Offensive Implication

[darrels joy]

Offensive Implication

The cover of the March edition of Harper's magazine (search) featured a photograph of seven unidentified U.S. Marines, over the headline, "AWOL in America: When Desertion is the only option." But one of those Marines says he's never gone AWOL ? and that he'd never desert his post. Lance Corporal Britian Kinder said the cover shot implies that he's a deserter ? and his father has demanded a printed retraction.

But the magazine, which does not identify any of the marines pictured, says the photo is not meant to depict the real people featured in the article.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151756,00.html

[MORTARDUDE]

What they did with the photos on the cover unrelated to the article was stupid...here is their explanation. Thanks for posting this.


http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001862.htm


PHOTO TAMPERING AT HARPER'S

By Michelle Malkin ? March 26, 2005 08:38 AM
Sharon Bond of the St. Petersburg Times reports on a controversy regarding the cover of the March issue of Harper's magazine:

Marine recruits so new that their hair hasn't been cut don't sound like the best models for a story about soldiers going AWOL - particularly since none in the group is a deserter.
But there they are, pictured on the March cover of Harper's magazine along with a headline that reads, "AWOL in America: When Desertion Is the Only Option."

Lance Cpl. Kyle Bridge of St. Petersburg is one of them. When the 19-year-old Marine reservist first heard he was on the cover of a national magazine, he thought it sounded cool. A friend teased him about being famous.

Then he realized the story was about soldiers who desert from the U.S. Army.

"It's kind of frustrating," Bridge said. "Most people that see me, if they know me, they know I wouldn't go AWOL."

The cover photo, taken at Parris Island, S.C., shows seven Marines lined up in their T-shirts, shorts and socks. They are not identified in photo credits or in the article. In fact, Harper's says the Marines are not meant to depict people in the article.

"We are decorating pages," said Giulia Melucci, the magazine's vice president for public relations. "We are not saying the soldiers are AWOL. Our covers are not necessarily representative."

A media observer said using real people as "decorations" for a story about deserters might go too far.

"Going AWOL is not a favorable or positive thing," said Kenny Irby, visual journalism group leader at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which owns the St. Petersburg Times.

Another issue is that the photograph was altered. One recruit's image appears lighter than the others, as if he were disappearing.

Getty Images, the agency that sold the photograph to Harper's, did not know it would be manipulated. The agency prohibits tampering with an image.

"It's clear to me the customer has broken the rules," said Michael Sargent, Getty's vice president in charge of editorial.

And what of the soldier in the fading image?

Lance Cpl. Britian Kinder, an active Marine who asked that his base not be identified, is upset.

"It does make me pretty angry that they would do something like this. I'm pretty much upset that they would do this without my consent."


Hat tip to Florida Cracker, who comments:

Giulia Melucci, vice-president for public relations for Harper's says the cover photo is merely decoration. There's no word on what her reaction would be if she were pictured on the cover of Time with a knife superimposed in her hand to illustrate a story on "Women Who Kill."
Or if the HQ of Harper's was pictured on the cover of Newsweek to illustrate a story "Does Media Profit From Child Porn?"

Or "Magazines That Suck."

[Jerry D]

sounds like an easy lawsuit for a good crooked lawyer to take on for the Marines pictured i.e. Defamation of Character, and Slander for starts!

[Keith_Hixson]

Instead of a retraction: Let a Marine Infantry Squad spend two hours behind closed doors with the editors of the magazine and the author. That would be better than a retraction.

Keith

[MarineAO]

Keith you are so EVIL but I like your Idea HUMMMMMM!!!!!!!

[darrels joy]

Harper's Cover Portrays Good Soldiers as Deserters

Harper's Magazine says it plans to run a clarification after receiving complaints about a photo illustration of several Marines, including one from West Virginia, that appears on the cover of the March issue with a headline promoting an article about deserters.

None of the Marines was identified. The image of Pvt. Britian Kinder, 19, of Pinch, was altered to make him appear as a blurry, ghostly figure. But Kinder's father, Mickey, said he recognized his son, who is stationed in Pensacola, Fla.

"He's quite upset, angry," the elder Kinder said. "He's a smart boy, a good Christian boy proud to be a Marine. It doesn't say his name specifically in it, but by glancing at it, you'd think he'd gone AWOL. I worry someone would see him out in public and go, 'Look, there's that boy who went AWOL.'"

The photo was taken last June at Parris Island by Getty Images, a photography agency that sold the picture to the magazine.

"We're going to print a clarification in our next issue," said Giulia Melucci, a vice president at New York-based Harper's. "We feel it needs to be clarified that these are respectable soldiers defending our country honorably. We regret any confusion it may have caused."

Ralph Hansen, associate professor of journalism at West Virginia University, questioned the photo illustration.

"Portraying honorable soldiers as deserters is clearly inappropriate. And I don't see any way Harper's could claim that they weren't portraying the young Marines as deserters," Hansen said. "A cover is more than just art. I think that someone had a great idea for a cover illustration and forgot that he or she was dealing with images of real people."

? 2005 Associated Press.