The Guardian, interesting

Weeping child lie

Yes - this was on the BBC breakfast prog this morning, too! The Guardian article talks of Mirror readers being patronised. I think its stronger than that - misled, and once the truth is out stands to undermine the actually issue they were trying to address

Looking at what happens with the mail this week and paul wellers children bing photographs and published who can blame the mirror for using a stock image.

Don't know what the first part of that refers to, but almost regardless, yes, I think the Mirror can be blamed for using a stock image in the context of a news story

paul Weller sued the Daily Mail for publishing photos of his children in public

link

I also think it is going to be difficult to photograph a child within the context of a food bank story. Normally in a case like this in the corner there is usually text stating image posed by model etc...

The Mirror and the mail both edited a sports image last week, erasing out a player from the image, something PA photographers have been sacked for doing recently....

Well then they shouldn't have used a child photograph. If they have a story, they have a story. No need to lie to put home the point....which was most likely more about politics than anything else, anyway.

Mainstream Media( MSM ) publishes propaganda shocker.

Half the pictures shown in conflict zones are either fabricated or taken from stock photos somewhere else.

The Guardian, and MSM outlet, complaining about another MSM outlet using propaganda is hypocrisy to the max.

Hyperbole shock!!!

It does happen, but (leaving ethics aside) it isn't worth the reputational damage to a newspaper to indulge the practice. And if the photographer is the fabricator, it is often the end of a promising career.

I do concede that some news outlets have less reputation at stake than others

So what image should they have used? The food bank story is very political but also the press needs to show sensitivity to the people who use them. I think it was a powerful image for the story, I think the mirror forgot to point out that it is was a stock image. As I said earlier to get a photo of a child crying at a food bank would have been difficult and possibly had complaints about exploiting children in a difficult emotive situation.

I agree, a 'library photograph' caption would have sufficed

Maybe I'm on the wrong track here. The Mirror used an image of an American child to re-inforce their story of the growth of food banks in the UK. Surely it is lazy journalism or worse. Why could they not go to a UK food bank and take some images there of the hard working volunteers trying to serve struggling communities or the recipients in need. The subject is shocking enough in 21st century UK not to need this false imagery.

You are making the assumption that the whole of the story is true. Being a cynic, I'm actually wondering how many children have been found crying at foodbanks, and the answer I've come up with is approximately none.

That's why they shouldn't have used a child crying, never mind whether the photo was taken in the US 5 years ago. If they had asked a parent of a crying child at a foodbank if they could take a photo, they may have got the permission. But I'd guess they couldn't find a crying child at all. This aspect has been fabricated to give the story more political clout.

maybe they did go to a food bank to get an image but non was forthcoming, to jump to lazy journalism remarks is similar to lazy forum remarks, we dont know what went onbehind the scenes and to find zn image like that from astock library woyld have been very time consuming.

The use of the photograph in this piece of reportage is surely hard to accept, however expedient it might have been for a (doubtless) hard-pressed picture editor. But its use without acknowledgement that the photo had no direct connection with the story is indefensible in a newspaper