New York Times Withdraws Posed News Photo (Updated)

Check out this unusual editors' note published by The New York Times on Friday:

"A picture on May 5 with the continuation of a front-page article about the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and the strategic advantages it offers to Taliban insurgents fighting American troops, showed a silhouetted Taliban logistics tactician, who was interviewed for the article, holding a rifle, creating the impression that the weapon belonged to him. The Times subsequently learned from the photographer that the rifle belonged to the owner of a home in Pakistan where the interview took place, and that the Taliban tactician had held the weapon only for the purpose of the photograph.

"Had The Times known this information at the time of publication, it would not have used the photograph to illustrate the article."

What did this image look like and who shot it? We don't know. It's gone from the Times site and we didn't save a copy of the May 5 paper. Can anybody help?

Update, May 20: Some PDNPulse readers tracked down the image and the name of the photographer. Thanks! We're posting it below for the purpose of discussion. We've also reached out to the photographer and we'll let you know if we learn anything new.

© Zackary Canepari/The New York Times

The Times seems concerned that the way the photo was presented implied something untrue: That this Taliban tactician carries a rifle. Do you think this is over the line?

In 2002, Times staff photographer Ed Keating was accused of staging a photo of a six-year-old boy holding a toy gun for a story on Arab-Americans living near Buffalo, New York. The Times took the ethical charge seriously and Keating left the paper after several months of negotiations.

Comments

[Holly Van Voast]

you don't see how that is bogus?

[Yellowman]

Zackary Canepari is the photographer who shot the picture you are talking about.

[James]

The story with the image can be found here:

http://www.saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&catid=&topic=32&allstories=1

[The Travel Photographer]

Frankly, had the editors of The New York Times been half as meticulous with the blatant lies and obfuscations propagated by the Bush Administration which led to the Iraq fisaco as they are now with Canepari's photograph, as a nation we would have been the better for it, and we wouldn't be where we are now.

The rest on:

http://thetravelphotographer.blogspot.com/2009/05/pov-nyt-its-posed-photo.html

[Dan M]

After that incident with Tyler Hicks in Lebanon a year ago, the New York Times probably just wants to avoid any controversy regarding the circumstances of photos. The photographer staged the photo (basically made the subject pose) but I don't see it as that big of a deal and am surprised they pulled it. It's a good photo, even if it's staged, and isn't some critical news event. Call it portraiture (even if you can't see his face). Not a big deal.

[Daryl Lang]

Good comment, Dan. For anyone unfamiliar with the Tyler Hicks story, here's a link: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003220382

[anderson schneider]

I agree with all the ones above in the fact that there is no big deal about this particular picture. It was staged in some sense, but much more in a portrait line than in a critical news issue one.
However, I guess NYTimes is more concerned about the big picture that this event brings to the surface: the idea that the Times reporters can change some pieces of information in the news scene. Thinking as an average newspaper reader, this isolated and insignificant issue can lead to more serious questionings about the paper in-field procedures. And ethic questionings, specially in these days, are definitely out of the table for struggling newspapers.

[sohughj]

"I agree with all the ones above in the fact that there is no big deal about this particular picture. It was staged in some sense, but much more in a portrait line than in a critical news issue one."

The average reader wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and that's the point. If it's a) staged, and b) looks like a news photo, then it doesn't belong in a newspaper. How the hell can anyone who has even the most basic training in photojournalism even think to dispute that point, let alone call it a "portrait"? Pretty disturbing.

[anderson schneider]

Agree with you, Sohughj, but for a different reason. If your maths were REALLY respected, then all the photo-ops would be taken off the papers. We do agree that they are completely staged, don't we?

Anyway, and again, I believe the issue is not about this particular picture, but much more about photo-journalistic ethics and behavior. Scenes cannot be touched at all, don't matter how "insignificant" the touch may seem, simply because credibility is compromised under that circunstance. And credibility is the only thing we have.

[arty]

The basic rule at the NYT seems to be that you've done nothing wrong until someone notices the possibility of bad PR. Then, depending on who you are, or aren't, they take action. Here it's handled well.

[Dan M]

No one wants another Tyler Hicks episode so they went overboard. The NYT should get some credit for having mentioned it- rather than just withdrawing the staged photo. Personally, I don't think anyone cares that much.

[TC]

For more background on Zack Canepari, you can visit his blog. The postings are a hodgepodge of stream of consciousness writing and supposedly "ironic" ego stroking. This particular post is strangely foreboding of the NYT controversy photo:

http://caneparidoesitbetter.com/2009/04/07/mirror-face-takes-steroids

[Gary S]

Any idea what actually happened to the photographer? Did they can him?