Executives at CBC.ca admit they made a mistake in not selecting the right version of a photograph apparently showing pollution in Toronto, but they say it was not “misrepresentation” nor an attempt to mislead. Here is what CBC.ca chief Sue Gardner told Inside the CBC:
We made a mistake.
The photo shows smoke billowing from stacks at the old Lakeview coal-fired generating plant in Mississauga, once said to be the world’s largest. The Ontario government called it a heavy polluter when it was shut down a couple of years ago not only because of the quantities of greenhouse gases it produced – difficult to photograph – but because of the noxious fumes and particulates that contributed to the murk obscuring downtown Toronto seen in the photo.
The stacks were demolished a few months ago but it remains a powerful image of the kind of emissions the Kyoto Accord wants to limit and that is why we used it in the April 19 story on John Baird’s concerns about the “risks” of meeting Kyoto.
It was the right photo, but not the right version.
CBC.ca uses images in number of ways: It is our policy not to alter those accompanying news stories and depicting actual events or people. Those used as graphics in promos or to illustrate feature stories, columns or the like may be changed in minor ways – slightly heightened contrast, different colour filter, slight cropping – to enhance their visual impact and appeal.
In this case, the original image was treated with a “warming filter,” which gave it the sepia tone, and cropped slightly to use as a graphic image. Fair enough, except it was – mistakenly – dropped in a file accessible for use with news stories and subsequently posted with the Baird story.
It was an inadvertent error, but I should also point out that the “dramatically different” versions the blogger found are, in fact, exactly the same photograph both showing exactly the same thing – emissions from an acknowledged heavy polluter. There was no “misrepresentation” and no attempt to mislead.
|
Email This Post |
| News & Journalism |
Nice try but I’m not buying your explanation for one minute. The smokestacks in situ could NOT have the background your photograph depicts.
The first use (or misuse) of computer photo manipulation was when National Geographic used a Sci-tech computer to move the Pyramids for a cover photo in (I think) the 1970’s. Shortly there after the National Press Photographers Association and the major news media agencies got together to set standards for the use of such photographs. Different media organizations use slightly different criteria, but ALL agree that if a photography is altered the reader or viewer MUST be informed of such. There is nothing wrong with using a picture to illustrate a point if you include the fact that it is altered.
Rich,
Why not? This was probably a CP photo… other sites seem to be using the non-cropped version.
Riddle me this - How many anti-Conservative “mistakes” does it take to constitute bias?
This was no mistake. This was an attempt to skew the accompanying story about John Baird’s comments on the environment.
I remember another anti-Conservative “mistake” by Christina Lawland that had to be addressed by the CBC Ombudsman.
Time to pull the plug on this $1 billion a year taxpayer funded propaganda machine.
I await with bated breath the day that the CBC actually admits they were wrong without offering excuses. This was a blatant attempt to mislead. What other stories that we are not aware of have also used altered photos to make a point seem stronger than it is. Let’s have more objectivity from the CBC!
It is geographically impossible to have those smokestacks with that background.
I drove that road 10 times a week for 14 years. Not once did those smokestacks
become animated and move themselves approx. 8km. closer to the Toronto skyline
The Lakeview generating station was decommissioned years ago. It’s been ages since they stopped emitting WATER VAPOR. The main reason for that is they no longer exist. I believe the photo was used in a craven attempt to make the pollution
look worse than what it normally is. By the way, the vast majority of pollution in Southern Ontario originates in the Ohio Valley.
Rich, if it’s impossible, please explain the photo from collegepublisher.com linked in Blake’s comment above. It’s a CP photo. No manipulation.
I took a look at the picture and still stand by my statement. I really don’t care who the photograph is attributed to, it has been manipulated.
You’d think that they would have learned from the photo shopping of this past year’s Hizbulla attempts to make Israel look bad during the recent war in Lebanon. I guess that’s asking too much from the Commie Broadcasting Corporation!
What? The CBC biased agains conservatives.. prepare to meet your maker boys and girls.
I guess the question I’d have to ask is: what was wrong with the original photo? I’ve seen it, looks like pollution to me - why use a “warming filter” to give the picture a sepia tone?
This purposely altered photo is just one example of why I no longer give the CBC any credibility. I have come to expect the CBC to “alter” anything it airs to match its blatant bias.
The “explanation” as to why the photo was “altered” is a joke; but, again, it is what one can expect from the CBC.
