Wtf The Guardian

[Smile 26,621]

18 hours ago, Loyal72 said:

It's actually quite hard to find that picture, even if you Google "Police Scotland Ibrox" or just "Police Scotland"

Which makes it even harder to believe it's just been a random stock image of Police Scotland.

The person who wrote this knew what they were doing more of her esteemed work at the top.

Job done put the boot into the club then deny knowledge of it.

[Rowley Birkin 9,023]

just a quick google shows loads of pics that could have been used and im not a reporter  with a vast library at hand

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/group-uk-metropolitan-police-officers-6958939

 

but yeah total accident to attach a Rangers photo and people on here are still defending it

[The Dude 20,026]

25 minutes ago, Rowley Birkin said:

just a quick google shows loads of pics that could have been used and im not a reporter  with a vast library at hand

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/group-uk-metropolitan-police-officers-6958939

 

but yeah total accident to attach a Rangers photo and people on here are still defending it

Three of those are taken from a 'vast library' - Getty's to be specific. The Getty banner is a bit of a giveaway.

[Rowley Birkin 9,023]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Three of those are taken from a 'vast library' - Getty's to be specific. The Getty banner is a bit of a giveaway.

so why not use those pics then 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Rowley Birkin said:

so why not use those pics then 

Does the Gruaniad use Getty? Also, BTP and the Met are as equally relevant to a story about Police Scotland as Rangers are

[Rowley Birkin 9,023]

Just now, The Dude said:

Does the Gruaniad use Getty? Also, BTP and the Met are as equally relevant to a story about Police Scotland as Rangers are

so the BTP and met are not police? would the public not just realise that when said its police its all police or are the BTP and met immune from such things?

you're doing your damnedest to defend a Rangers hating bitch and paper but you do you

everyone on here can see what happened and how easy it would to use any other stock image and by saying i posted something from gettys isn't the win you think it is

i have nothing left to say on this but im sure you will so i'll let you have the last word as everyone knows your like a woman in that regard, so have away with your defence of them and im sure a probable little insult

[The Dude 20,026]

7 minutes ago, Rowley Birkin said:

so the BTP and met are not police? would the public not just realise that when said its police its all police or are the BTP and met immune from such things?

you're doing your damnedest to defend a Rangers hating bitch and paper but you do you

everyone on here can see what happened and how easy it would to use any other stock image and by saying i posted something from gettys isn't the win you think it is

i have nothing left to say on this but im sure you will so i'll let you have the last word as everyone knows your like a woman in that regard, so have away with your defence of them and im sure a probable little insult

Surely by that logic, the polis outside Ibrox were fair game to use - or are they not police?

If you can point me to a single post 'defending' the writer then please, quote it.

[dummiesoot 16,035]

@The Dude I back you quite often on here, however I have to ask, do you believe this is purely coincidence? Do you always back the press?

[The Dude 20,026]

10 minutes ago, dummiesoot said:

@The Dude I back you quite often on here, however I have to ask, do you believe this is purely coincidence? Do you always back the press?

I think it was most likely laziness/naïveté from a sub/photo editor based in London - were it an intentional attempt at slurring Rangers it wouldn’t have been changed as quickly as it was.

I’m far from always backing the press - take a look at my Twitter where I’ve regularly criticised both Scottish and UK wide press to the point I’ve been told by senior people at papers that I’ve almost certainly done fairly substantial harm to my career prospects by doing so. 

Whether people agree with what I say or not, there’s often an element of people confusing/misrepresenting my trying to use my own experience to try and explain how such things can happen with me ‘defending’ or ‘justifying’ what’s in the media. 

Even in this thread, I agreed with someone very early on saying there should be more care taken when selecting images for stories such as this. 

 

[OrangeRab 2,854]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I think it was most likely laziness/naïveté from a sub/photo editor based in London - were it an intentional attempt at slurring Rangers it wouldn’t have been changed as quickly as it was.

