Deception by the media EXCLUSIVE PROOF
A heavily doctored image, by those with opinions against our side in powerful media positions, has arose in a tabloid recently and has been discussed very briefly by our very own Mr LOTW. In no offence to LOTWs postings I have opted to go one step deeper.
I have decided with the art of the ethics and codes of journalism in which I have some experience to highlight these deceptive folks who have tampered with a series of images by using simple photoshop techniques and methods to give the wrong or right impression to its readers.
This investigation will show that the image (seen below) has been tampered with in instance to make it more visually shocking and suggestively ‘newsworthy’.
I have not made edits to the picture below and I have only took clear zoomed screenshots of the evidence.
My first point is the chap who has his arms out in the Adidas hooded top, if the picture is as it looks I do not condone this type of behaviour, but as one celebrates or begins to celebrate they do throw their arms up and if a photo is took at the right time the pose above can be possibly caught. I will re-instate that I do not condone any racial actions or abuse to any ethnicity, this is a pure investigation to show that the image above has been tampered with.
My second point – proof part 1 – The floating corner flag. Just above the ‘P’ letter in the word ‘Cops’ an orange and yellow corner flag waving in the wind can be seen on a yellow pole. Look at it closely as it goes down through the ‘P’ to the ‘S’ in the word ‘this’, then follow it further down below the ‘S’ in the word ‘this’. You can clearly see it just ends and looks like it is floating. There is a clear gap a couple of millimetres at the bottom of the ‘yellow flag pole’.
I will let you be the judges :-
If you look at the main 1st image, (whole image) why is diouf looking down to place the ball when the corner flag is floating four or five feet away from him spookily in the air like some type of poltergeist was involved?
My third point – proof part 2 – On closer inspection of the ball that Diouf is holding their can be clear ‘smudge’ markings. This is done by a brush option on the Photoshop menu which is merely selected and smudge whatever you click down and drag across.
This is again clear proof that the image has been doctored and edited: –
The ball is not even round it has been clearly inserted into the image very badly and the bottom of the ball is clearly smudged and arguably ghost like.
My fourth point – proof part 3 – Dioufs head has clearly been also smudged to make it mix in with the background and purposely blurred so at first glance it is not easily noticed and makes the reader focus on the crowd which is less blurred and more in focus. The Photoshop application also has a blurring tool to make parts of images / or whole images look out of focus :-
My fifth point – proof part 4 – During my investigation into looking at the image I came to the conclusion that the whole of El Hadji Diouf had been Photoshopped into or onto another image of the Celtic crowd and the gesticulating man in the adidas hooded top.
This has been done to add to the argument the paper is making. Obviously without Diouf in the image who is African / Senegalese the paper would have no racial arguement and the gesticulating man in the hooded top could just have been papped in the early stages of throwing his arms up in the air in disgust or celebration.
If you look at the full zoomed image of Diouf I have took from the main image you can see the lines where the image of Diouf has been photoshopped in: –
Look along the line of his back, near the base of his back, the colours seem to mix at one point, a case of blurring the image and maybe a suggestive essence that it was smudged to make it look justified with the background.
In conclusion with the above evidence, ‘In the interest of the public’, as most journalists argue, the story is tangeable as the gesticulating man appears in the image as well as Diouf, stating a case that racism has took place and has been caught on camera.
However this is deceptive, as without Diouf in the image there is no arguement, just a shot of the crowd with a very questionable fan with his arms in the air in a suggestive position.
Diouf has been photoshopped into the image to give it the story more leverage on the ‘racism’ angle they have obviously aimed at. I however do not know how the gesticulating man came to be in a position where it looks like he is ‘seen as’ making a racial statement, it could be a papped photo that is not harmful at all or in no other words the fan is a racist.
The newspaper has mixed two or more images to shock the prospective readers or viewers of the paper. I ask our fans and all fans of football really to be aware not to take something at first glance. I am not condoning acts of racism at all but why has the image been doctored? Question yourselves why before making ‘knee jerk’ reactions as that is what the paper wants you to think at first glance.
Newspapers where images have been used that have been edited have to clearly state that it HAS been altered to gain a certain retrospect.
In relation to ‘image doctoring’, this is frowned up heavily in journalism and in some cases journalists have been sacked for tampering with images. For example the Reuters news agency have dealt with cases where images have been doctored by a journalist and that journalist has been sacked: –
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/photojournalist-dropped-by-reuters-for-doctoring-image/s2/a51961/
I also offer more evidence to links regarding the ethics of such cases: –
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html
The stated links give leverage to my point and suggest that what the tabloid in question has done is wrong and is a breach of the ethics of photojournalism. In such cases the offending journalist has been sacked so why can this be allowed in the UK, do these journalists think they are above the rules?
I leave this now in your hands Celts with an email address for the National union of journalists is this worthy of reporting to take the case higher?
If you believe so send them an email and link to this post, to prove my point exactly, it is a doctored image and the paper does not state they have doctored the image as they should have CLEARLY STATED.