Shame. Shame.
Today is the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II, and media is jumping all over the story. Some outlets are talking to veterans; others are covering the re-enactment of the famous “kiss” photo in Times Square. But something’s missing, as far as I can tell.
I just watched a handful of teasers and a lovely segment on ABC’s Good Morning America (which truly is my morning show of preference) where they talked about the “iconic photo,” “the classic photo,” — but they let me down today: not one mention of the photographer (unless I missed it). To me that was like getting half the story.
The photo of the sailor kissing the nurse, made famous in Life magazine, was captured by the accomplished photographer, Alfred Eisenstaedt. Although Navy photographer, Victor Jorgensen, snapped a similar image that was published in the New York Times, it never quite achieved the recognition of the Eisenstaedt version.
Wonderful mystery surrounds theis spot photo because the identity of the subjects was never confirmed. Life magazine was even so cautious as to not assume the woman as a nurse when they captioned it, “In New York’s Times Square a white-clad girl clutches her purse and skirt as an uninhibited sailor plants his lips squarely on hers.” Quite responsible.
So, who credited the photo correctly today?
Yahoo News did. The New York Post did. Canada.com did. Even StraitsTimes out of Singapore did.
Is this a difference between broadcast and print/online journalism? … Perhaps a perception that the public doesn’t need to know the details when you have merely 30 seconds to tell the story? … or was it careless oversight?
So word to the wise … if you’re writing and want to protect your content, include attribution language: “You have permission to reprint this information, but kindly source it to author, title, publication and date.”
If you’re the one reporting and incorporating protected content, be fair and be legal. Don’t pass it off as your own. While academic writers are usually most skilled in footnoting, the rest of us can do the courtesy with phrases like these or with an asterisk to mouse type at the bottom.
- “As noted by XXX resource…”
- “According to the XYZ study of year here…”
- “So and so states in his article about thus and such (published where and when)…”
Recently I had occasion to provide content to an editor of an e-letter. He had requested graphics in addition to stats, and when I mentioned attribution, he offered a good idea: have the designer incorporate the source line into the artwork before we send it to him. We did, and now the attribution always travels with the images
Maybe it’s personal experience that prompts me to complain, but I remember being a teenager and having countless adults impart universal truths with the phrase, “They say…” My first reaction was always, “Who’s ‘they’?” And if I couldn’t get a concrete answer, I’d dismiss the advice.
Same is true as we attempt to offer wisdom through the written word. Generally it’s unconvincing to to say, “Studies show that 4 out of 5 individuals do thus-and-such.” It’s far stronger to say, “The Monumental Study by Prominent Research Firm found that, among 50,000 people surveyed in January 2010, 4 out of 5 exhibited this behavior.”
Attribution lends substance to writing. It also gives credit where credit is due. So, thank you Mr. Eisenstaedt, for your remarkable photographic moment, and as we remember it and exploit it, we promise to think of you.
Tags: Attribution, by-lines, photo credits, sourcing
Categories: Editing, Responsible reporting