Photo "Illustration" in news media?

I have a question about photojournalistic integrity. Check out the image that accompanies the opinion piece in the Boston Globe. I get the artistic purpose, but should a news outlet post an image like this to accompany and article? Is it because the piece is an opinion piece and not a news article that this photo gets a pass? Photo given credit to AP, but then staff "illustrated it"? In an age where news photographers to laid off, they hire digital artists to add visual hyperbole to articles?

http://www.bostonglobe​.com …Dnqbft9VhL8i4K/​story.html

Don't see the problem. The item is clearly not "news" but "opinion", so it can be accompanied by a cartoon or composite photo or whatever to illustrate a point of view. AP was given photo credit and so one assumes they're OK with the photo being used.

This has nothing whatever to do with photojournalism in this or any nearby universe.

The image is an illustration. Clearly marked. No mistake. With meticulous credit for raw materials. You may not like it, but it needs no pass from anyone. I don't like it much either. Looks to me like a five minute effort thrown together at the last minute to add some life to a piece with an overly artsy lead graph. Even with both us unimpressed, there's still no need for even a hall pass.

I have a question about whether a renegade Globe truck ran over your kitten or puppy. <G>

Yep, I'm a newspaper guy.

.

Nathan wrote in post #18507396
I have a question about photojournalistic integrity. Check out the image that accompanies the opinion piece in the Boston Globe. I get the artistic purpose, but should a news outlet post an image like this to accompany and article? Is it because the piece is an opinion piece and not a news article that this photo gets a pass? Photo given credit to AP, but then staff "illustrated it"? In an age where news photographers to laid off, they hire digital artists to add visual hyperbole to articles?

http://www.bostonglobe​.com …Dnqbft9VhL8i4K/​story.html

The article has nothing to do with news whatsoever, so why would you - or anyone - expect an accompanying image to have "journalistic integrity"? . I do not understand your apparent problem with the use of this image in this context.

.

.

I'm not sure why you would even call attention to it. Printed media does whatever the hell they please if they think it will draw readers. True, false, made up.......doesn't make any difference any more, as long as it sucks in readers and they can sell advertising. They're just struggling to stay alive.

Journalistic integrity.......that's funny in itself. Your basic oxymoron.

For some reason, I was over sensitive today. All your points make perfect sense and I should facepalm.

No actual even being reported on so no need for the image to be anything more than an illustration.