What the hell...Pelosi's office photoshopped the House Dem women group photo?

[alp227]

At first I saw a post on the Washington Post facebook page with the two photos. My first impression was that they were from separate takes.

But then I saw a letter to the editor of my newspaper complaining about the photo. Did a quick search, found this mediaite article:

The four Congressmen missing from the shot arrived late and couldn’t stand with the group, so they were later Photoshopped in to make it look as though the entire Democratic female caucus was standing together. The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and the White House News Photographers Association (WHNPA) released a statement Saturday protesting the manipulation of the “official photograph.”

Pelosi defended the photo Friday, telling a news conference, “It was an accurate historical record of who the Democratic women of Congress are.” She described the “freezing cold” conditions of the shoot and explained that members who had been on time couldn’t wait any further. The photographers’ groups are taking issue with her comment, saying they make clear the “dangers” of doctoring photos.

The groups say “the issue of the use of government hand out photographs” is something that press have been concerned with “for sometime.” Altered photographs are not a “true representation of the moment,” they say, and are a “dangerous trend.” According to the WHNPA, elected officials are using these techniques more and more to “circumvent the watchful eye of the independent news media”:

I also found a Poynter article (I think Jim Romenesko is with Poynter) quoting its visual journalism editor comparing that photo to a right-wing smear photo "that made it look as if John Kerry and Jane Fonda appeared together at a Vietnam protest." Another poynter article explains further about the late arrivers (including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Gwen Moore).

Wow. At first I thought the Washington Post was making stuff up about the photoshopping. But now I've learned these new facts I think a list of members "not pictured" could have done better. This is one of those "gun permits map" moments Pelosi could do without in her political career.

[CherokeeDem]

1. I am at a loss

as to why this is a big deal. Four of the members were not present at the original photo shoot, so they took a separate picture and added them in. Pelosi said she wanted a photo with all of them.

This is much to do about nothing....did these groups raise this kind of ruckus when Romney's crowd was photo shopped...I think not.

[Renew Deal]

5. This is why

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/north-korea-restores-order-to-kim-funeral-with-photoshop/

[ZombieHorde]

14. Why is that bad? What am I mising? nt

[karynnj]

40. I agree and think there is a huge difference with the mentioned Kerry photo

Here, the final picture, though not a "real photo" is an accurate representation of what it said it was. I assume no one in the photo would object to the final picture.

The Kerry/Fonda picture, which continues to surface on the right, was done to distort John Kerry. There was nothing truthful about it - and it was the photographer who called the right out.

I wonder if the same objection would occur if some one who took a particularly bad shot were "replaced" by their face from another take. I would bet that happens too.

[BainsBane]

2. I don't understand the outrage

They added them in because they missed the photo session. It's not like they made the delegation look bigger than it actually is. Modern technology allows for a solution other than having to get them all together again.

[Deep13]

3. This is only a problem if one has an expectation of photographic accuracy.

Photography, like every visual medium, is only an approximation of reality and always has been. Reality is not 2-dimenstional or static. Photos often have unrealistic coloration or illumination. And reality has never been black and white, which for 100 years all photos were. The photographer selects the time for the photo, what to include, and what to leave out.

[NYC_SKP]

4. CALL CONGRESS AND GLENN BECK RIGHT FUCKING NOW111!!1!!11!!!

Ouch, I think I swallowed my uvula!

[cliffordu]

19. Cough it up, killer.

You still owe me fifty bucks.

I forgot for what, but I know you owe me.

[elleng]

6. Nancy discussed this.

NOT a BFD, nothing AT ALL, it was cold, and the others couldn't reasonably be asked to wait for the late-comers. The POINT is there is now a large contingent of Democratic women in the House.

[onehandle]

7. Just a PR photo. No big deal. nt

[RandiFan1290]

8. We should all be very concerned! This is Hugh!

[mykpart]

11. Seriesly!

[Blue_In_AK]

9. So what?

It accurately reflects the reality, if not the moment. I see this much differently than those photos that add people to crowds and so on.

