Because, you know, it’s not – especially when you work for a billion-dollar-a-year corporate media welfare case that’s about to have its mandate reviewed.
(Click image for link)
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;
So what was Harris doing when he took that shot – lying on the floor? And if he was indeed, shooting from a lower angle, why is the microphone at the same height relative to Harper’s tie in all three images?
(And back to the original point, – what do CBC employees think they’re accomplishing with cheap stunts like this? Beyond adding “coffin nails” to Bev Oda’s shopping list)
This isn’t the first time photog Aaron Harris has “found” this clever angle at the Empire Club. Looking more closely at this older CTV story on the Gov.General, I captured the two images, and resized the smaller one to loosely match that of the Harris credited “crown on head” shot;
Note that the two are taken from nearly the same height comparable to Governor General, but that the Harris photo places the viewer a little more to the left (based on the positioning of the microphone relative to her face). Yet, miraculously, the backdrop with the maple leaf logo not only drops lower, but it also takes a sudden lurch to its right.
So, what does that suggest about how Harris may have achieved his unique image capturing “King Stephen” yesterday?
| Apr 23 Update: Steve Janke has found yet another Harris “crown on head” photo, this one apparently taken last November. |
 |
Discussion in the comments suggests that the Harris would be capable of aligning these images with the assistance of camera technique and technology. I’m willing to consider that explanation, of course – that Aaron Harris has, on at least three different dates, purposefully chosen the lenses, settings and camera angles required to place the crown portion of their logo atop the speaker’s head during speeches at the Empire Club. As was pointed out in the comments;
“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?”
*AaronHarris.com
(Flashback: A reminder for those who protest that photo alteration “never” takes place.)
April 24 followup
“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.