AP suspends use of Army photos after digital alterations.
By on Nov 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
AP suspends use of Army photos after digital alterations.
The U.S. Army recently released a photograph of four-star Gen. Ann Dunwoody, showing her in front of an American flag. However, it has now been revealed that the picture was digitally altered. In the original photo, Dunwoody was sitting at a desk:
The Army insists that it broke no guidelines by altering the picture, but the Associated Press has a “zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image” and has suspended use of Defense Department photos. Last month, the Army also doctored photos of two soldiers who had died in Iraq on Sept. 14. In the two pictures, only the names, ranks, faces, and coloration changed:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Its unfortunate we can’t get the Associate Press to suspend the use of any photos containing the image of Bush or Cheney until after the inauguration in 60 long days.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pmNo wonder military spending is so high…I wonder how many copies of Photoshop they’ve bought!
November 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pmOh Gee!
The BushCo DoD is doctoring photos.I wonder what else they have been less than truthful about???
HMMMMMM
November 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pmLooks alot like the doctored picture of the fake Bin Laden. Time to go back to school as it’s not working. I noticed the fake tape released by the second in command Al Queada was dropped since the words sound more like a white american talking then a Middle Eastern person. Once I read the speaker on the tape didn’t know Dr. Kings name but new Malcolm X that was it for me. The World knows Dr. King so again we got punked.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pmI have two observations to make:
1. I doubt any mischief or fraud was intended by the Army — in both of these cases, I’m sure the photoshopping was done because there was no official file photo in the records for press purposes. It’s a pity AP couldn’t accept such a photo that was digitally altered with a disclaimer saying so — if the important content of the photo (in these cases, the person’s face) was not changed. However, if “zero tolerance” is the AP’s policy, it should be respected.
2. The military simply MUST do a better job of record keeping. In each BUPERS file, there should be an official photograph of that person to be used for press purposes in the event of that person’s death, promotion, or other newsworthy item. The photo is traditionally posed as a portrait shot in uniform in front of a flag (when I was a Navy photographer, I took a lot of pictures like this). When such photos have to be photoshopped, it’s a clear signal that record keeping is sloppy — and that no such picture existed for somebody with the rank of General (who would certainly be in the news more often than most) is inexcusable.
Furthermore, if the military is going to be digitally altering pictures, could they at least find somebody who’s good at it?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pmHey this is America. Everything should be in front of the good ol’ Red, White and Blue.
Except coffins.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pmOn the surface, this kind of digitally altered photographs appear to be only benign…
But IMO, that sets a very dangerous precedent. MissMolly, you have it exactly right.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pmThe Dept of Defense has a long history of disrespecting the purpose of the media. They feel that the media is there to repeat whatever propaganda or message the DoD has that they want the public to hear. If they are not going to release truthful information (including photos), then they should buy ad time on TV and spread their misinformation that way.
Trust is earned, and our DoD has demonstrated time and again that they cannot be trusted when it comes to releasing information.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:48 pmthey bo-toxed the general a little, dinney? smoothed her out, filled her in little…
cuz you know, us murkins we like our gen’ruls smooth…
November 21st, 2008 at 4:15 pmMissmolly sez: 1. I doubt any mischief or fraud was intended by the Army
Have you ever been in the military, missmolly? Dishonesty is the default mode. Never tell truth when you can spin, lie, or dissemble…mischief/fraus is ALWAYS foremost in the mind of the military…
loose lips and all that….
November 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pmNot trying to stir the pot, but I kind of assumed that the flag in the background was fake by the way its positioned!?!?!?!?!
November 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pmAs an honorably separated US Army veteran, I grow ever more embarrassed by the unprincipled behavior of many of its leadership at all levels.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pmI’ve spent twenty years of my life seeing how over zealous idiot junior officers can totally screw up anything. Don’t put too much credence into what’s going on here. The publicity will get a very few folks in serious trouble.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pmWhy are their flag patches backward?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pmboxboy Says:
Why are their flag patches backward?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
_______
So is the flag in the background. According to official flag protocol, in vertical display, the blue field must be on the left.
Sheesh, for $484 billion, you’d think the Pentagon could get some better Photoshoppers. There are a few dozen 15-year-olds on SomethingAwful who could do a better job than that.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pmBush/Cheney the era(error) of fake!
November 21st, 2008 at 5:05 pmMissHusseinMolly,
Couldn’t agree more. Digitally altering the photo is just plain dumb. Even if there were no official personnel file, they obviously had the picture of the lady sitting at the desk , which would have been perfectly good for a picture in the Times.
Even they had altered the file (and apparently they did), it just comes across as a brazen lie, because they could.
Not to mention, what bozo approved the photoshop with the very basic errors on flag placement noted above. The Army is usually rather touchy on the proper display of the flag.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:25 pmboxboy Says
November 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Why are their flag patches backward?
____________________________________________________________
That’s not an error — soldiers really wear them that way. The logic here is that the flags on the shoulders are positioned the way the flag would be if the soldier was carrying it into battle (and in a way, that’s exactly what he/she is doing).
The flag patches are always such that the blue field is in front. Which means that the flag on the left arm appears oriented the proper way, and the flag on the right arm appears backward.
Next time you see a soldier in uniform, take a look.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pmtokin librul Says
November 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Missmolly sez: 1. I doubt any mischief or fraud was intended by the Army
Have you ever been in the military, missmolly? Dishonesty is the default mode. Never tell truth when you can spin, lie, or dissemble…mischief/fraus is ALWAYS foremost in the mind of the military…
____________________________________________________________
As a matter of fact, I HAVE served in the military. I was a Navy photographer who served from 1973 to 1979.
I never witnessed dishonesty as being a “default” mode. Most of the people I served with had a genuine love for their country and wanted to do right by it. However, there was a lot of incompetence, a lot of sloppiness, and a lot of resultant butt-covering — the same kind of stuff you find in any incredibly large organization. The butt-covering was generally to disguise administrative sloppiness — not to advance a political agenda.
Which is why I’m guessing that these pictures were the result of sloppiness (somebody got behind in getting pictures taken) and butt-covering (when a picture was needed and not available, photoshopping was employed).
Dishonest? Technically, yes.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:47 pmNefarious? Hardly.
Mischief? Not intentionally.
Butt-covering? Yes.
Spinning an agenda? Not even close.
Just somebody take away their Photoshop licenses. Please. They’re the Army. They have no need for it whatsoever.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:42 pm>>>>>>>but the Associated Press has a “zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image” and has suspended use of Defense Department photos.
The AP should also have long ago adopted a “zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content” from the truth. Instead, they’ve shamelessly printed Bushist lies, as has the rest of the MSM.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 amSmells like Pravda indoctrination…
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 amFor the bottom set of photos. The photo on the right is real. The left-side photo has the head, collar, pendant, and name tag changed.
The light source for the left side photo is front and center (on the head) but the shadow is from the light source of the left side picture and leaves the ear of the left guy shadowed (on his left) on to the photo. The light elements on the right work properly.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:35 am