It reminds me of a family portrait we did many years ago with my mom and dad, the kids and grandkids. My ex-husband and my ex-nephew-in-law were fishing or something and not available, so they went to the photographer later, had their head shots done and were integrated seamlessly into the final product. The finished photo reflected the reality of our family, not necessarily the moment.

[alp227]

16. I just am not comfortable with wholesale editing like you described.

Maybe to eliminate excessive lighting/darkness or distortion OK but not adding people who weren't there. Which is why the photojournalists' associations expressed concern.

[Mrs. Overall]

12. I hardly think you need to be concerned about Pelosi's political career because of this photo--

It's a PR photo that reflects the women who are currently serving in the House.

I'm sure there would be poutrage if certain House Reps weren't in the photo.

[geek_sabre]

33. democratic women nt

[CreekDog]

13. you can be troubled, but if this bothers you as much as the gun permits map, you're foolish

these are not all the same and when you equate them, then you have no judgement.

[Historic NY]

15. There not even the same photos....

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

different positions and postures of the people.

[RedCappedBandit]

17. Who gives a...

you know what, never mind.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Government circulating altered photographs.

Nothing at all.

Um, yeah.

[edbermac]

20. How about when Hillary was photoshopped out by an Israeli paper in the bin Laden raid photo?

I have a problem with editing out someone who was there and adding someone who wasn't there.

[MADem]

39. Those idiots are women-haters--they think any picture of a woman equals "sex!"

Notice they photoshopped out the woman standing in the back of the room to the right of the guy looking over the 'suit's' shoulder.

You can't fix stupid--but this example is a different situation entirely.

This was a photo of an ongoing news event, not a "class picture." There's a difference. No one posed for this shot--they were working.

[johnlucas]

22. Put up the REAL photo or don't put nothing up at all. Reality matters.

The posters on here treating this as no big deal have no problem with slamming Fox News when they try to alter reality.
Fox News preaches garbage & propaganda.
If we don't take photoshopped pictures presented as true pictures seriously, then stop all the protests against other types of propaganda.

This is not defendable.
I'm not cool with this.
Don't Play With Reality.

Nancy Pelosi F'd up trying to defend this bull.
All you do is give ammunition to the Republican Regressives that question every move made by Democrats.

We all were disgusted with Dubya's lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction a few years ago, right?
Tell the truth or just go home.

If it was too cold, take the picture inside.
No need to put out fake photos.
John Lucas

[jberryhill]

23. Hey - See THIS!

Totally fake image. Washington didn't even pose with the horse!

BFD

[Buzz Clik]

32. +1

[JI7]

24. really ? comparing to right winger photoshops meant to attack ?

the purpose of the pic was to show the congresswomen which it does. it was cold and they had work to do so it wasn't convenient to stand around there waiting for every single member to show up.

so they added in a few who weren't there .

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Any photoshopped pic should be footnoted as such

Including in the comments section inside the file. Else is a lie, and we already have enough pols doing that as it is.

[snot]

26. Agreed. The problem is,

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

who gets decide when photoshopping is harmless and/or done for the "right" reasons? And even if we could all agree on those questions in a particular instance today, we might change our minds later if other circumstances emerged; e.g., what if it turned out one of the people 'shopped in had murdered someone and was using the 'shopped photo as an alibi?

That may sound silly; but history is full of instances where things people "cleaned up" a historical record to eliminate things they considered irrelevant that we later determined to be extremely significant.

I have no problem with the photoshopping; but when it's done on an item likely to be used for news or historical purposes, I think it should be disclosed in the same "breath" with the photo so 'shopped; and full access should be provided to the original(s).

[MADem]

35. There is no "problem." You don't think, if those people had been murdered (absurd premise, but let

us run with it, nonetheless) that the police wouldn't take that pic and blow it up, first thing, to check for evidence of photoshopping?

The police know how to use computers too--it's not a secret thing that only nerds in basements know about!

This is not a "historical record"--it's a commemorative photo. It "commemorates" and "represents" the fact that women are finally getting to be a force in Congress. It's not a piece of legislation, it's not an action shot of some murderer raising a gun, it's a posed bit of business--like a school picture.

Shall we not allow legislators to touch up their official photos so they don't look quite so raddled, in the interests of accuracy? Shall we excoriate the official portrait-painters from the 1800s on for making their subjects look better than they actually did?