June 12, 2006 was “a few months ago” and a photo from 2 years ago, or more, when the plant was still in full operation, is used to illustrate a current news story. And then the out-of-date photo was altered. But this was acceptable because it’s not a photo, it’s (now) a “graphic”. And, of course, not altered enough to make it clear that it was altered to make it obvious that it’s a graphic rather than a representative photograph. Thank you for clearing that up for us non-professionals. Can we look forward to the CBC’s web site running photos, or graphics, of Victorian London to illustrate future Kyoto pieces? Who knows it might save on the budget because you’ll already be able to find sepia-toned ones.
And we pay for this garbage. I haven’t watched or listened to the CBC in years: thankfully there are bloggers around to remind me not to bother.
The CBC’s credibility takes another hit. The bias of the CBC is almost unbearable. I as a taxpayer am disappointed that Canada continues to fund this propaganda arm of the Liberal Party. The CBC should be dissolved post haste and the savings better spent. What is your budget now? One billion a year, I believe…what a joke.
SURE it was unintentional! Just like Christina Lawland’s little stunt was unintentional as well, right?
Yeah, I don’t watch the CBC.
I just wonder why everyone is so anti Conservative.
Do you check your brains at the door or what?
“no attempt to mislead.”
That’s rich! The CBC intentionally misleads every single day. Every time Mansbridge slants a story. Every time Strombo kisses some loonie lefter’s ass.
I’m surprised that he CBC even replied to the controversy. The disdain with thich they treat Canadian’s is incredible.
All to the tune of $1 Billion taxpayer hard earned cash.
Please, won’t someone put an end to this garbage.
Wow, what’s with all the trolls? 7/12 comments are clearly … ok, resisting the urge to insert some very trollish language here … biased. Why bother with a site called “insidethecbc” if you’re so … um … biased? Really, don’t you have better things to be doing with your life?
IANAP (I Am Not A Photographer), but I understand that a telephoto lens can dramatically “collapse” the distance between an object and its background. (It’s the phenomenon movie-makers use when they combine dollying with zooming.) No manipulation or bias needed.
What probably happened with the photo is the photographer zoomed in on downtown TO, which compresses the image making the background look closer to the foreground. This is photo manipulation. Nothing surprising from the objective CBC of course.
I did not see the photo that’s generating all these comments, but it’s obvious to me that these comments are bias against CBC.
Do you realize that, all the reporting is slanted and sometimes bias, by all the stations and channels, that’s the nature of the business.
Disappointing yes, but since reporting has now become a form of entertainment, distorting our comprehension of news, if you don’t like what you hear or see, just turn it off - rather than beat up on one media outlet, in this case its CBC, which is still more real than the others bringing us more informational programs, both on radio and TV
Easy to provide more informational programming when you don’t have to be concerned with ratings or revenue.
CBC was prepared to compromise as much as it possibly could in order to get a Canadian Idol clone on the air.
Anytime a manager stands up and says first and foremost ‘we made a mistake’, you’ve just found the one in a million. That alone tips the scales toward putting more weight to her credibility as far as I’m concerned.
At least she didn’t trot out the favorite CBC justification - “we were trying to encourage debate”!
We made a mistake, but it was the right photo? Give me a break.
I want to see that same photo the next time Stephane Dion makes a pronouncement on the environment. (The unphotoshopped one.)
“…it remains a powerful image of the kind of emissions the Kyoto Accord wants to limit…”
The only problem with this statement is that the kind of emmissions the Kyoto Accord wants to limit are largely odorless and colourless (i.e. CO2). Granted there are other gasses involved but visible pollution and particulate matter is not among them. Smog is not covered by Kyoto.
“…exactly the same photograph both showing exactly the same thing – emissions from an acknowledged heavy polluter.”
You too seem to be mixing up pollution and greenhouse gasses.
For such stories, since you seem to be trying to go for the emotional, fear-laden effect you may want to consider using photographs of the possible effects of failing to reduce greenhouse gasses (or adhere to Kyoto, or what have you). You know, pictures of floods, deserts, cities in ruin, famine and all that.
Alternatively you could just not bother with a picture and have a story that merely states the facts. One would hope that’s not too wild a thought.
Rich and Jim, right on. Everyone else who wants to get rid of the CBC, I agree. It is nothing but a taxpayer funded ad campaign for Big Government.
Gaia said “Do you realize that, all the reporting is slanted and sometimes bias, by all the stations and channels, that’s the nature of the business.”
Yes Gaia — duh! But, I don’t want to point my hard earned tax dollars at an organization that is pretty much diametrically opposed to my principles.
The CBC is a left wing organization. One report found that it was the most highly unionized group in the federal government. How that’s possible, one can only imagine!
Oh Gaia - unions = socialism. Not unions ~ socialism. Just so you know.
You see - I accept a certain bias among *all* stations and channels. I like to watch some for a laugh and others to be informed. I just don’t want to unwillingly pay for the one that lies to me and offends me every day!