For many, seeing isn't believing

 

Victor Garcia of Bakersfield was among several readers asking about the July 22 photo published online only with a Business article about the booming economy in the high desert city of Ridgecrest. He wondered if the image had been altered, noting “I don't think you can see the road with all the houses at the top of  the photo. (College Heights Blvd.) from Las Flores, the light signal next to the Toyota dealership (the Toyota dealership is actually further south)  There is an Enterprise Rent-A-Car and a Speedy Lube at the corner of Las Flores and China Lake Blvd. It could just be the way the photo was taken, but it may be worth looking into.”

All such inquiries are worth looking into, and editors did so in this case. It was taken with a long lens, which, as photographer Mark Boster said in an e-mail to the reader, "compresses the view."

This inquiry is one of a growing number of questions that come in about the authenticity of published photos. Other images questioned this year include one of actress Anne Hathaway (someone thought she was too unrealistically ugly) and a picture of a member of the Taliban (readers thought he looked too nice).

One particularly adamant questioning of another photograph published earlier this year came from an online reader who said she teaches Photoshop at a continuing education department of a university in another state. Even after being assured by editors who investigated the original digital files, the reader was unconvinced that the image hadn't been manipulated.

In fact, in all such situations, editors peruse the originals and talk to the photographer to be able to assure readers the photos weren't doctored. Photographer Boster sent editors his original files, notes on where he took the shots -- and even an offer to go back to Ridgecrest to review the area. But this inquiry was a fairly open-and-shut case, says Deputy Director of Photography Calvin Hom, who added: "We seem to get queries whenever our photogs use long lens while shooting landscape. It's a technique that time and again seems to jolt the readers into thinking there's something wrong with the photos."

Clinton photo: 'Disrespectful' or 'a telling gesture'?

Reader J.C. Devin of Malibu sent a note of complaint regarding the image that accompanied a June 6 story about a couple who, federal authorities say, conspired for decades to provide classified information to the Cuban government.

The photo of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ran four columns over the 23-inch story and was at the very least, said Devin, "disrespectful."

Wrote Devin: "All those hours of research, fact checking and efforts at journalistic balance were lost when the individual who chose the uncomplimentary [Associated Press] photo of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to accompany your words blew it. The photo, capturing Secretary Clinton in an awkward moment at the news conference, did little to enhance your article or communicate any journalistic integrity of the L.A. Times. The Times' pride in its professionalism should ensure photo choices that support the content of an article and that don't come off as disrespectful."

The caption said, "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, shown at a news conference in Washington, has ordered an internal investigation, a 'comprehensive damage assessment' and a review of State Department security procedures."

Photo editors respond.

Reaction to the front-page ad [Updated]

Updated, 11 a.m. Friday: The number of e-mails received on the subject has exceeded 80.

------------------------------

More than 30 e-mails have been received in reaction to the front-page advertisement -- written as if it were  a news story -- in  today's  Los Angeles Times. The word "advertisement" appeared under the NBC logo, but readers wrote angry  notes. In addition to e-mails, some two dozen readers have called with similar sentiments.  Here are some excerpts:

Are you kidding me? When will those who run our paper stop insulting their readers' intelligence and our commitment to its survival? Seeing that front page ad was not shocking. If you want to sell advertising on the front page -- great, do it! But trying to spin it as a story? Where are the journalistic standards?

This paper has slowly withered in size and might and insight. Great columnists are gone and the ones remaining write their columns with such fear of their own futures that I feel such empathy.

Clearly "out of the box" thinking is important to the survival of the newspaper, but creative thinking that does not harm the paper's reputation. Unfortunately, I think this ship sailed a while back.

One step closer to canceling the subscription ... and there aren't many steps left.

What a way to alienate those few remaining loyalists.

Joey Shanley

- - - - - -

The ongoing deterioration of a once-great newspaper reached a new low this morning. Unbelievable!

Peter F. McAndrews
Santa Monica

- - - - - -

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the Times' front page on Thursday, April 9. There must have been nearly 20% of the front page dedicated to advertising! It is sad to see a fine newspaper stoop to such lows, and I hope this doesn't continue.

David Holmes
Buena Park

- - - - - -

I am completely outraged that the L.A. Times, formerly one of the premier newspapers of the world, would finally be brought down so low as to accept advertising on a significant portion of its front page. I hope the Tribune Co. got a ton of money for this vile  and image-destroying move -- they will need it as the Times loses still more circulation. I am not going to continue my subscription, as there appears to be less and less room for information, and more  and more for infomercials.

Suzanne Schechter
Oxnard   

- - - - - -

Today's issue shows just how low the L.A. Times has sunk!  A very amateurish appearing ad on the front page!  The Times has proven itself to no longer be a newspaper but a shill for whatever company pays the most. I might as well switch my subscription to the Daily News.

