Definitely worth a laugh: Nike (Or Its PR Firm) Photoshopped The Time On the Clock in Kipchoge Finishline Photo

Letsrun should hire you, or at least have you as a consultant. Thanks for reminding me there are people out there with critical thinking skills who can be reasonable.

Wow, Rojo you're really reaching with this one. I feel like I'm reading a Buzzfeed article with this kind of clickbait.

This is worth a cringe, thanks for the post. The fact that a lot of folks don't understand why this is a problem (and are blasting LR for noticing?) makes me cringe as well. I used to work in newspapers, when they were still viable, and a photo editor could get fired for something like removing an unsightly telephone wire from the sky in an image. Newspapers were run by people and were far from perfect - I saw a lot of mistakes that made me cringe as well. I also saw people get fired for ethical breeches no more serious than this doctored photo. The media did not always do a perfect job protecting the truth but I worked with a lot of people who tried very hard to do just that. Of course, newspapers are now a shell of what they were and nearly all of those people I worked with are out of the business. Photo departments and photo editors - are skeletal. One of the best photo editors I ever worked with now drives a semi truck. The few poor souls who remain in these crumbling news outlets are under pressure to accept garbage handouts that would have never been published 10 years ago. There's now a vacuum where lots of things can happen. The problem here isn't that the number is off by a couple seconds, the problem is that a person (or Nike) can freely change reality with no ramifications.

The world you are painting a picture of is dead. Look around you. There's no such thing as journalistic integrity and some of that may have come about by thinking it to be scandalous to put an accurate time on a clock in a picture.

Wonder what people would say if he ran 2:00:01 and clock in the photo was 1:59:59?

Would there be an uproar if Nike used that in their ads?

So you mean Kendra Harrison's winning time in London was 12.57 all along? No WR for her!!

Now, I am no Norman Einstein, but the discrepancy is due to the fact that Kipchoge was traveling much closer to the speed of light than the clock was.

2017 broseph wrote:

The world you are painting a picture of is dead. Look around you. There's no such thing as journalistic integrity and some of that may have come about by thinking it to be scandalous to put an accurate time on a clock in a picture.

I won't argue with you about death son - I'm a ghost, so is my old world. That digital clock photo isn't scandalous and it's not accurate. Am I wrong? Maybe I'll bring it up in the editorial board meeting that no longer takes place. Feel free to believe and defend what you want, but be careful.

former photog wrote:

2017 broseph wrote:

The world you are painting a picture of is dead. Look around you. There's no such thing as journalistic integrity and some of that may have come about by thinking it to be scandalous to put an accurate time on a clock in a picture.

I won't argue with you about death son - I'm a ghost, so is my old world. That digital clock photo isn't scandalous and it's not accurate. Am I wrong? Maybe I'll bring it up in the editorial board meeting that no longer takes place. Feel free to believe and defend what you want, but be careful.

I certainly wouldn't claim it is unaltered. However, I certainly would argue that the alteration doesn't matter, and is probably a wise decision.

Joe Theismann wrote:

Now, I am no Norman Einstein, but the discrepancy is due to the fact that Kipchoge was traveling much closer to the speed of light than the clock was.

No, it's the other way around. If Kip ran closer to the speed of light, his watch would show 2:00:23, but the stationary clock would show 2:00:25.

2017 broseph wrote:

former photog wrote:

I won't argue with you about death son - I'm a ghost, so is my old world. That digital clock photo isn't scandalous and it's not accurate. Am I wrong? Maybe I'll bring it up in the editorial board meeting that no longer takes place. Feel free to believe and defend what you want, but be careful.

I certainly wouldn't claim it is unaltered. However, I certainly would argue that the alteration doesn't matter, and is probably a wise decision.

In my old world, an alteration like this would have been a non-starter. A paper would have options in this situation. It could not run the photo, choose a photo that does not show the clock or run the photo with a caption that explains why the time is off. In my opinion these would all be better options than publishing a photo with a doctored time. You can debate the ethics of this and it’s a good debate to have. How does this edit differ from a change like color correction or cropping? Or does it? How does this change differ from the choice a photographer makes when he decides where to point the camera? Does it? My larger point here is that this sort of photo now gets published and widely circulated without anyone considering the questions I raise. Who is now debating photo ethics before an image is published? Nike? OK, I gotta get back to the cemetery.

Loinhet wrote:

Wonder what people would say if he ran 2:00:01 and clock in the photo was 1:59:59?

Would there be an uproar if Nike used that in their ads?

Yes, obviously, but that's irrelevant to the discussion because they altered the clock to make it accurate, not to deceive people into thinking he ran faster than he did.

If a newspaper or media outlet is concerned about the picture, either the original which showed an inaccurate time, or the altered one which is not "reality," they can use a different picture of EK running during the event - he was out there for two hours and change, there should be plenty of options...

Hey brojos can we talk about how you guys are constantly editing thread titles to make them more accurate/less misleading? I can't be the only one seeing a little hypocrisy here

Hello Rojo!

Here is a photo of Geoffrey Mutai at the Boston Marathon finish line with 2:03:01 on the finishing clock.

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/115th+Boston+Marathon+0PbExhqJv62l.jpg

Here is the photoshopped photo on YOUR WEBSITE!!!!! LETSRUN.COM!!!!!!! with 2:03:02 on the finishing clock.

http://www.letsrun.com/photos/2011/bostonmarathon/images/Mutai_GeoffreyFHH_BostonM11.Jpg

Notice he's broken the tape in the first photo, so unless the tape magically came back together in the next second you have some serious explaining to do.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Eliud Kipchoge ran 2:00:25 in his marathon attempt Italy. The problem for the Nike marketing guys? The clock only showed 2:00:23 when he crossed the line.

So what did they or the PR firm do? Photoshop in the proper time.

More here:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/05/nike-pr-firm-altered-time-clock-eliud-kipchoge-breaking2-finishline-photo/

I applaud Nike for doing that. This has been done on other occasions when the money shot has the athlete directly under the finish line banner and race clock does not match the finish time. The photoshopping usually occurs before the official money shot is released and no one ever knows.

wejo wrote:

I'll buy a pair of Nike Pegasus to the first person who posts under a registered name proof of another race having altered the time on the clock when the runner crosses the finishline and sending it out prior to today. Maybe you can find one but I've never seen it done.

You're lucky you qualified this offer.

Kris Krinkle wrote:

Hello Rojo!

Here is a photo of Geoffrey Mutai at the Boston Marathon finish line with 2:03:01 on the finishing clock.

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/115th+Boston+Marathon+0PbExhqJv62l.jpg

Here is the photoshopped photo on YOUR WEBSITE!!!!! LETSRUN.COM!!!!!!! with 2:03:02 on the finishing clock.

http://www.letsrun.com/photos/2011/bostonmarathon/images/Mutai_GeoffreyFHH_BostonM11.Jpg

Notice he's broken the tape in the first photo, so unless the tape magically came back together in the next second you have some serious explaining to do.

Where did you get that first photo from? That is probably the one that got altered.

the bot wrote:

Where did you get that first photo from? That is probably the one that got altered.

Why would you think that? You think someone photoshopped it to be incorrect?

george oscar bluth wrote:

I don't believe it to be in poor form at all, and I think writing a story about it is lame. Agree to disagree.

What if Trump gave a speech and the event was poorly attended and the White House had the pictures photoshopped to show a full house and sent it to the media -- would that be ok?

This is why preferably the news organization should take their own pictures, not rely on what's provided.