Responsa postscript
Aug. 6th, 2007 12:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vettecatAs a followup to my recent post about the NYT article controversy, I just saw this article, in which the cause of the controversy admits that he was, in fact, not deliberately cut from the photograph. About half the class was left out because the photographer couldn't fit everyone into the frame, and the photo that ran in the newsletter happened to be one that didn't include him. (I'm not in the shot shown here because I was in the half that made it into the newsletter... the cutoff point was the woman in the back row with the white hat. Everyone to the left of her [well, to her right] wasn't in the newsletter shot. The article author is at the extreme left.)
This is the really disturbing part:
[the photographer], who is now based in New York, said the Times "paid my way to go back to [his Boston studio] and find the negative. They wanted to run the [reunion] picture to illustrate" [the author]'s claim of being discriminated against because of his relationship with a non-Jew. [the photographer] returned with the photo but the Times opted not to publish it, he said, when it became obvious that there was no cropping but simply an overflowing of reunion participants beyond the camera's range.
Going through with publishing the rant when it became obvious that his complaint was baseless seems extremely unprofessional. The Orthodox Union is calling for the Times to drop him from their staff on the basis of loss of journalistic credibility. I don't know if that'll actually happen, but it does make you question how closely the Times checks all their other facts...
This is the really disturbing part:
[the photographer], who is now based in New York, said the Times "paid my way to go back to [his Boston studio] and find the negative. They wanted to run the [reunion] picture to illustrate" [the author]'s claim of being discriminated against because of his relationship with a non-Jew. [the photographer] returned with the photo but the Times opted not to publish it, he said, when it became obvious that there was no cropping but simply an overflowing of reunion participants beyond the camera's range.
Going through with publishing the rant when it became obvious that his complaint was baseless seems extremely unprofessional. The Orthodox Union is calling for the Times to drop him from their staff on the basis of loss of journalistic credibility. I don't know if that'll actually happen, but it does make you question how closely the Times checks all their other facts...