I’m far from always backing the press - take a look at my Twitter where I’ve regularly criticised both Scottish and UK wide press to the point I’ve been told by senior people at papers that I’ve almost certainly done fairly substantial harm to my career prospects by doing so. 

Whether people agree with what I say or not, there’s often an element of people confusing/misrepresenting my trying to use my own experience to try and explain how such things can happen with me ‘defending’ or ‘justifying’ what’s in the media. 

Even in this thread, I agreed with someone very early on saying there should be more care taken when selecting images for stories such as this. 

 

Makes sense that some sub editor would choose the photos (why waste time of a writer to select photos).

But do journalists really not check the final draft? I would have thought it’s just common sense that an article would be signed off by the journalist before print.

That would happen in most other lines of work? (Ie you are responsible for the project even if not every individual sub component).

And even if not. Aren’t there basic rules for these guys to follow at big papers?

Surely not linking sensitive issues to anything (football clubs, other groups/people) would be rule number one for any sub editor.

No idea if it’s innocent mistake or not, it’s probably the former. But it seems pretty lazy and incompetent journalism 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, OrangeRab said:

Makes sense that some sub editor would choose the photos (why waste time of a writer to select photos).

But do journalists really not check the final draft? I would have thought it’s just common sense that an article would be signed off by the journalist before print.

That would happen in most other lines of work? (Ie you are responsible for the project even if not every individual sub component).

And even if not. Aren’t there basic rules for these guys to follow at big papers?

Surely not linking sensitive issues to anything (football clubs, other groups/people) would be rule number one for any sub editor.

No idea if it’s innocent mistake or not, it’s probably the former. But it seems pretty lazy and incompetent journalism 

Only time I’ve ever seen a final draft (header, pics etc, included) of my stuff for a paper/magazine is once it’s published - once my copy is submitted that’s basically the last I’ll see of it until it’s out. 

Goes up the chain to be signed off -subs, editor, legal sometimes - rather than back down. 

[dummiesoot 16,035]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

I think it was most likely laziness/naïveté from a sub/photo editor based in London - were it an intentional attempt at slurring Rangers it wouldn’t have been changed as quickly as it was.

I’m far from always backing the press - take a look at my Twitter where I’ve regularly criticised both Scottish and UK wide press to the point I’ve been told by senior people at papers that I’ve almost certainly done fairly substantial harm to my career prospects by doing so. 

Whether people agree with what I say or not, there’s often an element of people confusing/misrepresenting my trying to use my own experience to try and explain how such things can happen with me ‘defending’ or ‘justifying’ what’s in the media. 

Even in this thread, I agreed with someone very early on saying there should be more care taken when selecting images for stories such as this. 

 

Cheers for the reply, I don’t do twitter though. I don’t believe this photo choice was a coincidence, not given the history of the journo

[Smile 26,621]

10 minutes ago, dummiesoot said:

Cheers for the reply, I don’t do twitter though. I don’t believe this photo choice was a coincidence, not given the history of the journo

This Bitch knew what she was doing as she has previous it's undeniable.

[The Dude 20,026]

9 minutes ago, dummiesoot said:

Cheers for the reply, I don’t do twitter though. I don’t believe this photo choice was a coincidence, not given the history of the journo

I get the suspicion but it's ignoring the fact that the journo won't have picked the image. I can say with 99% certainty that it will have been picked by a sub/photo editor rather than the person who wrote the article.

Here's a pretty good explainer on how the process works, ironically enough from The Guarniad. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/may/26/our-human-response-is-vital-snapshot-of-life-as-a-picture-editor

[Loyal72 11,657]

57 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I get the suspicion but it's ignoring the fact that the journo won't have picked the image. I can say with 99% certainty that it will have been picked by a sub/photo editor rather than the person who wrote the article.

Here's a pretty good explainer on how the process works, ironically enough from The Guarniad. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/may/26/our-human-response-is-vital-snapshot-of-life-as-a-picture-editor

Could things like this not be avoided with a bit more accountability, or even accreditation to the sub-editor.