R. L. Giannangeli
North Hollywood
   

- - - - - -

Every time I think this paper can't get any worse, I'm unpleasantly surprised. The massive ad taking up valuable column space on the front page of Thursday's paper has finally convinced me to cancel my subscription. The L.A. Times has gotten so pathetic, I'm forced to get my news elsewhere.

Elizabeth Babor
La Crescenta

- - - - - -

I was born and raised in Los Angeles. I literally learned to read my first words from your paper.  But the great glory days are gone. It was one thing to have ads on the bottom of the front page, which are now larger than the actual headlines. But to show a faux news item ...

Eyewitnesses and experts in recent plane crash stories

A plane crash is news. What people have to say about the crash is part of the story. But whose perspectives actually add enough to warrant publication? Two recent airplane accidents have brought these questions from readers. One story quoted an unnamed person with experience in the field; one quoted and named an eyewitness with no apparent background in aviation.

Mike Holmstrom of San Jose took note of one passage in one of the first-day news stories on the US Airways crash-gliding in New York's Hudson River. Toward the end, the article said:

One longtime commercial pilot who has spent years as a company flight instructor warned that before dubbing Sullenberger a hero, investigators needed to determine whether crew error contributed to the emergency.

The pilot, who did not want to be named, was skeptical that bird strikes shut down both engines.

"I've seen it happen too many times in the simulators -- you get a flameout in one engine and the quick response is to shut down the wrong one," the pilot said."

After the National Transportation Safety Board said that both engines had indeed simultaneously lost power, Holmstrom wrote, "Do us all a favor, and tell the staff of The Times not to speculate so early into an investigation. What were the writers thinking? I wish The Times would come forward & say they blew it by doubting the pilot in this incident."

A December article covering the crash in San Diego of a military jet included this passage:

"It was mushing through the air," Kreischer said. "It was chugging along with what seemed like one engine. Then I heard a roar of engine and all of a sudden, whoop, dead silence.

"This guy could have turned it around and put it in the ocean. He was never going to make it to Miramar."

At the time the story appeared, Christopher Chinman in San Diego objected:

When should crime victims' names be published?

"R&B star Rihanna is cooperating with investigators building a domestic violence case against her boyfriend, the singer Chris Brown, a police source said Monday," is the opening line in a news story published Tuesday, but it was a story a day earlier that brought questions and, in a few cases, condemnation of The Times.

The issue: Whether The Times should have published Rihanna's name as the accuser in that first-day news story.

As a post on this journal a year ago noted, the consideration on whether to withhold names is usually reserved for cases involving allegations of rape. (From the L.A. Times stylebook: "The Times does not name rape victims in most cases. Any exception to this standard, for whatever reason, must be approved by the editor, the managing editor, the associate editor or the senior editor.")

But the story unfolding over the weekend involved accusations of domestic violence.

Danny Shea, media editor at HuffingtonPost, wrote on his blog, "The Los Angeles Times decided to run Rihanna's name — despite the LAPD's refusal to confirm her identity, citing state laws meant to protect abuse victims' privacy."

A few others who sent e-mails thought that news organizations have a rule to omit victims' names in certain crime stories. Reader Adrienne Archer thought identifying Rihanna was "sleazy": "If Mr. Brown did these things he should be punished but if his girlfriend was his victim (which the LAPD did not confirm) she should not be. But you have done just that."

Kay Hagan of Santa Fe wrote, "You could not have known for certain that Chris Brown's assault victim had not been sexually violated as well as beaten up, since the police were withholding her name."

To the several individuals who have written, California Editor David Lauter has responded with the following note.

'Battlestar Galactica' a shock to some readers

Fans of "Battlestar Galactica" were angry about Saturday's story in Calendar, and if you haven't seen the show that aired Friday, do not read the second half of this post. Here was one of the more civil comments: "If you had half a brain (which it is clear you do not), you would have had some sort of spoiler alert in the headline and no photo.  Seriously people, get a clue."

Also among the less-insulting notes was this: "On the front page of your Saturday edition Calendar section, you published a major spoiler about the episode of 'Battlestar Galactica' that aired the night before. I had not had an opportunity to view the show yet, and had been trying to avoid learning any secrets about the show until I did so. The article had no spoiler warning, and included a photograph that ensured that even a casual glance would give the secret away. I am a long-time Times subscriber and do not read your paper to have my enjoyment of TV shows ruined. This was an incredibly stupid and inconsiderate thing to do."

Seriously, if you don't want to know, please don't read on.

Readers have questions about columnist's return*

As evidenced by the comments that have come in on last week's announcement that Michael Hiltzik would again be writing a column for The Times, some readers recall that the paper chose to take away Hiltzik's column in 2006, and wonder why management changed its mind. The essence of the response from editors: Hiltzik has redeemed himself.

Russ Stanton, now editor of The Times, was Business editor when Hiltzik's popular column for the Business section was discontinued. As the editor's note published at the time said, Hiltzik had been found to be violating The Times' ethics guidelines by using pseudonyms to post comments on the Web that dealt with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.

