ABC - How to Lie with Pictures
This is off topic, but given that it is about news media and a little about science, I thought I'd squeeze it in. ABC News has an article today, authored by Ashley Phillips, about pollution in American cities. The article is fronted with an image of Pittsburgh (on top of the list of polluted places) in all its smoggy glory. However, the image includes the Three Rivers Stadium. This stadium was demolished early in 2001. So why post an out of date image with this story? Are the images of the other cities somehow incorrect as well? Perhaps the image is doctored to boot.
I'm guessing that 'news' sources of this type have a constant stream of such inaccuracies - more strength to the fifth estate and algorithmic news.
We at StinkyJournalism.org commend you for catching this error. We called ABC.com to inform them of your efforts and they said "Thank you" and "are looking for a new photo now."
We advocate not just finding the errors and publishing them but contacting the media outlet in advance of publication in order to give them a chance to respond and correct. Then, depending on what happens, the corrections, denials or their apologies are part of our story. Our main focus is to create change and to clean up the mess of Internet error zombies that live forever unless shot (metaphorically speaking) in the head. It's an inaccuracy oil spill out there. Let's hold the MsM accountable and make them clean their mess up.
Your pals at http://www.stinkyjounalism.org
Posted by: Rhonda Shearer | May 01, 2008 at 03:53 PM
ABCNews has now changed photos after our call.
See http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Weather/story?id=4758772&page=1
Posted by: Rhonda Shearer | May 01, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Snapped Shot makes an interesting comment about the new ABCNews replacement photo
See http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/2000-ABC-News-Illustrates-Excellence.html#comments
Also, I had typo above in link that points to where we featured Data Mining and Snapped Shot as our Editor's pick http://www.stinkyjournalism.org
Posted by: Rhonda Shearer | May 02, 2008 at 12:18 AM
...or they had a problem with stock photo budget (or no photo at all) and they needed to search old archives, then no royalties to pay.
Posted by: jardel | May 05, 2008 at 08:22 AM