Absolutely... getting as low as he can possibly get. Par for the course.

Kate: fyi, I can't use my "yah00.com" email addy as it is considered questionable content. Is this a stand of some sort or a query issue?

I don't know what's going on with yahoo - you're the second person who's mentioned it. It may be that yahoo has been captured in the spam filter. I'll try to check into it.

A mirror image of the image in question was shown in the Edmonton Journal today on page A6, credited to the National Post / CanWest News Service. (Hmm, the CBC credit is to CP, I what that means.) The National Post and the Globe and Mail did not cover the story today.

Yahoo dot com is definitely in the spam filter. As a result, I've been typing yahoo.nerf and similar nonesense.

Steve Janke had the same thing going on and I figured he just had a hate-on for Yahoo! (I do... when they're not... until massive publicity forces them to take action... allowing mutiple "old man wants young girl" user-created chat rooms... but with a million times fouler language... or helping imprison Chinese pro-Democracy activists, they're caught up in click fraud and benefitting from spamming advertising... in a way that Google has systems in place to prevent, yet Yahoo! couldn't be bothered...)

They're my anti-spam email and until they clean up their act, I make a point not to buy anything off of them.

Enough of a rant. Yahoo dot com is affected.

Have you seen the election special issue of Maclean's? It's been off newsstands for months, but I still have my copy. One of the numerous photos was of a photographer lying on the floor for a shot.

I'll see if I can scan it.

Looks like a case of "Fear and Loathing in Toronto".
That said, its better than the backwards blue helmet by a long shot.

Actually, I think the picture is kind of flattering.

Kate,

The shadow says above - left.

Headline - Harper Can't Explain Why His Shadow is in the Wrong Place!!! SCARY!!!

Nice catch.

Not a bad photochop. With a few minuites, I could put any background behind him, and have it look believable.

Example, I digitally edited a pic of my brother with a 15lb fish he caught. When I was done, the fish was a fiver, and he gained 40lbs and a second chin.

Kinda sad that a "journalist" would counterfiet a photo like that. Pathetic, actually.

Oh, those pesky liberals. You just can't stay mad at them. Now they have gone and made Prime Minister Harper their King.
Long live the King.

Tip to Harris and all press photographers.

Take you background images (try to get them in focus) before the event ... just leave the media bar a drink before the "usual". This way you won't have shadows in the background picture.

After you take the actual pictures - email the actual pictures and the background pictures to any 14 year old (with PhotoShop) with your instructions how you want them to look.

In the time it takes you to order another scotch you will have a better picture than you could have done yourself. Give the kid $10.

I Phototshop quite a bit, its easy and alot of fun. Amazing too, what a fellow can do. But I only 'shop for fun and teasing.

Kate, If I e-mailed you a 'shopped pic, would you link it, if it was any good? (probably will be silly)

groundbreaking grassroots journalism.

who cares?

get on with it.

Albertan Technophile,

What could be more silly than taxpayers paying for PhotoShopped photos?

I found it funny, and it doesn't matter if it's fake because it's supposed to be eyecatching.

Ural.
Absolutly a fake.
Harper would never allow his shadow to be on the left of anything.

Saskboy,

The CBC news funded by taxpayers dollars is not supposed to be "funny" or "eye-catching" ... try to think ... like ... factual.

If you want funny or eye-catching try the Toronto Star ... at least I don't have have to pay for it.

If he were lying on the floor, the podium would've gotten in the way. From the looks of it, the photographer was just closer. The others were shot from further away with a telephoto lens, the this one was from up close, hence the angle. You'll notice that the microphones are higher compared to his shoulder, and with the distance between PMSH and the background a little angle would've made the difference.

Nevertheless, there's no way they didn't notice that when they printed the picture. Still, it's not so bad. The Star would've photoshopped out the Maple Leaf and added some horns and flames.

Don't panic - it's just the usual nonsense. I work in news, and I see all the wirephotos every day I'm on the job. Bored hipster photographers love to do this stuff - they struggle to be clever and arty instead of just documenting the occasion, so there isn't one politician or public figure who speaks at the Empire Club who doesn't get "crowned" - or receive similar treatment where logos, emblems, flags, lights, etc etc, It's what we call " a potato" (long story about that) - a visual cliche. The photogs have got a million of 'em. Seems at one time you couldn't get some of them to turn in a photo of a politician who didn't have their eyes shut and their mouth open, looking as stupid as possible. With motor drives, the lensmen can take a movie, then select the worst frame. Editorializing? Nah. That said, in spite of the "coronation," Aaron Harris is actually one of the better shooters I've known.

Kate, I've got another theory. Tell me what you think:

Maybe that wasn't a CBC photographer at all because they don't actually HAVE any still photographers.

Maybe it was a non-taxpayer-funded Canadian Press photographer -- a young freelancer, actually -- trying to impress his employer by capturing something a little different in addition to the half-dozen more standard photos he published from the same event.

But perhaps it wasn't all that original.

