It wasn’t actually taken during President Barack Obama‘s historic speech Sunday night.
Instead, it was shot during a brief reenactment — for the benefit of print photographers — immediately afterward, writes Jason Reed of Reuters.
Jason writes:
As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent. Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.
After running back to send our pictures – tight crops, loose crops, walking towards us and away from us, side angles and such, as many versions of 30 seconds of picture-taking as I could think of, it was time to see what was going on outside.
Now, I tell you this because it’s interesting… in a Hey, I didn’t know they did it like that sort of way. And because I’ve always been told that modern photojournalism doesn’t roll like that.
It’s also mildly interesting because it’s the second oddity that’s popped up in two days. The other being that photo about which I blogged earlier today, of the president’s national security advisers watching the attack on Osama bin Laden going down on Sunday.
The picture — taken by White House phtog Pete Souza — was altered with a little judicious blurring before it was distributed to the media. Specifically, the papers in front of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Of course, I see why it was altered. And I don’t necessarily mind the alteration. I just didn’t know we ran photos that had been altered this way. (See here and here, for example).
I must admit, though, I must be way behind on photo ethics these days. I preach to the designers, editors and artists I teach to be very careful about what they do with Photoshop. But then stuff like this — which certainly seems to violate every photo ethics standard I thought existed — goes on to win huge awards.
So enlighten me, please. Anyone.
—
Find Jason Reed’s blog entry here.
And thanks to the awesome David Farré of the Burlington Free Press for tweeting tonight about the reenactment.
—
UPDATE: 2:20 p.m. Wednesday
Poynter’s Al Tompkins posted a big analysis of this today.
A team from Poynter reviewed newspapers that used a photo of Obama on page one Monday. Nine mentioned in their cutlines the picture was taken after the actual speech. Two used language that said this is the president “after” the speech.
Tompkins writes:
Thirty other front pages we reviewed used an AP, Reuters or Getty photo, credited appropriately, with a caption that implied or strongly suggested it was an image of the live address.
The remaining nine front pages don’t say where the photos came from; although several look like the re-enactments, they could be screen captures from the live address.
Tompkins concludes:
It is time for this kind of re-enactment to end. The White House should value truth and authenticity. The technology clearly exists to document important moments without interrupting them. Photojournalists and their employers should insist on and press for access to document these historic moments.
He also graciously thanks this blog for the inspiration for his report. In turn, I must pass along credit to David Farré of the Burlington Free Press. If he hadn’t tweeted it last night, I’d have never known about it.
That’s how they did it in The King’s Speech, staging a photo at the mic after the actual address
I don’t have a problem with any of the examples… and this comes from a former photojournalist and a professor that teaches visual ethics.
I have problems when there is deceptive behaviors going on. And I don’t see that with these examples.
• The press conference was reenacted (probably) so as to not have photo clicks going off during a solemn speech to the nation.
• The altered documents on Hillary’s lap were done for national security reasons… It’s such a great moment, that I don’t mind it at all.
• The filtered photos gave this a casual tone or feeling that fit the story. And it came straight from the phone/camera…. Any point and shoot camera already runs color correction, sharpening and other filters before you even see your image, so there’s not much of a difference here.
Some might suggest that they use the (dreaded) photo illustration credit. But why? Do our audiences know what that phrase means? Doubtful. I tell my students that if they have something that could be a photo illustration to ask any non-journalism student about it.
Ask them if it’s a photo or an illustration. If you think it’s an illustration and they think it’s a photo, then you have a problem because its somehow deceptive. It should clearly be either an illustration or a photo….
Hmm. Great points, Ryan.
The problem I have with a “photoillustration” credit: That word means different things to different people. To some, it’s what I’d call a “set-up shot.” Like the speech reenactment. To other folks, it means Photoshop work. I wish we had different words for the two things.
I didn’t go into it with this post because I covered it thoroughly in my previous post today, but at least papers DID run a disclaimer with the security team photo. I showed eight papers that used that on page one today. Of the eight, seven ran a disclaimer in either the cutline or the credit line. That made me feel a little better, at least.
I’m actually kind of surprised that this practice of re-enacting presidential speeches is a surprise to so many people (“Hey, I thought everyone in the industry knew that”). Getty Images often divulges this clearly in their caption information (presumably any time it’s a re-enactment). But now that we’re talking about it, we’ll have to discuss in our newsroom whether we need to state this information more clearly in the cutlines we print.
Who cares? I would rather have not heard the fluttering of cameras during the historic speech – plus the photo with the “altered/blurred” paper was explained when the photo was actually released. ya know, it’s right there on the bottom of the description. Boooo on this article – do your research plz!
I covered the cutline quite adequately in my earlier post, “K-Fizzle.”
http://apple.copydesk.org/2011/05/03/a-look-at-tuesdays-graphics-heavy-bin-laden-presentations/
Sigh. Man, when traffic picks up the trolls sound off, don’t they?
Charles, they can spin it any way they want. It’s still wrong, because it’s fake. Call it re-enacting, staging, whatever, it’s not a real moment, it’s fake. If the White House is willing to stage a worthless picture of Obama at a podium, why should we then believe that ANY image from them is a real moment? If they’d do that for a speaking picture, what will they do to any alleged real pictures of the Osama bin Laden event? The wire services saying they said it was staged is no excuse. As pointed out in the Poynter piece, most newspapers didn’t bother with that distinction. Nor would most readers notice. Who’d read a caption under a picture of Obama speaking, anyway?