|
WSJ.com
What's wrong with this WSJ.com photo of Sam Zell? Click to find out... |
Tieless? Or not really?
It's common for a newspaper to use a stock or file photo, especially when it runs a headshot of an individual. But should it be labeled as a file photo? Especially online, where there are no space considerations as there are in print?
In today's case, the answer was clearly "yes."
From The Wall Street Journal article on the going-private transaction involving Sam Zell and the Tribune Co.: "...Mr. Zell, who was tieless and wearing cowboy boots..." And there he was in the color photo, wearing a striped tie. Either he put one on in a hurry for the photo (from what I've read about Sam Zell, that's about as likely as an IPO for Tribune on Monday) or the Journal used a file photo and didn't bother to mention it.
Result: The Journal looks foolish.
TV stations are -- quite rightly -- being hammered for using video news releases (VNRs) and disguising them as news, without attributing them to the sources. (In fact, that's a violation of U.S. broadcast regulations.) Although it's a different circumstance, it’s not entirely dissimilar. Shouldn't newspapers identify old or stock photos as such? Especially when they are placed in conjunction with coverage of a timely event (like a news conference) and would appear to be from that event? Except for the "was he, or wasn't he, wearing a tie?" question in this case.
Peter, I can't help but wonder whether this is one...