Maybe photographers get that same angle about 40 times a year at the Empire Club.

And anytime a public figure stands anywhere near a chandelier, a sign with visuals or letters, a house pet, a child, you can pretty much guarantee that Reuters, CP, AP, AFP, UPI and other wire services will move at least one zany, off-beat photo among the batch they send in. (Like the one of Adrienne Clarkson)

But maybe you just notice when it's Stephen Harper, and you waste large swaths of a perfectly good Saturday evening researching, hyperventilating, and blogging your latest conspiracy theory.

Maybe you hate the MSM so much it's making you a little kooky.

And maybe you need to chill, Kate.

Kate's off her Meds.

Kate's off her Meds.

Its not a question of hating anyone. I leave that for the left who villify and smear those who don't agree with them( see the last three comments). It is just poining out the obvious bias of the CBC and other left wing organizatiuons , who purport to be fair and balanced. Perhaps bigcity lib thinks its funny to mock people by saying they have mental illnes, but it iss insensitive to patients and their families. I am not surprised fiberals are always hypocrites.

with all due respect, the photo in question could easily be manipulated however, it appears more like a matter of camera angle and serendipity. i'm sorry kate, it looks real to me and i'm still choking on my cheerios this morning.
however, if it turns out that this photo is fraudulent, i take your point.

Some one did a good job here. I went pixel peeping on this photo, blew it up with PhotoShop to have a look. What can be created by one can be viewed by another!!

The job shows very little healing brush use, which means it is an overlay that wnet on top of the same color (the same shade of red is behind his head in all shots).

Except one area. blown up you can see a flat line on his left hairline, and a white area just below it. Someone was a litttle careless catching the natural curve, and did not catch the color difference. Common occurence with cut and paste overlays.

Two points here: I am a digital photographer by "paying hobby" and the D.P.G. stands for Digital Photo Graphics. An electronics tech by trade.

I had to blow this up to be sure. The photo is quite possible to do. The angles look very doable, but would require very close access to get it right. The physical viewing plane would look very similar to this. The shadows don't matter, with flash photography the shadows will change with every flash used (more than one photog there).

The viewing plane would keep the mics where they are as they are much closer to the speaker than the background, which would change much more dramatically with every movement. The photos do show the camera was much closer nad a different angle than the others. Look at the different views of the features of the face, usually the nose, chin and hairline. Also look at the mics and see where they intercept the body to see the change in angle.

I think someone got it real close and then did a little work to get it right.

Oh these tricksy leftie shutterbugs!

Though I deplore this infantile fakery, the photog thinking that he has duped the Canadian public and showing disrespect for the office of the Prime Minister (something no one should ever do, no matter who the PM is), I rather like the "conceit":

King Stephen

Royal Extraordinaire

Ruler by Right (of being duly and officially "appointed" by the Canadian electorate)

Oh! And I forgot to say:

"Long live King Stephen!!"

I can't tell if it's an altered photograph or not; I'd leave it to "experts" to yak about.

I think Mr. Harris was screwing around and trying to get a picture that'd impress the socks off of the MSM morons, guaranteeing the publication of the photo and his name under it.

If it was photoshopped, well, at least it flatters the PM, who deserves to wear a crown far more than did the Librano PMs.

The CBC likes to be funny, don't they? Of course; we don't take them all that seriously anymore, so they figure they'll have some fun just as we do as bloggers with funny pictures and whatnot. Real professional... focusing too much on imagery and not enough on message and substance. And we pay for it. In Canada.

The MSM should leave the funny stuff to bloggers like Mentok the Mind Taker, who's better at it than they are, or else admit that they're really little more than bloggers with millions of dollars to blow on expensive technology and employees...

He's got some good work in his portfolio. Maybe he can tell us why a talented photographer has to Photoshop any of his work that isn't meant as a models' photo-shoot or personal portraiture for private clients?

andy, I'd imagine most professional photographers take all of their photos into Photoshop to do at least some baseline corrections/retouching before submitting them to whoever's paying for them. At the very least you'd check the exposure levels, sharpness, and cropping/framing, and if you found a "good" photo that's just a tiny edit away from being "very good" you probably go ahead and make that edit.

Methinks this one is much-ado-about-nothing. I don't see this photo as any better/worse than the photos the Mother Corp used to run of Martin posing in front of the Canadian flag at events as he was wont to do.

Answer to andycanuck re: (quote)Maybe he can tell us why a talented photographer has to Photoshop any of his work ..... (unquote)

Money.

Sensationalist editors wanting to sell papers control the money. They want "grabber" photos, truth be damned.

Full time pro's are facing much greater competition now than ever before. Use to be a person needed to know their camera and film and how to use it properly.

Now anyone with a decent digital can take pictures with multiple settings and fix them up and sell them to the editors. No costs for film and processing for taking the same shot multiple times.

The only thing keeping them with credentialed access is by being supported by the media press editors. If the editors would stop buying sensationalist crap and paid attention to the story (and not the politics) we might get better reporting of the facts only.