I mean, come on, get real. It does sound silly, because it IS. This isn't legislation--it's a snapshot that the Speaker has acknowledged is a "representation."

But hey, it's fodder for the "Waaaah-I hate Nancy Pelosi" Club, and the bulk of the whining I am reading about in the news is coming straight from wingnuts--which, in itself, is telling.

[snot]

44. I'm not saying there was any bad intent here, or that people should never touch up photos.

But I see no harm, and some potential good, in a general practice of noting when photoshopping has been done, at least in connection with a photos likely to be part of the historical record.

(Call it commemorative if you will; but the photo was presumably released for purposes of publication, i.e., "of record.&quot

[MADem]

45. It's like the old Seersucker Thursday Pics in the Senate.

The ones they don't do anymore--it's a class picture. It doesn't change law, or anything. It's more for the participants than anyone else.



The act of Pelosi acknowledging a rather obvious photoshop and the act of taking the picture were not quite contemporaneous, but there WAS a building full of constituents, family members, supporters, staff and other associated interested parties who were busy as a consequence of the swearing in ceremonies. It's not like people were sitting on their asses conspiring to cover up the obvious--it's that they were busy. They had other priorities.

The question was asked, and the question was answered. The only ones in the media carping and crying and making this out like it's the crime of the century are really grasping for something to whine about...IMO.

[handmade34]

27. a fine photo

no perceived deception, no attempt at deception, merely a matter of convenience that has been acknowledged by all... open and honest

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Whenever I want to know what the right wing blogs are outraged about today, I just look for alp227's

posts on DU!

That way, I don't give the right wing blogs hits!

[madamesilverspurs]

29. Pole vaulting over mouse turds.

Seriously.


-

[MADem]

36. I love that expression! +1000! nt

[Marr]

30. Those look like two different shots, taken moments apart.

There are differences in the stances of people all over the place.

[Buzz Clik]

31. Why is this a big deal? It's not even a small deal.

Photoshop is a very useful tool.

Who gives a damn if four of the women weren't present for the original?

[MADem]

34. She ACKNOWLEDGED that it was a "representation" and not an actual photo. Why are people up her ass

about this? She didn't try to pretend it was anything other than what it was.

It was freezing.

It was a BIG DAY.

The building was full of constituents and family to meet and greet.

They waited and waited, and the four latecomers didn't show.

This has nothing to do with Jane Fonda and John Kerry--that's a rightwing slant if I ever heard one. Those four women were SUPPOSED to be there. John Kerry wasn't SUPPOSED to be sitting near Jane Fonda. Logic/Argument FAIL.

Anyone who gets upset about this --and compares it to a "gun permit map" --needs to achieve a little perspective. At a MINIMUM. The entire poutrage argument is wingnutty.

Cough-horseshit-cough!

[Fla Dem]

37. With photoshop technology easy and available, many organizations do this for their group pictures.

Before in the the identifications under the picture it would jut say; Missing from picture; John Smith, Mabel Adams, etc. Now they can just add the missing members. I don't see a problem with this photo. It was freezing cold out, DW-S and the other 3 reps were delayed, so they took the picture with who was there. Later the 4 were added in. It's not like they didn't belong in the picture, they just weren't available when the original was shot. Much ado over nothing.

[SmileyRose]

38. They are OBVIOUSLY two different pictures.

WTF?

[datasuspect]

41. it's doubleplusgood propaganda, comrade

[LiberalFighter]

42. Screw the NPPA and WHNPA!

It isn't their photo. So they should all STFU.

The women added to the photo were there the same day just not at the same time. If people want 80 some women to wait around until they are all there while it is cold outside. I would suggest they look for their brain in a wastebasket. The only other option would be to leave the women who didn't show up at the original photo shoot not appear in the photo. People would be more interested now and in the future seeing a photo of all of the women instead of just some.

[Melinda]

43. >>>"The FOUR CONGRESSMEN missing from the shot arrived late"<<<

THAT Mediaite line is the only piece of offensiveness, period. Sweet JayZus, have these clowns no common sense? <<Rhetorical, btw.

Idjits.