The Art of Copying Each Other
Whenever I see situations like this, I just have to wonder: If we have photojournalists putting out such obvious duplicates as this from the Palestinian territories—Why do we bother sending any photographers there at all? I think the fact that this "clustering" of photojournalists happens so often is certainly indicative of us having—at the very least—a few too many stationed there.
Exhibit A:
Related: The Elder has more on this story, if you're interested.
Exhibit A:
REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA)
(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)
Related: The Elder has more on this story, if you're interested.
Exhibit B:
If these photographers were standing any closer together, we'd probably have to host a wedding ceremony for them.
So seriously, I can think of only a few reasons why we get "clustered" pictures like this. I'd love to hear what you think about it, too, so be sure to chime in down in the comments. Particularly if your name happens to be Muhammed Muheisen (hint hint, my friend).
No matter what the reason, you'd think that the vaunted editorial process would've weeded out duplication like this by now.
Closing question: Is this lapse in editorial oversight due to incompetence, negligence, or malice?
REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA)
(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)
If these photographers were standing any closer together, we'd probably have to host a wedding ceremony for them.
So seriously, I can think of only a few reasons why we get "clustered" pictures like this. I'd love to hear what you think about it, too, so be sure to chime in down in the comments. Particularly if your name happens to be Muhammed Muheisen (hint hint, my friend).
- These photographers are friends, and spend their time covering assignments together.
This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though I certainly would've thought that the editors at either Reuters or the Associated Press would've taken them to task for sending essentially the same photograph to two different wire services by now.
- These photographers are being encouraged to take particular pictures.
Whenever photographers are escorted around by terrorist entities, or are otherwise "encouraged" by "human rights" (etc.) groups to take particular pictures, I think some acknowledgement needs to be made in the caption that the photograph was suggested, staged, coerced, etc. To deny this type of knowledge from the news consumer does them a rather serious disservice, wouldn't you think?
- Everyone's out for the iconic shot.
Yeah, I'm sure there's immense Pulitzer pressure in the industry, but taking shortcuts to try and get yourself noticed by the committee can certainly have negative consequences. [Ed.:—Ack, let me point out that my selection of WRH as a reference does not imply that I think that WRH is a credible source. Notice that the article is re-published from a now-defunct website. You should've seen the flame wars Michael Rivero used to receive over at FreeRepublic...]
No matter what the reason, you'd think that the vaunted editorial process would've weeded out duplication like this by now.
Closing question: Is this lapse in editorial oversight due to incompetence, negligence, or malice?