But that is another topic altogeather!!

OK, by art and design the photographer has produced a more pleasing and sellable picture, with a composed rather than random background.

The rest is partisan paranoia. You got it, Frank.

CBC & Zolf.

Ole Larr spills his beans on CBC.

Zolf says he is a "Red Tory".

Larr gets paid for this by you, courtesy the CBC.+

Conclusion:

On Lewis's behalf, let me say to Mr. Layton: Watch out for Harper and the National Citizens Coalition. Climbing into bed with the Harper Tories could lead to fleas for Layton and Canadian socialism. +
CBC via: http://www.voy.com/178771/1690.html

say good bye to the cbc soon

C'mon, Kate, photographers are trained to look for visual setups like that when making images. They would be lousy photographers if they passed up a shot with that kind of visual irony built into it.

If you want to yell at someone, yell at the CBC editor who picked that shot out of the 20+ files the photographer had of the subject on the podium. I guaran-damn-tee you that there were multiple shots taken from multiple angles. A photographer good enough to spot the crown image would have made a variety.

And to the conspiracy theorists who don't spend at *least* an hour a day using a camera, pour yourself a nice steaming cup of STFU -- you're clueless about how photographers operate.

"Kinda sad that a "journalist" would counterfiet a photo like that. Pathetic, actually."

It's not counterfeit -- it's a simple change in perspective and focal length. Now that you've mastered Photoshop you may want to learn the basics of how a camera operates.

You may also want to watch your keyboard lest the photographer in question decides your comment is legally actionable. I certainly would if I were the photographer in question. It's not like members of the MSM aren't aware of Kate's blog.

An examination of the image on my part shows no tell-tales of pixel pushing, and I'm expert with Photoshop.

"Now, compare this with the juxtaposition of the logo in two other photos taken during the Harper speech Friday. The crown portion is well above Harper's head, in one it doesn't even appear..."

Seeing this comment from Kate leaves me gobsmacked. Look at the bottom of his nose and the underside of his chin, which are slightly more exposed in the shot you're complaining about. The shift in perspective wasn't great enough to radically alter the position of the microphones, given how close he was to them, but the lowered perspective moved the background image nicely as it was farther away.

I wouldn't expect this kind of error from a highly skilled artist who should know better.

Does anyone else here ever go to some of the left-wing blogs? I do, and what a bunch of nuts! A lot of them are rather scary. Most seem to be written by a bunch of young, arrogant undergraduates that believe they are the only people in history to ever receive an education. When a conservative disproofs one of their silly rants, which happens often, they ignore it.

Does anyone know of a left-wing blog that actually has people reading and contributing? Many of the ones I've seen - big city lib for instance - only have a few friends and family stop by and comment out of sympathy.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree, Sean. The two Gov General photos taken during the same speech are simply inexplicable. Moving the camera to the left should have moved the flag further from her, not closer and lower.

"Yet, miraculously, the backdrop with the maple leaf logo not only drops lower, but it also takes a sudden lurch to its right."

And, of course, we won't consider the possibility that Ms. Clarkson stepped to the left and leaned closer to the mic? You haven't noticed the shift in angle of the microphone indicatating that the photographer took a few steps to the right?

Dumbest. Post. Ever.

Keep this up and you're going wind up wearing a tinfoil hat like all those stupid wankers over at StageLeft.

I, for one, am tired of the attacks on our freedom of expression and freedom of opinion by those who may disagree with our position. If we don't shut up and keep our opinions to ourselves, we could be subject to legal action.

Yet, those on the left seem to be free to express their own opinion without fear of reprisal. As an example, our friend's in the media (eg. Zolf) who SUPPOSES what our Prime Minister's intentions and thoughts are and then proceeds to denounce such intentions and thoughts in a most unflattering way.

Sean, although none of us would like to be taken to court, perhaps it would be the best if issues like this WERE discussed in court.

The left seem to be composed of delicate, thin-skinned hypocrites who are prone to cases of the vapours when someone disagrees with them.

So, what can we expect from the CBC other than a doctor'd pic of Stephen and the crown? Just another nail in their coffin, in my view. By the way, looking at the pics of Stephen on both occassions, doesn't he have another tie?

Whether the shot is shopped or not (and photogs regularly look for 'gotchas' that'll sell to tabloid, if not msm), is immaterial (well, ok, not quite, "journalistic integrity" and all that, quaint oxymoron that that is). The real question is "why would Tony Burman be stupid enough to run it"?
Bottom feeders can be forgiven for trying to scrape their daily bread, but troughers should know better.

Further to my previous post, it probably WOULD be a good idea to precede our opinions with "IMHO" or the like...otherwise we COULD potentially be accused of slander at times. As the saying goes, caution is the better part of valour.

Bob, all are taken on the same occasion, which is why the tie is the same.

