I am currently researching this story and we appreciate your information. Until I complete this stage I can't confirm how and when we will run it again, but I think it is likely for next Monday's program.
I am hoping you can please tell me - has Anonymous complained formally to The Adelaide Advertiser about this second usage of the doctored photograph?
I'm also wondering if Anonymous has any alternate pictures of the protestors with the placards? It would be nice for our audience to have a few close up shots clearly showing the text - as the original web image is quite small.
Feel free to drop me a line if you have a chance. I'd appreciate if you could you also let me know if the Advertiser attempt any sort of correction or clarification over the next few days.
many thanks,
Greg Miskelly
Supervising Producer
Media Watch
So! has anybody actually complained formally to the Advertiser about this? If not, we need to get on it STAT.
Adelaide Advertiser contacts are here, I would reccomend phone, fax and email:
If you have a decent photo, or can find one in the media gallery of “google lisa mac pherson” or the “ha ha ha ha - tom cruise” one uncensored, can you please post it in this thread.
So has anybody here complained FORMALLY to the advertiser (this means contacting them in the above way)?
UPDATE: I have just tried to call them now, the person to complain to is the Advertiser “chief of staff”. they are not in currently, they will be back after 10am tomorrow (sunday). I suggest ringing the above number and contacting then.
I have made a formal complaint via phone, I talked to Brenton who is an editor in 'pictures', I got handed around a few times, he will pass this message on to the sub editor or some crap, They wouldn't exactly tell me whom I should make a formal complaint to, and nobody was handing me to the 'chief of staff' every time i asked.
He pulled up the original photo and said “I can see why we took out Lisa McPherson, but Tom Cruise?”. pretty funny conversation was had, I informed them that it is likely to be on media watch, I said our problem was 'why are they publishing doctored photo's when they clearly explained with the SAME PHOTO that it is their policy NOT to publish doctored pictures.'
I did not mention at the time, but I should have had a go at 'Why are they removing Lisa McPherson's name?' I said that we had a problem with it.
he said he would get back to me, I said I would prefer correspondence by email, so I gave him an anonymous email and the anonyphone.He printed out the doctored and the original photo he had and was going to lodge it with his superiors, he also knows that it's likely to be reported on, so getting on it would be a good idea. :)
good werk anoynmous - have dropped a line to media watch myself, but will enquire at the crapvertiser later today as well
isn't there a law about using doctored photos WITHOUT a caption saying “this photo was doctored”?
i mean, cropping out a tree branch or airbrushing some wrinkles from a celeb's eyes is ONE thing - but deliberating altering the placards of protestors _accompanying a story about said protest_ without alterting the readers is appalling. its so misleading.
whatever happened when they got busted the first time!? i dont even recall an 'apology' or 'retraction' in the crudvertiser? they got away with it and get to pull the same shit again - makes u wonder about the shit we DON”T notice… and ppl read this rag for “news” huh?
Anonymous - Guest
16:47 - 21/7/08
5
News fellow anons. this is now scheduled to be included next week, there was not enough time in the program. This information comes from the Supervising Producer again.
this is ample opportunity to MAN THE HARPOONS and complain your asses off, so we get a formal response.
Forums
