RACER Rag

[camcartfan]

I saw on another forum that someone noticed that a picture in the March issue of Racer had been doctored prior to print. The picture is of an IRL race in progress and the crowd in the background is huge. When you look more clearly, you can see that the image of the crowd had been repeated to make it look like a full house. I wish I had the picture to show. Maybe someone can post it here.

I sent a letter to the editor of RACER expressing my distrust in the magazine. From the editor's response, it is aparent that several people have written to him. Here is their response:

Hey, lighten up folks. I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I'm afraid you're completely wide of the mark if you think this was done for ulterior motives.

RACER's art director (a man wholly disinterested in the politics of racing) used limited Photoshop cloning for aesthetic reasons, i.e., to fill up the frame, and certainly not to make some quasi-political statement. Whether it's cloning sky, crowds, asphalt or grass, it's a common and, in our opinion, not unethical technique when used purely for design reasons (as it was in this specific case). Besides, had we done this with any politically driven motives in mind, I think we'd at least have attempted to cover our tracks with a little more finesse and subtlety.

In our Sebastien Bourdais piece in the same issue as the IRL feature you refer to, we've morphed two images into the lead spread, but that doesn't mean we're insinuating he's been cloned.

And, as a matter of interest, the Champ Car cover from November's RACER is also a composite of two separate images (the result being an exciting and dynamic image, not a politically motivated one).

It is not the policy of RACER magazine to change images to alter the context or meaning of a picture for political or sensationalist or morally dubious reasons. If you believe on this occasion that we have, we respect your right to hold that view, but stress once again that it was absolutely not the case.

We appreciate, understand and respect the fact that the IRL/Champ car split continues to be a source of strongly held and passionate opinions among RACER's readers. Indeed, our recurring and sustained editorial stance in RACER is that the split has damaged U.S. open-wheel racing and we would dearly love to see a single top-level series. In the meantime, if you take the time to look through a few issues of RACER, we hope you'll see that we treat both series even handedly, both on page counts and in our overall editorial tone. Naturally, and quite understandably, that will not be to the satisfaction of those readers who wish us to take a specific side.

I thank you for your interest in RACER magazine and hope that I have clarified this matter.

Laurence Foster,
Editor-in-chief

[enemy-ace]

Decent enough response I think. I don't really see the big deal about one photo. It certainly won't disguise the fact that OW racing is hurting in N.A.
I have read RACER magazine and Mr. Foster is right, they treat both series very even handedly. I for one like the mag.

[boom boom]

His response sounds legite. I didn't see the picture or read the article but what they did for astetics is quite common in any field. As long as it isnt used to make a false point in a certain article (like IRL draws huge crowds) then it is okay... As he stated the art director used limited photoshops teqhniques to clean up the picture, and could have done a better job... Hey If any one from Racer is reading... I am a graphic artist if you have any job openings...lol

[Kicking-back]

Laurence Foster is a good editor and you can take what he says completely at face value - there's no issue here at all.

[macdaddy]

"Hey, lighten up folks."
- Laurence Foster

[dubby99]

So what's going to be the next visual enhancement from RACER???

33 cars at the INDY 500

[Kicking-back]

It just underlines the ridiculous of open-wheel racing's split that people think a bit of picture tidying in a (high quality) magazine has been done for any sort of political reason.

The magazine has been very even handed in its dealings with ChampCar and IndyCar and Laurence Foster is a man to be taken at his word.

[JohnSSC]

Dubby99, right now there are more teams committed to running the IRL season than what CC has potentially (as in not confirmed) for their season.

Not trying to pick a fight, but at least they have the potential to get 33 cars for one race where CC right now is having a difficult time finding 18 for any race.

K-B is exactly right about this ridiculous infighting.

[Ac.]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

Not trying to pick a fight, but at least they have the potential to get 33 cars for one race where CC right now is having a difficult time finding 18 for any race.

The bottom line here is that the owners of both series will pony up cash to ensure that the fields are full where they need to be.

JohnSSC may not be trying to pick a fight, but he is putting a slam on CC. The only reason that the IRL has 20 or so entries is because of the cash that Toyota and Honda are currently bringing to team owners. Same goes for Indy and 33 cars, just add TG's name to the list of donors.

[cybersdorf]

question (and this has nothing to do with IRL or CC) - if there are empty grandstands on an image then why not just leave it as it is? If there were actually no people there then why pretend there were?

[Kicking-back]

It's not a case of pretending there were.

Sometimes in a magazine you want to do something a bit clever with page layout and text over pictures etc.

As Laurence explains - such techniques are often used on covers.

[JohnSSC]

This is waaaay off topic, Cybersdorf, but there is actually some controversy in the journalistic community regarding this type of issue.

As we all know, technology can allow photographs to be altered in a a virtually undetectable fashion. Those alterations can change the perception of the unknowing viewer who looks at the picture. Now, this has been going on for years in advertising with various backgrounds substituted to enhance the image of the product. Some feel though that a line (and a dangerous line) may be crossed when an editor or even the owner of the image "enhances" it for a non-news item.

Now for Racer, I am sure they want their racing images to be colorful and vibrant. An empty grandstand of course is neither of those things. Racer wants to sell magazines and so they spice up a photo. Is this crossing the line of journalistic integrity, or is it simply enhancing an image to make you more likely to read the article?