I think it's all a matter of "zooming in" / and moving the f-stop up so as to bring the background more forward.
The same "trick" moved the crown above ex-GG Clarkson and if the camera lens is moved closer... the entire crown will be obscured by her hair, and the microphone will move into her lips. The microphones also move closer to PMSH's tie in the top foto.
I cannot comment on the photoshop tricks, only real old school.

The real issue, is the intent of the photographer in positioning the crown above PMSH's head... and the photographer that did this... isn't a new photographer.

I think "we" are not "off our meds", if anything the release from the 13 years of crap we have endured along with the rise of some classical liberalism in this country, feels like a drug, but it's only fresh air from the west.. breathe BCL, you'll soon know it for what it really is... "freedom".

Hassle:

a) I'm not on the left, not that I care about labels.

b) I'm familiar with journalistic ethics.

c) I'm familiar with how serious it is when someone accuses you of breaching these ethics when you haven't.

I'm an expert with cameras. I'm an expert with Photoshop. I give you my word that the discrepencies you see in the photos Kate has selected can be accounted for by subject movement, camera positioning, changes in selective focus (aperture), and focal length.

I'm not a journalist. I'm not cut out for it, and I've never enjoyed photographing people in the first place (the prairies are my thang). That being said, I am an admirer of good press photography and someone who avidly follows the Canadian photojournalism scene. I know of Aaron Harris by his work and his reputation within the shooting community, both excellent.

If you folks want to attack someone based on your ignorance of the technical aspects of photography and image composition, that's your business. Just don't be surprised if the man whose career you are trying to destroy gets pissed off and bites back. He would be well within his rights in this case.

Christ, you're all acting like a bunch of leftie moonbats.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am represented by CP Images for stock photography sales, but I have uploaded remarkably few images to them because they require unmanipulated photos, and the majority of mine get worked enough in Photoshop to be disqualified. CP has always been very clear to me about what is an acceptable image, and what isn't.

Hassle: "The left seem to be composed of delicate, thin-skinned hypocrites who are prone to cases of the vapours when someone disagrees with them."

It never ceases to amaze me how, in most ideological debates in the blogospehre, you can substitute subject nouns without changing the validity of statements. Substitue "right" for "left" in the above, and it would be just as applicable. So what's the point of such statements and debates?

I must have missed something here Kate. The first photos show that the pics were taken on Friday (maybe they used old pics?). The link at the bottom of your posting shows the pics were taken last November. Which is it?

Keeping track... the defense goes that a professional photographer with an excellent rep orchestrates using zoom lens and f-stops the same juvenile "bunny ears behind head" photo on three different occasions. Okay. What do you need to do to get a bad reputation in the news photo business?

The first three photos were taken on April 21 at the Empire Club, published by three different news sources.

The link at the bottom is to an earlier "crown on head" photo taken at a speech in November, found by Steve Janke. Same photographer, same politician, same venue - different date.

"You may also want to watch your keyboard lest the photographer in question decides your comment is legally actionable. I certainly would if I were the photographer in question. It's not like members of the MSM aren't aware of Kate's blog."

Legally objectionable? Give me a break. Only a drooling idiot would think that! (Oh noes, he's litigious!) In order to sue my ass sucessfully, the "journalist" would have to prove that I did him appreciable and quantifiable harm, and then prove that his photochop was in fact a real picture!

As for me not being a professional photographer, so? Before I was retired, I WORKED for a living.

What do CBC employees think they're accomplishing with cheap stunts like this?

Well, the answer should be obvious, right? To get little wingnut harridans to go ballistic over trivialities.

I swear, the CBC should get special funding to do this type of thing. The entertainment is worth it.

In conclusion, get a life, Kate.

Sean says Harris is an excellent photographer with an excellent reputation in the "shooting community" who deals with "subject movement, camera positioning, changes in selective focus (aperture) and focal length", whereas those of use who see the crown on Harper's head are displaying our "ignorance of the technical aspects of photography and image composition."

Because, you know, if we were more knowledgeable, we'd know that the crown is on Harper's head because of the "technical aspects of photography", and not because Harris took the shot.

What Ti-Guy said. They do it so you nutters will go bonkers and show everyone why you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Interesting discussion. You don't necessarily need photoshop to get the image and if it wasn't used in a news item then it would be great for an opinion piece. Having said that the photographer repeatedly using the same "creativity" shows him to be not very creative at all by trying to flog a dead horse. Real photographers are very aware of their backgrounds... prevents telephone poles from sprouting out of people's heads. Chances are the first one was a fluke and only after proofing did someone realize it.

Slightly off topic but why is bcl still spouting around here? His old tricks are getting stale too.

Based on the position of the microphone relative to itself -- i.e. its slant -- in the two Clarkson photos, actually, I'd say the camera moved right. An object is at a slant

/

.    .

The dot to the right is going to see more of a slant than the dot to the left.

Thank goodness people are at least challenging the assinine tripe launched by Kate's Alice in Wonderland conspiracy-theory posting yesterday.

