracks.
No X-File here. :)
Clara |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 09:27:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I'm a cynic, I always have a feeling in my gut that companies are up to no good and that 'integrity' is just a faint veil of cover for them to use to their advantage: to sell.
I don't trust corporations, big or small. And I don't believe that any company, if you dig, has integrity. Especially not National Geographic once they did a story on my home town area. It was so ridiculous. |
No disagreement here - you're definitely a cynic... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 12:19:07 PM EDT.