Readers were also told in the 2006 editor's note, "Mike did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web."

Since his column was pulled in 2006, writes Stanton, Hiltzik "has been an invaluable asset to the paper. He has earned the right to return as a columnist." In those two years, more than 35 news articles written by Hiltzik have been published on the front page. Stanton says editors believe that what readers can learn from Hiltzik the columnist will be as trustworthy as what he's delivered in his news reports.

*Update - A reader asks in a comment below: "Yes, but he will still be able to do stories?" Says Business Editor Sallie Hofmeister: Yes he will, although with two columns a week, he will have less time to write stories. 

For one reader, a recipe for questions

Thomas Wall of Rancho Palos Verdes wrote, "I did not think I would ever write to complain about the contents of an article by S. Irene Virbila concerning how to make a turkey pot pie, but my ethics require me to do so. I am referring to her otherwise excellent article [Nov. 26].  Her writing has compelled me to try the recipe. My concern, however, is very serious. She writes, 'This year, Ralphs had turkeys on sale for 37 cents a pound...'."

"She could have easily written, 'This year, turkeys were on sale at some stores for as low as 37 cents a pound.' I am concerned that the reason Ms. Virbila identified a particular store was that the store was a major advertiser with The Times. It is no secret that The Times, like other newspapers, are having severe economic problems, but to identify their major advertisers in major stories is something that even a small local paper would, I hope, have the ethics not to do."

Food Editor Russ Parsons assures us that the inclusion of that reference  had nothing to do with pleasing an advertiser. But it never occurred to the editor or reporter that including such  information might come across to readers as a sign of complicity between the newsroom and the advertising department. 

Proposition 8: We get e-mails...

Readers have homed in on three facets of coverage when it comes to Proposition 8:

• Before the election there was an ad that popped out, literally, at latimes.com readers as they perused the editorial board's stands online.
• Just after the election there were complaints that the newsroom called the vote too soon, and wasn't giving adequate coverage to those who were protesting the results of the vote.
• In the days since have come complaints that the coverage is trying to make Yes on 8 voters look bad.

Obama, the videotape and informing the public

Earlier this month, six months after the original story was published about Barack Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews, people started calling and sending e-mails to the L.A. Times urging the paper to "release the video." A few notes became a flood of more than 15,000 e-mails by Wednesday morning calling the paper un-American, partisan and worse after Sen. John McCain's campaign accused The Times of "suppressing" a videotape.

The e-mails to The Times included links to an Oct. 25 blog post that said The Times was "hiding incriminating" information. 

Most who called and e-mailed seemed not to have even read The Times' April news article that had brought the event in question to light, headlined "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama: They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel." The front-page piece when it was published drew some criticism from the left. But that reaction has been dwarfed by the number of page views and responses the story has drawn over the past five days. The article examined presidential candidate Obama's view of Middle East politics. It included a description of a gathering held in Chicago by local Arab Americans for Rashid Khalidi, described in the story as "an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights." The story also said, "The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times."

The Times itself addressed the criticisms in a news story published Wednesday. In it, Editor Russ Stanton said, "The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it. The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Many responses were similar to that of Erich R. Bleiweiss, from Burlington, N.J.,  who said in an e-mail: "Please do not insult me by stating that the L.A. Times is protecting a source. This would only be a matter of convenience on the part of the L.A. Times and nothing more."

Those bombarding the paper saw it as if the issues were diametrically opposed -- "informing the public" vs. "protecting a source." The nuances of the issue were highlighted even more in Thursday's news story in The Times, when various journalists added to the conversation about the principle of how journalists work with sources.

The editor of the April story, Aaron Zitner, who works in The Times' Washington, D.C., bureau, noted that the paper would have preferred to be able to post the video but could not get the source to agree. Zitner said, "If we had not reached this agreement, we would not have had access to this tape at all. Then no one would ever have known Obama attended this event and spoke at it. We were pushing to say the most we could and to present the most we could to readers about what happened."

Thursday's article also quotes Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "The calculus a reporter is making is: 'What is the public good of getting the information, and does it outweigh the limitations that the source wants me to put on the information?' In this case, knowing about this event and being able to describe it to readers seems like a pretty good trade-off for not being able to release the video."

Support for The Times' sticking to its journalistic priniciples came in a post from Bill Sammon, the deputy managing editor of Fox News Channel's Washington bureau. Saying that the choice was "pretty simple," Sammon wrote of The Times and the reporter on the April story, "Indeed, [Peter] Wallsten has little choice in the matter. If he were to cave in to mounting public demands for the tape, no self-respecting source would ever give him another shred of information. Nor should they."

Others had started weighing in earlier in the week.

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz clarified the issue in a blog entry Wednesday on the Huffington Post: "A simplistic view of freedom of speech would favor full and timely disclosure of all relevant information regardless of any promises made to a source. The more complex view of freedom of speech holds that unless newspapers keep their promises (and unless the law allows them to keep their promises) there will be less not more information available to the public."