Everything on that post -- from the company the shooter worked for, to the technical assessment of the shot, to the explanation for his motivations -- is so laughably erroneous, malicious and bordering on libellous that I'm heartened that there are at least a few people on this site willing to push back.

But I am pleased of at least one thing: Kate's demonstration of her near-total ignorance of how news photographers operate, which bolsters the idea that maybe her incessant vendetta against the MSM stems from an inability to land a job there.

Kate, better luck next time with your job application. And your conspiracy theories. In Canada.

"...stems from an inability to land a job there."

LOL...."tonythemediamoley"

Only someone in media would be so arrogant and disconnected as to presume that their consumers are dissatisfied with the product because they actually harbour secret ambitions about becoming journalists.

You know - journalism - one of the occupations that, according to recent surveys, currently enjoys one of the lowest "respectability" ratings among the professions.

I wonder why that is? Tony? Any theories?

It's an accusation from media that's been levelled at other bloggers too - the Powerline blog trio come to mind. This of course, suggests that investment bankers, physicians, engineers and lawyers would throw it all away to write online copy for the CBC.

So tony, did Harris take the photo with the crown on Harper's head, or not? Do you think he looks through the viewfinder when he takes a photo?

"Because, you know, if we were more knowledgeable, we'd know that the crown is on Harper's head because of the "technical aspects of photography", and not because Harris took the shot."

He composed the shot in the manner he did because it was marketable. Look, it's not a new concept:

http://www.fewings.ca/polcan/092303PaulMartin.html
http://zone.artizans.com/lite/product.htm?pid=287815
http://zone.artizans.com/product.htm?pid=263913

Frankly, the guy would have to be an idiot not to take advantage of the setup once he noticed it. He's found something that works, is marketable, and you better believe he reuses the same style of shot over and over -- that's good business. Photographers need to eat too, you know.

If you object to the shot, by all means complain to the editor who selected it as I'm sure he/she had several to choose from, many which didn't have the crown in that particular position.

My earlier rebuttal was for the self-proclaimed 'experts' in this comment thread who see Photoshop lurking behind every corner. Suggesting that the image was achieved through electronic pixel pushing is an assault on the reputation of one of Canada's better photojournalists.

"In order to sue my ass sucessfully, the "journalist" would have to prove that I did him appreciable and quantifiable harm, and then prove that his photochop was in fact a real picture!"

He may not sue your ass, but Kate's. While I could care less about you, I rather like her and want to see her and her blog around for a long time to come. She will be the most likely target for any legal action as she is the originator of this topic and the owner of the site hosting your comments.

You're not much of a technophile if you don't realize how easy it is to provide the original untampered with file and prove it as such. Things have changed since you retired, dude. Maybe you should stick to lawn bowling.

Last comment, and then I'll go away:

Can I ask what is so friggin' inappropriate about associating a crown with government ministers and the Governer General? Canada is a consitutional monarchy. The Governer General is appointed by QEII on the advice of the PM. Surely the crown and maple leaf are appropriate in her case. Surely it's appropriate in Harper's case as the powers of the Crown (right of Crown) can only be exercised in Canada, a commonwealth nation, by elected Canadian ministers?

What's so wrong about using the crown symbolically in a photo with our PM given our history and the configuration of our government?

Not you again, tony; I thought maybe you'd gone on a long holiday...obviously, not long enough...

Sean (11:27 a.m.): "Christ, you're all acting like a bunch of leftie moonbats."

Watch your language. Christians worship Jesus Christ and I don't appreciate it when people take others' faith lightly. You wouldn't think of taking the Buddha's, Hindu Gods'/Godesses', Mohammed's name in vain so, PLEASE, don't take the Christian God's name in vain.

Because I'm a grown up, and believe in freedom of speech, even though I am totally offended by your use of "Christ" as an expletive, I wouldn't even consider a law suit. Law suits based on nothing more than "what s/he said offended me" are the refuge of the idiot, the unimaginative, and the left/lib/fem bully: HANG IT UP.

And, what's this talk about "bordering on libellous," tony, and others? You must be kidding. It's OK, on the CBC, to juxtapose--a mistake, of course--a Heil Hitler caption next to a photo of Stephen Harper, just a few days before an election, and nothing happens: The CBC ombudsman writes as convoluted an explanation as tony burman's original totally disingenuous explanation, thoroughly exonerating any wrong doing on the part of the CBC. BUT when a few comments in a blog alleging that Aaron Harris may have altered a few of his photos, the leftie moonbats--that's you, tony and company--start snivelling and whining about possible libel actions: What gives?

What gives is that THIS is the "Alice in Wonderland conspiracy-theory" planet the lefties have taken us to. Hey, get something straight. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The double-standard--wherein the moonbats' twisted logic and convoluted opinions are given ascendency and which the left has been able to rely on for far too long--is OVER. Get used to it.

It's old, it's tiresome, it's dishonest, it's ridiculous, it's contemptuous, it's unjust, it's intolerant, and it's OVER. Go get a life and plug yourself into the real world, where the vast majority of us are not eating or drinking out of the public trough. And where most of us can accept opinions we disagree with without whining, snivelling, whingeing, and taking others to Human Rights (sic) Commissions because we're OFFENDED.