I.e we always see the journalist/writers name, perhaps the sub-editor should be included? It might be already, I don't know the ins and outs, you do.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Loyal72 said:

Could things like this not be avoided with a bit more accountability, or even accreditation to the sub-editor.

I.e we always see the journalist/writers name, perhaps the sub-editor should be included? It might be already, I don't know the ins and outs, you do.

There will be a way for outlets to see who subbed any given article. I get the idea of crediting the sub but it's a bit like going to a restaurant and giving credit to the waiter who brought you your drinks as well as the chef.

 

[Loyal72 11,657]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

There will be a way for outlets to see who subbed any given article. I get the idea of crediting the sub but it's a bit like going to a restaurant and giving credit to the waiter who brought you your drinks as well as the chef.

 

Kind of. I get that, but at the same time, the images are part of the story, either to make it more powerful/impactful or even to just give the reader more visual aid with what they're reading. 

The wrong image can skew a headline, article etc. 

I'd look more at it like, there's a main referee in football, but we also know the names of the fourth officials and VAR team etc.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Loyal72 said:

Kind of. I get that, but at the same time, the images are part of the story, either to make it more powerful/impactful or even to just give the reader more visual aid with what they're reading. 

The wrong image can skew a headline, article etc. 

I'd look more at it like, there's a main referee in football, but we also know the names of the fourth officials and VAR team etc.

So can the wrong drink with your meal. Subs don't build a name/reputation/portfolio based on individual articles they've edited - especially if their input can be as limited as just picking an image, journos rely on bylines to do that.

I'll give you an example using one of my articles - https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-meltdown-over-rangers-defeat-13842921

Not as much as a full-stop or comma was changed from the copy I submitted and the only thing done was selecting the image and adding some internal links. It would be crazy if the byline on that was to show James Black & (insert subs name).

[Loyal72 11,657]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

So can the wrong drink with your meal. Subs don't build a name/reputation/portfolio based on individual articles they've edited - especially if their input can be as limited as just picking an image, journos rely on bylines to do that.

I'll give you an example using one of my articles - https://Copy & Paste This Shite..../sport/football/football-news/celtic-meltdown-over-Rangers-defeat-13842921

Not as much as a full-stop or comma was changed from the copy I submitted and the only thing done was selecting the image and adding some internal links. It would be crazy if the byline on that was to show James Black & (insert subs name).

See in your article, how under each image the copyright is credited DR/SNS etc, could stick it there "Image by x selected by x"

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

See in your article, how under each image the copyright is credited DR/SNS etc, could stick it there "Image by x selected by x"

Most of the photo libraries restrict what you can put there as a term of using their library - could work with purely internal images but very few have fully in-house photography teams.

[Bad Robot 21,386]

23 hours ago, Rowley Birkin said:

so the BTP and met are not police? would the public not just realise that when said its police its all police or are the BTP and met immune from such things?

you're doing your damnedest to defend a Rangers hating bitch and paper but you do you

everyone on here can see what happened and how easy it would to use any other stock image and by saying i posted something from gettys isn't the win you think it is

i have nothing left to say on this but im sure you will so i'll let you have the last word as everyone knows your like a woman in that regard, so have away with your defence of them and im sure a probable little insult

best giving up as the majority can see it wasn’t an honest mistake and another thread has went down the usual road.

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

best giving up as the majority can see it wasn’t an honest mistake and another thread has went down the usual road.

I can only take from this post that you've not actually read the thread.

[Bad Robot 21,386]

37 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I can only take from this post that you've not actually read the thread.

Let it go man 🤣

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

Let it go man 🤣

Let what go? Discussing the topic of the thread? Seems a weird suggestion. Odd you're so keen to try make the thread about me when @Loyal72 and I were discussing things wholly pertinent to the thread.

[Bad Robot 21,386]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Let what go? Discussing the topic of the thread? Seems a weird suggestion. Odd you're so keen to try make the thread about me when @Loyal72 and I were discussing things wholly pertinent to the thread.

and there it is and on that I’m outta here 👋