Comments on: Reuters and trust http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/ by Jeff Jarvis Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:36:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Innovation in College Media » Blog Archive » Digital audit trail for photojs? http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-296194 Innovation in College Media » Blog Archive » Digital audit trail for photojs? Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:20:49 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-296194 [...] Jeff Jarvis blogs about a fascinating bit of technology that’s also a bit creepy. Reuters head Tom Glocer said to an audience in Israel: I am pleased to announce today that we are working with Adobe and Canon to create a solution that enables photo editors to view an audit trail of changes to a digital image, which is permanently embedded in the photograph, ensuring the accuracy of the image. . . . [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis blogs about a fascinating bit of technology that’s also a bit creepy. Reuters head Tom Glocer said to an audience in Israel: I am pleased to announce today that we are working with Adobe and Canon to create a solution that enables photo editors to view an audit trail of changes to a digital image, which is permanently embedded in the photograph, ensuring the accuracy of the image. . . . [...]

]]> By: Biz-Tech-News: Headlines 18-Dec-06 at NevilleHobson.com http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-239346 Biz-Tech-News: Headlines 18-Dec-06 at NevilleHobson.com Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:42:04 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-239346 [...] Reuters and trust [...] [...] Reuters and trust [...]

]]> By: AC http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-238396 AC Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:44:31 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-238396 One point of clarification about New Yorker fact-checking. They do have staffers whose sole function is to fact-check articles. However, they do not check quotes included by reporters. In other words, quotes attributed to individuals in New Yorker articles are not verified. This is one key domain where New Yorker writers remain "unsupervised." This is likely because reviewing quotes with interviewees in advance of publication would give people time to change them or anticipate the angle of the article. But it also gives reporters enormous power to shift quotes - slightly or majorly - to make their stories even more dramatic. The result is that even in New Yorker articles, quotes attributed to individuals have to be taken with a grain of salt. One point of clarification about New Yorker fact-checking. They do have staffers whose sole function is to fact-check articles. However, they do not check quotes included by reporters. In other words, quotes attributed to individuals in New Yorker articles are not verified. This is one key domain where New Yorker writers remain “unsupervised.”

This is likely because reviewing quotes with interviewees in advance of publication would give people time to change them or anticipate the angle of the article.

But it also gives reporters enormous power to shift quotes - slightly or majorly - to make their stories even more dramatic. The result is that even in New Yorker articles, quotes attributed to individuals have to be taken with a grain of salt.

]]> By: Don Surber http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-235375 Don Surber Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:25:23 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-235375 Funny thing perception. I thought these two paragraphs were the heart of the speech: "We immediately launched an investigation and suspended Hajj. After a second doctored photo emerged – this of an F-16 with suspected additional flares added – we acted without hesitation. "Hajj was fired; his editor was fired and we took the decision to remove every photograph he ever took in his freelance career at Reuters – all 920!" Suspend. Investigate. Fire. Reuters did the right thing. Wish AP would. Funny thing perception. I thought these two paragraphs were the heart of the speech:

“We immediately launched an investigation and suspended Hajj. After a second doctored photo emerged – this of an F-16 with suspected additional flares added – we acted without hesitation.

“Hajj was fired; his editor was fired and we took the decision to remove every photograph he ever took in his freelance career at Reuters – all 920!”

Suspend. Investigate. Fire. Reuters did the right thing. Wish AP would.

]]> By: CaptiousNut http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-235252 CaptiousNut Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:26:05 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-235252 Yeah, Reuters lost its credibility from "one" photograph. They are in abject denial. Yeah, Reuters lost its credibility from “one” photograph.

They are in abject denial.

]]> By: Robert Feinman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-235115 Robert Feinman Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:05:13 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/12/14/reuters-and-trust/#comment-235115 A "technological" solution to follow image alterations won't work. If anything it will give a false sense of trust to images which have been altered and made to appear otherwise. Many of the most famous photographs in history were staged. That is the event may have taken place, but it didn't look right for the camera so was done again. The "kiss" in Times Square and the flag at Iwo Jima are two examples. (The first was staged, the second exists in several versions.) When testifying in court about the validity of forensic images it is the trust in the witness making the claim by the jury which is used. I can't see this changing. Perhaps a little more weight will be given if there is some sort of audit trail, but then why do we have handwriting experts even in cases where signatures have been witnessed? A “technological” solution to follow image alterations won’t work. If anything it will give a false sense of trust to images which have been altered and made to appear otherwise. Many of the most famous photographs in history were staged. That is the event may have taken place, but it didn’t look right for the camera so was done again. The “kiss” in Times Square and the flag at Iwo Jima are two examples. (The first was staged, the second exists in several versions.)

When testifying in court about the validity of forensic images it is the trust in the witness making the claim by the jury which is used. I can’t see this changing. Perhaps a little more weight will be given if there is some sort of audit trail, but then why do we have handwriting experts even in cases where signatures have been witnessed?

]]>