It's a given that if Aaron Harris is selling his photos to the MSM, he's going to, occasionally, come under public scrutiny, not all of which is going to be glowing accolades. Broad shoulders are a plus, but taking someone to court for libel? Get real.

I agree with whoever said it earlier it looks like they've decided to accepet PMSH has been crowned by canadians

Well Sean, you're right that for a professional photographer taking lots of shots at an event it would be hard shot to resist, given the fortuitous placement of the backdrop. I'm sure other photographers had the same shot in their day's collection.

In that sense, any concerted attack on Harris is misdirected. Someone's going to "get it", though. People are increasingly cognizant of ongoing media cheap-shots at Harper coming from CBC, such as The National's lingering juxtaposition of a photo of Sargeant Schultz of Hogan's Heroes with one of Harper.

In the case of the crown shot, if Harris handed in a bunch of different shots of the event, and CBC editors selected this one, then the fault lies entirely with CBC. If he selected and gave them this image, then he would share the blame, but CBC should still take the lion's share of it.

Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em! I'll take the dignified and ethical Queen Elizabeth over almost any politician you can name, any day.

So, long live King Stephen!

(For those who might not get it, I'm saying this tongue in cheek, both the "get over it" part and the title. OK? But I stick with the dignified, ethical bit.)

"Watch your language. Christians worship Jesus Christ and I don't appreciate it when people take others' faith lightly. You wouldn't think of taking the Buddha's, Hindu Gods'/Godesses', Mohammed's name in vain so, PLEASE, don't take the Christian God's name in vain.

Because I'm a grown up, and believe in freedom of speech, even though I am totally offended by your use of "Christ" as an expletive, I wouldn't even consider a law suit. Law suits based on nothing more than "what s/he said offended me" are the refuge of the idiot, the unimaginative, and the left/lib/fem bully: HANG IT UP."

Christ, are you serious?

...reminds me of the ol' Imperial Margarine ads...

Take a bite of bread with the margarine on it and

Tut ta ta dahhh... *poof*

one crown.

Now, we've been politically correct in replacing that crown with "I can't believe it's not butter" margarine...

;-)

Sean -
Re: FULL DISCLOSURE
WOW, we are not worthy!!!!!

CRB

To Peter D of http://dodosville.blogspot.com/ (1:55 p.m.):

Yes, I'm quite serious.

I guess I'll have to add you to my prayer list.

"I guess I'll have to add you to my prayer list."

As an athiest, that is offensive to me. I might have to consider a Human Rights complaint.

Peter D, you're behaving just like the toddlers, e.g., immature, self-control deprived students in my class, who are, nonetheless, loved by me and their mothers. (I know your type very well: I'll bet you smirked, stuck out your tongue, and raised your middle finger too.) I assume you're over 18. Why don't you act it for a change?

And, yes, sir, I'm serious.

I am serious too. As a non-Christian it is offensive to me to have others say they will pray for me. However, I was kidding about the Human Rights complaint.

And no, I didn't raise my middle finger, I lost it in grade school when my teacher smacked it too hard because I was immature and lacked self control.

Peter D: Thanks for your response, but don't you have another middle finger? In your anecdote--don't I wish? (just kidding!!!!)--you used the singular, so I assume you must have one middle finger left.

Seriously, how come you diss nkotb for being offended--psst, I am too when you use the name of my Saviour in vain--and then have a hissy fit about your apparent hurt feelings re someone praying for you, for heaven's--whoops!--sake? (How ridiculous to get upset about an activity you think is complete rubbish and bunk.) Please, at least, be logical, OK? (Being polite--which you were in your post in response to mine--wouldn't hurt either.)

I've had many civilized exchanges with ET, a mature atheist. We agree where we can and respectfully and, even spiritedly, thrust and parry when we don't. This country needs far more of this kind of reasonable exchange. I AM pleased to hear you're just kidding about the HRCs. They're the refuge of nincompoops and bounders.

Ya know... my brain finally woke up today.

I was just looking at the pictures again and now believe that they were altered.

Why doesn't the MSM get on this? They were hellbent on trying to prove that the Grewal tapes were altered and even had so-called "experts" to come on and say what they were (probably) paid to say.

Well, though I'm no expert, I'll pretend to be one and hereby declare: "MSM doctors Empire Club Speaking Pics to Make Speakers Look Like They're Crowned".

Why would the MSM go to such lenghts to do such an irrelevant, adolescent thing? That's supposed to be for 22 Minutes or some silly small-fish bloggers with too much time on their hands, isn't it? And we're paying for the CBC to screw around, producing stupid crap like apparently-doctored-or-overcomposed photograps, 22 Minutes (to bash Harper et al), shows about ball shaving, "Adrienne Clarkson's Summer Festival" with people dancing topless in their underwear, "Zed", George Strombolopolous' nonsense shows, historical documentaries told via a leftist/PC filter and so on... there's no value for our hard-earned tax dollars in this.

