BCT Editorial – 9/6/06

This page was last updated on September 6, 2006.

Unreal; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 6, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Katie Couric’s sudden weight loss is not something to be sloughed off, as a top CBS executive did last week.

“The weight of the new CBS-TV news anchor became an issue after it was discovered that someone in the network photo department had doctored an official picture of Couric to make her look about 20 pounds lighter.

“It wasn’t done at Couric’s behest. Someone took it upon himself or herself to phony up the picture, probably because he/she thought it looked better.

“Never mind that it didn’t reflect reality. What mattered was that it looked good.

“Unfortunately, this deception had no consequences. Basically, the department got a good talking to.

“This problem extends beyond CBS. It’s running rampant on the Internet, where there are no controls.”

[RWC] “Running rampant on the Internet?” Dude, check out The New York Times, Reuters, and U.S. News and World Report. See more about this below.

While not a doctored photo, what “controls” resulted in the Times headline “12 alive – only 1 trapped miner doesn’t survive ordeal?”

“Digital technology makes it possible to doctor photographs and other documents on a scale and to a degree of sophistication that makes its virtually impossible to distinguish between real life and surreal life.

“That’s why CBS should not have been so casual about the photograph. It’s a matter of right and wrong on many levels.

“If this keeps up, seeing won’t be believing.”

[RWC] While the editorial went after the nebulous “Internet … where there are no controls,” did you notice whom the editorial ignored?

As a reminder, those bad boys “on the Internet … where there are no controls” uncovered doctored and/or staged photos used by The New York Times, Reuters, and U.S. News and World Report in their coverage of the recent war in Lebanon. The photos were doctored and/or staged to make Israel counterattacks against Hezbollah look worse then they were. So much fraud was uncovered this practice was named “fauxtography.” Reuters fired its offending photographer and rescinded all of his photos.

A search of editorials on the Times web site found no mention of the fauxtography in Lebanon. Does anyone want to guess why the Times didn’t have a problem with fauxtography in Lebanon, but felt a need to comment on the doctored photo of a TV personality?

Let’s also remember it was people on the Internet who first uncovered Rathergate.

I find it interesting the Times attacks those who are uncovering fraud, while ignoring those committing the fraud.