NEW YORK, NY (April 19, 2007) – The New York Times published an Editor’s Note today telling readers that a digitally altered photograph had been published in the newspaper on Tuesday, and that it had been shot and altered by someone who is a Times staff member but who is not a staff photographer.
An editor at the Times said the person who shot and altered the image is a member of the picture desk.
The photograph was not re-published with the correction, but it is still online.
The New York Times Agency photos Web page, along with The New York Times News Service Photos & Graphics Web page, shows a photograph that exactly matches the newspaper's correction. The photograph is credited to "Roger W. Strong/The New York Times." The caption reads:
(NYT78) RIDGEFIELD, Conn. -- April 16, 2007 -- NORTHEAST-STORM-7 -- An antiques shop is washed away by the Norwalk River near the Branchville train station in Ridgefield, Conn., on Monday, April 16, 2007. High water flooded homes and businesses across the New York region. (Roger W. Strong/The New York Times) - STF
Michele McNally, the assistant managing editor of photography for the Times, could not be reached for comment because she is out of the country and will not be back until next week.
Records show Strong was an NPPA member from December 1990 until his membership expired in January 2001.
The Times reports that the photograph ran on Tuesday’s Metro Section front along with a story about flooding caused by a northeaster storm. “The wood siding at the far left of the building was out of alignment because the picture was retouched by a Times staff member who took the picture, but who is not a staff photographer. He altered it because a flash created a white spot on the picture when he shot it through the window of a train. Also, the retouching tool left a round circle on the building’s window at right.”
The picture is not available on the newspaper’s Web site packaged with the story, “Storm Leaves a Toll of Flooding and Hardship,” by Robert D. McFadden, but the Editor’s Note on Thursday night was appended to that Tuesday article.
The Editor’s Note concludes, “Times policy forbids the manipulation of any photograph. Had editors been aware of the manipulation and seen the original picture, they would have either published the picture with the blemish or not used it.”