CBC: "Communists Begetting Crap".

First it was Harper's crowned head, now we're into "juvenile 'bunny ears behind head.'"

Some people are trying. They really are.

Harris's portfolio shows very dignified snaps of fascist killer Castro at Satan's,... er, uh .. Trudopes socialists group hug ,(Whoops again!)funeral.

I believe it would be fitting if Harris, takes the pictures at the rapidly approaching CBC burial.

can't believe the number of posts for a non-subject. must be snowing in saskabush if you get my drift. geez.....

Close. I was planning to wash the bike and then take it for a spin to break the winter cobwebs loose from the cylinders... but the windchill convinced me otherwise.

The Msm, and that includes photographers are in a mess of cross tensions.

There is the urge to make any public figure look bad. The shot of GG Clarkson is a perfect example. She looks positively ill. Or, maybe that*s the result of realizing that spending 5.5 $million of our money on an artsy-fartsy tea party in Iceland is a legacy that will stick.

But that*s like a shot in the libral MSM*s collective foot. Do they *cross the floor* so easily, and now suck up to potential CPC advertising revenues?

Is the *crowning* of Harper a lampoon or a compliment? I think it*s a Bart Simpsonesque jab.

Well, no matter. If I were the editor, any photog who submits work with *spin adjust*, would be permanently barred from my newspaper. TG

"(Flashback: A reminder for those who protest that photo alteration "never" takes place.)"

ROTFL! Who's saying it "never" takes place?

Kate, thanks for another fun and hillarious "Fantastical Projection Fantasy." You and The Canadian Sentinel are something else. Entertainment, that's for sure.

spike: "can't believe the number of posts for a non-subject..."

...pass the margarine eh...

"He may not sue your ass, but Kate's. While I could care less about you, I rather like her and want to see her and her blog around for a long time to come. She will be the most likely target for any legal action as she is the originator of this topic and the owner of the site hosting your comments"

Even LESS intelligent argument. IF Kate ever got sued for what I had to say, it would never EVER make it to court. No lawyer would take on this case. A person who sues on such pathetic and rediculos (wow, spelling!!) grounds would end up being saddled with court costs and the label "Vexatious Litigant".

Lawn Bowling? Weak. If you're going to try to trivialize me, put your back into it. That was just lazy.

The whole point about the post is the cheap, lazy, and pathetic attempts the MSM are trying to denegrate the Prime Minister. That alleged "photo" is another example of many.

Spike, what make you think this post is trivial?
It*s the day to day subtle drip of misinformation in the MSM that wins and loses elections.

60 below or 60 above, we have to live with the outcome every day. TG

new kid - did you know Jesus was beheaded?

TG....
either don't look at the pictures or take your own. ok.

(Ian Scott at April 23, 2006 04:35 PM):

"new kid - did you know Jesus was beheaded?"

Are you bcl in drag?

I have no idea who bcl is or what bcl is.

But new kid.. is THIS taking your saviour's name in vain?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1145569812944&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

I don't read the Star...

Well, trust me then. Jesus was beheaded.

Sean said:

"a) I'm not on the left, not that I care about labels." Whatever...if the shoe fits, wear it.

"b) I'm familiar with journalistic ethics." Hmmm...that seems to be an oxymoron anymore.

"c) I'm familiar with how serious it is when someone accuses you of breaching these ethics when you haven't.

I'm an expert with cameras. I'm an expert with Photoshop. I give you my word that the discrepencies you see in the photos Kate has selected can be accounted for by subject movement, camera positioning, changes in selective focus (aperture), and focal length."

I didn't claim to see discrepancies. I didn't claim that the pictures were doctored. I noted that I am tired of people being threatened with lawsuits when they exercise their Charter rights to free speech. So, it would appear that YOU are accusing me of "breaching these ethics" when I haven't.

The point is NOT whether the pictures were doctored or not (I can imagine how they could be set up without the need for doctoring...and I can detect a difference in camera angles in the GG Clarkson photos to suggest that they were not necessarily doctored), the point is that the media is apparently selecting photographs to make a silent statement that goes beyond reporting facts. They are apparently trying to set a tone or make a visual statement that goes beyond what they write...it is leading into the subliminal side of things.

That's the point. And when someone objects to this, we're threatened with lawsuits. Yes, I realize that YOU didn't actually threaten a lawsuit, but the "libel chill" concept was being raised by you and could be taken as a form of control.

*slaps Hassle on the back*

Well, now that Ralph Klien has been "dethroned"...

ALL HAIL THY KING OF CANADIAN CONSERVATISM!!!

