3 years ago1,000+ Views
BBC is one of those news sources that I trust and use often. And so does the rest of the world (not just in the UK).
However, after footage of a volcano eruption (used for Patagonia TV documentary) went viral, BBC was forced to admit they faked the footage they marketed as real.

How far is to far when trying to show reality?

"Our aim was to represent the stunning visual spectacle of an eruption. We took time-lapse images from the Calbuco volcano filmed in early 2015 and the lightning shots were superimposed onto the erupting cloud.”
But they did not disclose that it wasn’t reality. And they used overlaying eruptions, plus lighting images to create the video. Sounds a bit excessive to me...

In a visual society, can you blame them?

A documentary about volcanoes can probably only be riveting to some. But really how many people are going to watch that?
Add some cool extra visuals and make the volcano look AWESOME, and who knows maybe then you have an audience?
I mean it does look pretty dang cool...
“In order to show viewers the extraordinary spectacle of a dirty thunderstorm with lightning flashes that would be impossible to capture in a single camera, a composite image was put together from footage from two Patagonian volcanoes. However, we recognise that this should have been made clear.”

What do you think? Did BBC really mess up on this one?

I’m leaving this up to my Vingle friends and the news community resonant BBC lover @InPlainSight to figure this one out.
I took the Adobe Photoshop Master Class over 10 years ago. I've used Photoshop since 1995 and I can tel you that EVERY photo I shoot and eventually share online has been through that program. In my career as a photographer I have been asked to work both sides of the "reality" line. The fact is that truth in advertising isn't the same as presenting something with journalistic integrity. News organizations shouldn't feel the need or be given to the temptation of having to "sexy up the news". When I present photos of an event I have at most used Photoshop' s Camera Raw plug in to bring out details that are truly original to the image. That's it. Changing, deleting, cropping, adding, or anything else that changes the image is simply not acceptable from a journalistic integrity standpoint. Advertising is a completely different subject. it's actually amusing how much a photo in an ad can be altered before tripping the "we shouldn't have gone there" wire. This is a great subject for a card really. I need to do one on this with samples. in regards to the BBC and what they've done... it's a pity. The whole point of having journalism standards is to ensure that people can gave faith in and trust that the information they are receiving is accurate and true. The BBC has damaged their own credibility and that's a shame.
Yes, I definitely think they messed up. Again. That's your first problem. This isn't the first time. I had to take ethics in Journalism - as I'm sure you did. Did someone at BBC skip that class? When a news/information organization starts losing the trust of their viewers, what else do they have left? It would have been the simplest thing to throw a tiny text overlay at the bottom of the screen that said "images simulated". If someone was already watching that program, they still would have been impressed to see the results of that. The biggest problem that this is going to raise for BBC is in the television tax debate. 70% of British people already want to do away with television tax for BBC. That number has been getting higher and higher every single time they've been polled. The people are already unhappy and now BBC has been caught at least three times faking footage. How much longer do you think the British people are going to support them? BBC has basically shot themselves in the foot... and it would have been so easy to prevent.
Woah that is just insane @ButterflyBlu! I took a photojournalism class in school and we learned all of the things that you said @JonPatrickHyde We weren’t even allowed to crop the image. And anything you change had to have a tag or notice. journalism already has a lens they have to work within, we cannot taint that lens anymore. because if they start lying, then journalist lose the one thing they get: trust.
@JonPatrickHyde yes, exactly. I worked as a graphic artist for a small newspaper in Alabama. We developed all the advertising, handled all the photos, and even did the layout. We constantly had clients asking if we would doctor the photos... A lot. They wanted things that just blew my mind sometimes. A couple of my personal favorites: change my hair color, change the backgrounds, crop out the police. (lol right?!) I had to explain that ethical line in the sand ad nauseum. If I had done anything more than basic photo cleanup, I would have been fired. It's as easy as that, really.
Exactly @ButterflyBlu! If they had just thrown in a little notice at the bottom of the screen, they would not be in this mess. I think maybe those journalists took those classes that we did but perhaps years of work tainted them...or they need to go back to work. It makes me sad too because I know how much good stuff BBC does! @InPlainSight it’s just the bigger and more respected you get the more you need to make sure you follow the rules
View more comments