Let me just say that I love the Daily Illini. I depend on reading it in class, to catch up on campus events and maybe even around the world if I'm lucky. However, there are times when I read something that I have to do a double take. As we have seen in JOUR 420 lab, words in headlines are sometimes misspelled, and typos are present. This is not to say that any newspaper is perfect. I think the reporters and photographers do a great job in bringing information to the public. One story, however, will always stick out in my mind.
At the beginning of last semester, as students were arriving back to campus, a story was written on Lincoln Hall's renovations. The article was great and very informative. But the picture really confused me. It was a picture of the two main doors of Lincoln Hall with a piece of notebook paper that had "Closed for the year," or someting of that sort, written in black marker. Walking to class one day, I had seen this and thought it was strange. I assumed a sign like that would be more authentic looking. After seeing the picture again in the D.I., I thought the same thing, but didn't pay much attention to it.
One day, in my JOUR 250 class - Ethics and Diversity - we were talking about misleading photos. My professor brought up the Lincoln Hall story and the confusing photo. A student in the class worked at the D.I. and knew the story behind the photo. According to this student, The student photographer had made that sign himself and taped it on the doors.
Isn't this "illegal" in photojournalism? I knew something didn't feel quite right when I saw the picture. As an editor, I think I might have followed up on my "gut feeling" and done some more research or at least ask the photographer about the picture. Because from my understanding, Lincoln Hall is not completely closed - there are still classes, exams and meetings held in some rooms. This information I received may or may not be true, but I at least know the photo was fishy, and many students felt mislead. Just putting up a simple sign on notebook paper put a dramatic effect on the picture.
If anything, this is a reminder at how observant editors must be. If something does not feel right, you should always check it out. Our job is to give the readers the straight facts and not mislead them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I remember exactly what you are talking about!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I didn't agree with the decision at the time (and still don't agree with it), let me try to justify what happened as I understand it...
To the best of my knowledge, the photo ran with a "Photo Illustration by xxx" tag. BUT, grab a copy of the DI and take a look at the caption credit size. Not very big or noticeable - and that's the same style of tag that would have run on that day. I'm sure the small credit got lost, visually, with such a dominant piece of art.
Does that justify what the photographer did? Well, yes and no. Maybe more attention should have been drawn to the illustration credit, maybe the photo should have been made to look even more fraudulent ... maybe it should have been pulled all together.
All in all, it's a very fine line between telling readers the facts and illustrating the situation without misleading anyone!