This is more a Parc Ferme discussion but since there was a bit of a question here as to why this took place I hope the mods will leave the post and the subsequent discussion stand within this thread.

[blueflagger]

I'm one of the journalist types who strongly disagrees with this sort of photo-editing. Even if RACER's intent was not political, the result became so which is why photojournalists shouldn't alter pictures so. Cropping them is okay, but altering the content changes the meaning of the photo.

Artists don't always intend that the results of there work be interpreted in a certain manner, but they cannot prevent their audience from putting their (the viewers) own values behind what they see. Even though the intent was artistic, the resulting photo was, in fact, a lie. It made people see (and possibly believe) in something that did not exist in that manner.

My personal view is that photos that are retouched should be identified as such in any journalistic publication. I'm dreaming though. It won't happen.

[Mantom]

....My personal view is that photos that are retouched should be identified as such in any journalistic publication. I'm dreaming though. It won't happen.

I agree. However, when a photo is retouched to a large degree it's no longer a photograph - it's an "Illustration" and should be credited as such.

[blueflagger]

Originally Posted by Mantom

I agree. However, when a photo is retouched to a large degree it's no longer a photograph - it's an "Illustration" and should be credited as such.

Good idea Mantom, but we then should educate the public on the difference between a photo and a photo-illustration.

John, I understand that the editor said it was not politically done. But that doesn't mean that the result doesn't accidently become political. Because obviously it has, or it wouldn't be under discussion now. And results, unintended or otherwise, is why recomposing photos is an ethical issue for the journalism community. Corporations aren't supposed to re-touch their results; why should news journals be able to retouch their reports? And yes, photos are reports in journalism.

[JohnSSC]

Ac - I am not "putting a slam" on anyone. Just stating the facts, which unfortunately tend to get lost here in the fog of fandom.

The IRL teams are 1) over the contractually obligated minimum for their venues and 2) except in Ed Carpenter's case self supporting.

This is unlike CC in that there is still a fair amount of support by the Series ownership which is having a tough time mustering the minimum # of entries at this point in time.

Honda and Toyota are sponsoring the IRL, not CC. Just like Pacificare sponsors a CC car - it is their choice as a sponsor where and with whom they will spend their $$$.

And really, TG buys equipment for his stepson - is that some sort of crime? If Gerry Forsythe did the same thing we would be reading here about what a standup guy he is supporting his family and CC all at the same time.

Let's try to find some balance, shall we?

[Ac.]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

Ac - I am not "putting a slam" on anyone. Just stating the facts, which unfortunately tend to get lost here in the fog of fandom.

The IRL teams are 1) over the contractually obligated minimum for their venues and 2) except in Ed Carpenter's case self supporting.

This is unlike CC in that there is still a fair amount of support by the Series ownership which is having a tough time mustering the minimum # of entries at this point in time.

Honda and Toyota are sponsoring the IRL, not CC. Just like Pacificare sponsors a CC car - it is their choice as a sponsor where and with whom they will spend their $$$.

And really, TG buys equipment for his stepson - is that some sort of crime? If Gerry Forsythe did the same thing we would be reading here about what a standup guy he is supporting his family and CC all at the same time.

Let's try to find some balance, shall we?

JohnSSC, my comments were directed at the 500. TG has been financing the field for the last few years in the same way that CC is financing their field. It's ugly on both sides of the fence. Your original statement that "at least the IRL has the chance to field 33 cars for a race" is the one I take issue with as it is a subsidised field, just like CC. Without the subsidies the 500 would not have 33 entries.

[JohnSSC]

I agree with your conclusion blueflagger - a photo is a photo - period. If it is altered to make a point it should say so - just as a car commercial is often noted: "professional drivers on a closed course."

[camcartfan]

I tried to post the picture, but I did something wrong.

[JohnSSC]

Ac:

Thanks for the clarification. However, TG assisted in financing teams for one race as opposed to an entire season in the case of The 500. Further, the IRL has quite a leg up on filling the grid as currently they have 21 cars confirmed for the season that do not require IRL-fare and one that is a bit hazy as I view Carpenter's entry as more of a family taking care of their own than anything else.

There will be a number of folks coming out of the woodwork for The 500. In some cases there may be "help" from the Series. In other cases the sponsorship may be there for a single race as a one-off deal. We do not know yet if "help" will be needed this year.

Further, if you are going to quote me, than quote me correctly (which you did in your first response to my post. In your most recent post you state that I wrote: "at least the IRL has the chance to field 33 cars for a race." That is a misquote and in fact changes the tone of what I said making it more of a "dig" rather than an observation.

I wrote: "at least they have the potential (italics mine) to get 33 cars for one race" which, imho does not make the same implication as your version.

[macdaddy]

We can no longer "attach" images, camcartfan. Any pictures must be from an outside source.

[macdaddy]

This thread isn't destined to become a discussion about the 500. If it does, we'll move it to the relevant forum. Or shut it down altogether.

[Ac.]

JohnSSC: There's not much point in arguing this further as this thread is going to get shut down(sorry for getting it off track macdady). My point is that whether it is the 500 this year, or the IRL in the years preceding Honda and Toyota, TG subsidised many teams and will continue do so when necessary to keep his leage running. No different than CC.

[macdaddy]

'Nuff said.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled programming...

Something about a picture.

[mountainstar]

Touching up a photo is one thing but radically altering it is another and is no different than lying with the written word.