</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dnmilikan @ Apr 9 2003, 07:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Does there exist, today, any guiding body within the photographic community that would become involved in the establishment of this defining process? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
as a matter of fact there is a "governing body"--or rather a professional organization for news photographers. The NPPA, and they&#39;ve been around for over 50 yrs and have a code of ethics that began including statements about digital manipulation back in 1990. The core is in accurate representation and any altering of editorial content is strictly a breach of standards...

There&#39;s a difference bewtween how papers handle illustrations and news, but I don&#39;t think would anyone argue that LA Times story was anything but "news" though. There have been other instances over the years, like the National Geographic cover with the Wailing Wall or the Day In the Life books--like CA, where digital alterations were made to "editorial" type images used in a commerical way. The day in the Life books, took the track that the book covers were used to sell the product,, not as a true editorial type image. But there have been discussions about this stuff for years...I&#39;ve been a member for almost 18 yrs now, and remember going to conferences back in the 80s when they were talking about this sort of thing. Nothing new, but this guy was incredibly stupid to try that, this day in age--he&#39;ll probably never work in the industry again. I worked with a guy who was fired from a paper once for falsifying a name in a cutline....it&#39;d been almost twenty years now and I don&#39;t think he&#39;s worked for another paper since. It&#39;s a small world & word gets around.

KT