The economic downturn - in pictures

[Kaneman]

I didn't think the pictures were anything special. I wish the Times would pay me to go out and photograph some unfinished houses. Easy money.
________
Video reviews

[unknownroad]

There were only a couple that looked unusual, the first one and one of the casino project pictures. Very strange lighting effects.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I don't see why. They apparently pulled the shots based on the possibility that they had been "digitally altered" when they were called into question. They paid a photographer for a photo essay and if he created the images rather than taking them, then it's on him.

At this point we still don't know why they were taken down anyway.

The editors charged with verifying content seem to have little interest in actually verifying content. Between Jayson Blair, the alleged McCain/Iseman affair, and this apparent incident the Times appears to be willing to publish stories with insufficient verification.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

The editors charged with verifying content seem to have little interest in actually verifying content. Between Jayson Blair, the alleged McCain/Iseman affair, and this apparent incident the Times appears to be willing to publish stories with insufficient verification.

This isn't a story, it's a photo essay. A fluff piece. When you pay someone to do a specific job, you expect them to do that specific job.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

This isn't a story, it's a photo essay. A fluff piece. When you pay someone to do a specific job, you expect them to do that specific job.

For someone as in to photography as you are I'm surprised to hear you marginalize the impact of the medium. I have read about the depression and understand how it affected people, but emotionally the more powerful message for me is delivered through photographs from that period. To dismiss this as a "fluff piece" is, in my opinion, naive.

A newspaper is ultimately responsible for what it publishes. That is why they have editors who are supposed to verify and vet stories before they are published. The Times has seemed in recent years willing to abdicate this responsibility to their readers in favor of mopping up incorrect stories after publication.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

For someone as in to photography as you are I'm surprised to hear you marginalize the impact of the medium. I have read about the depression and understand how it affected people, but emotionally the more powerful message for me is delivered through photographs from that period. To dismiss this as a "fluff piece" is, in my opinion, naive.

A newspaper is ultimately responsible for what it publishes. That is why they have editors who are supposed to verify and vet stories before they are published. The Times has seemed in recent years willing to abdicate this responsibility to their readers in favor of mopping up incorrect stories after publication.

Was it news? No. Therefore it was a fluff piece to them.

[Papa_Complex]

I found some information about why the shots were taken down. Yes, they were doctored:

http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruin...ond-Gilded-Age

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Was it news? No. Therefore it was a fluff piece to them.

I agree they don't view it as news. My belief is they view it as photojournalism recording history. This is what Life magazine used to do. They presented minimal narration and told the story through photographs.

I think it was anything but fluff. Just because it isn't what you consider "news" doesn't automatically make it "fluff".

[Particle Man]

Editors' Note: July 8, 2009

A picture essay in The Times Magazine on Sunday and an expanded slide show on NYTimes.com entitled "Ruins of the Second Gilded Age" showed large housing construction projects across the United States that came to a halt, often half-finished, when the housing market collapsed. The introduction said that the photographer, a freelancer based in Bedford, England, "creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation."

A reader, however, discovered on close examination that one of the pictures was digitally altered, apparently for aesthetic reasons. Editors later confronted the photographer and determined that most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show. Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay, which has been removed from NYTimes.com.

ruh roh

[Kaneman]

I still don't see what was so special about the pics...they didn't strike me as special at all. They were simply average pics at best.
________
Body science