The photo was obviously selected to send an editorial message and to me it looks shopped around the edges too. SO SUE ME. Here is some advice to the National Post and the MSM (and anyone else in business), avoid employing loud mouth losers who sue or threaten to sue. -sarc-

There is lots of news available now so many of us are turning off the CBC and the MSM. The MSMs' plummeting ratings are a small source of satisfaction, but the best is when the bloggers like SDA and DMB nail their hides to the wall. ;0)

I really can't understand why people can argue that the CBC is worthless because of the bias in the MSM when this non-mainstream media obviously is not doing a better job of reporting the truth.

Hassle:

The libel chill wasn't being floated because people complained of an MSM bias.

That's your right and we're used to hearing that complaint, especially on this site.

It was raised because people -- including the author of this site -- falsely accused a freelance news photographer of an offense that, if proven, would permanently bar him from earning a living in his chosen profession. Doctoring a photo is a serious professional transgression, and to level that charge without foundation is dead-wrong from an ethical standpoint and actionable from a legal one.

That's Libel 101.

By the way, Kate was frothing at my last posting but she never addressed my question about the source of her contempt for the media: Yes or no, were you ever turned down for an MSM job?

Just to set the record straight.

OK. I thought I made myself clear in my "frothing".

No, I've never been turned down for a MSM job.
No, I've never applied for one.

Why the hell would I want to work at something that averages 1/4 the hourly rate I earn at my current occupation?

Here's a little insight for you - would you like to know how I managed to find the time to put together over 3500 posts in just over 2 years at this?

I only have to work two days a week to support myself. Everything I own is paid for. The rest of the time I do what I please. As I said - the arrogance and presumptiveness of the question is revealing - it's symptomatic of the denial and defensiveness of a media that has enjoyed immunity from public scrutiny for far too long.

OOoooooooh good ... lawyers!
Someone has a liberal against a wall.

Kate:

Like hundreds or thousands of other people (and like dozens of MSM types) I enjoy your blog, even if I don't always agree with your take on things, and like the vast majority of your readers I'm grateful that you take the time to do this and am glad you're doing well enough to find the free time.

Thanks for addressing my note.

But I thought your post on Aaron Harris was ill-informed and unfair.

There are plenty of reasons to find fault with the MSM and your blog serves a valuable purpose in challenging its approach sometimes.

But please excuse some of us for reacting angrily when you paint the entire fourth estate with one brush, and malign a whole institution under imagined or erroneous pretenses, which is what I believe you have done in this case.

Ural, ever heard of Air Farce, 22 Minutes, or Double Exposure? Sure cbc.ca isn't humour primarily, but sometimes photos aren't exactly as taken. Gosh, sometimes they don't use photos at all, and use drawings *gasp*.

Double Exposure was CTV, and I thought it way funnier than the socialist poopoo on CBC.

Hmm... Kate, you could make a lot of money in terms of hourly rate just cutting my hair.

How's ten bucks for just four minutes? Plus a two dollar tip?

My barber certainly is happy to see me when I come in for a haircut...

Re tony's comment (April 24, 2006 01:22 AM): "...please excuse some of us for reacting angrily when you paint the entire fourth estate with one brush, and malign a whole institution under imagined or erroneous pretenses...":

What tony and a bunch of others don't seem to get is that it's the accumulation of similar incidents to the possible/probable? doctoring of a photo that defines the MSM. One incident, of itself, does not a case make. But, literally, thousands of them over the years--all leaning in one direction, and that's in favour of the left wing of the political spectrum and working against any one or party on the right--sure as heck causes the blood to boil if you're not a leftie.

The problem with the MSM in Canada is that it acts, arrogantly and overtime, as an unofficial opposition when the CPC are in power and as a cheerleader and a PR agent when the LPC is in power. The Canadian MSM are the authors of their own dismal position as bottom feeders, and it's irritating in the extreme when they start to moan about being unfairly treated.

How come, if Aaron Harris' photo has not been doctored, the CBC hasn't weighed in to defend him and their choice of graphic to accompany PMSH's speech at the Empire Club?

Moaning, whimpering, whining, is not the way to make a point.

New Kid, you are so right: "Moaning, whimpering, whining, is not the way to make a point." Please spread the word among neocons/conservatives/right wingers or whatever non-derogatory appellation may be applicable to the main complainers on this site.

Challenge to all photographers, main stream or not: get that candid shot of Harper with a finger up his nose and get it published. Let's have screams for a change.

Thanks for the explanation, Kate. Now, I ask again, does Stephen not have a different tie in his wardrobe? It appears to me that he is wearing the same tie at the April and November speeches. NO?

The three photos that show his tie were all taken at the same April speech, afaik.

I like the tie. Leave the tie out of this!! :)

...Oooooooooh look a shiney thingy...

...err, what was this blog on? Kate's haircut? MSM into bondage?

Cool...

couldnt get stevie to line up with the 666 logo placed somewhere in the room

I can't believe this useless posting has generated this much commentary.

Further evidence the left has only a grasp on themselves.

They do (or did) this regularly at NDHQ briefings. The CDS or whoever else was speaking usually ended up in photos with the CF crest behind their head in such a way as to give them a wreath of maple leaves. Never flattering.