Never base trust on a source's reputation: Le Monde's Hiroshima pictures
Posted by Jean Yves Chainon on May 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM
It seems that pictures published by Le Monde on May 10 (left, click to enlarge), accompanying a story entitled "Hiroshima: what the world never saw," weren't authentic, the paper revealed yesterday.The pictures were likely to have been taken after the 1923 earthquake that devastated the Kanto plains near Tokyo.
"Why did Le Monde give credit to these pictures," asks Sylvain Cypel, from Le Monde, in yesterday's article.
The pictures had been unveiled and validated, on May 5, by the prestigious Hoover Institution of Stanford University, in the US. However, the paper wasn't able to reach the Hoover archivist prior to the initial publication of the pictures.
Three of the pictures had been used by US historian Sean Malloy in a book published in March, seemingly further validating their authenticity in the eyes of the journalists, who spoke to Malloy. However, neither Malloy, Le monde nor the Hoover Institution contacted the referential Hiroshima Memorial to validate the pictures.
And since then, emails from Japan and expert opinions point to the fact that at least some of the pictures aren't authentic.
Should Le Monde have published the pictures based on the supposed reputation of other institutions? Did the journalists gather sufficient evidence prior to the article's publication? The Hoover Foundation was to soon issue its statement.
What do you think?
UPDATE: In its statement to Le Monde, the Hoover Institution rejected any responsibility in the validation of the pictures, claiming the pictures weren't present on their website and that it was Malloy who chose to use them as such in his book.
Source: Le Monde (link in French) - picture on LeMonde.fr from the Hoover Institution Archives and Capp Collection
Posted in :
Related Entries
- France: Karsenty wins case against France 2
- UK: Press Complaints Commission received record number of complaints, accuracy and privacy
- France: AFP labor union protests aganist government interference
- Rue89: a year of online success and the new ethics of the Web
- Detailing how a newspaper responds to economic struggles: Le Monde
2 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Never base trust on a source's reputation: Le Monde's Hiroshima pictures.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6740
» axejesaqmo from woea
ijjceog Read More
» axejesaqmo from woea
ijjceog Read More
![Digg](http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorsweblog.org%2Fnewsrooms_and_journalism%2F2008%2F05%2Fnever_base_trust_on_a_sources_reputation.php&bodytext=<form contenteditable="false" mt:asset-id="523" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://www.editorsweblog.org/Capp%20-%20Hiroshima%20fake.png"><img alt="Capp - Hiroshima fake.png" src="http://www.editorsweblog.org/Capp%20-%20Hiroshima%20fake-thumb-200x133.png" class="mt-image-left" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt; float: left;" height="133" width="200" /></a></form>It seems that pictures published by Le Monde on May 10 (left, click to enlarge), accompanying a story entitled "Hiroshima: what the world never saw," weren't authentic, the paper revealed yesterday.<br /><br />The pictures were likely to have been taken after the 1923 earthquake that devastated the Kanto plains near Tokyo.<br /><br />"Why did Le Monde give credit to these pictures," asks<b> Sylvain Cypel</b>, from Le Monde, in yesterday's article.<br /><br />The pictures had been unveiled and validated, on May 5, by the prestigious Hoover Institution of Stanford University, in the US. However, the paper wasn't able to reach the Hoover archivist prior to the initial publication of the pictures.<br /><br />Three of the pictures had been used by US historian <b>Sean Malloy</b> in a book published in March, seemingly further validating their authenticity in the eyes of the journalists, who spoke to Malloy. However, neither Malloy, Le monde nor the Hoover Institution contacted the referential Hiroshima Memorial to validate the pictures.<br /><br />And since then, emails from Japan and expert opinions point to the fact that at least some of the pictures aren't authentic.<br /><br />Should Le Monde have published the pictures based on the supposed reputation of other institutions? Did the journalists gather sufficient evidence prior to the article's publication? The Hoover Foundation was to soon issue its statement.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />UPDATE: In its <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique/article/2008/05/14/photos-d-hiroshima-la-hoover-s-explique_1044819_3216.html#ens_id=1043027">statement to Le Monde</a>, the Hoover Institution rejected any responsibility in the validation of the pictures, claiming the pictures weren't present on their website and that it was Malloy who chose to use them as such in his book. <br /><br />Source: Le Monde (link in French) - picture on <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/web/portfolio/0,12-0@2-3216,31-1042879@51-1043027,0.html">LeMonde.fr</a> from the Hoover Institution Archives and Capp Collection<br /><br /> <div><br /></div>&title=Never base trust on a source's reputation: <b><i>Le Monde</i></b>'s Hiroshima pictures){kind=link}
I have a quick question: If I was to quote this article this very moment on my blog, and tomorrow we would find out that those pictures were 100% real and true, would it be my or your lack of competence?
I think the problem with this case is that they were verified by a prestigious institution. If I, as an editor, were not sure about the pics, and still would like to publish an article about it, I would start like that: "Prestigious Hoover Institution of Stanford University informs it now has 10 pictures from Hiroshima that had never been found before". By putting it in those words, "Le Monde" would quote the institution as a source.
There are some news one can not validate. Papers cooperate with press agencies. What if those give you a fake news? Who is then responsible for the mistake?
I am not saying there is no "LeMonde's" fault here, as I do not know the case from the inside. Truth is that a good PR can change a failure into a success. The headlines day after should blame Hoover's Institution for the entire situation, and "Le Monde" should at the same time apologize its readers for not validating the news. This way the readers would think "Hey look, Le Monde is admitting to the failure, but it is not their fault - it's a good paper if they can admit it".