A story about a community newspaper that blurred a football team photo to hide possibly inappropriate hand gestures (http://www.omaha.com/index.phpu_page=3930&u_sid =10118493) brought me back several years. At my former newspaper, the publisher took photos at all the firefighter installation banquets of the new officers. One week, we discovered just before publication that in a photo, an officer had his middle finger extended. It seemed to be a statement about our earlier coverage of criminal charges against him, although we couldn’t be sure. Our deadline choices were publish or not publish. The publisher didn’t want to punish the rest of the officers for the action of one; the photo ran. The officer caught grief from many who knew him. In this case, blurring might be criticized as a distortion of the photo, but the newspaper made clear to readers what it was doing and why. Maybe it wouldn’t have been tough to re-pose the players and get a “clean” photo for publication, but maybe this tactic was a message by the newspaper in the name of decency. At least the Times Herald didn’t take the “easy,” but unethical, way out: air brushing out the gestures.

Nothing weighty about this (http://webstainedwretch.com/blog2/2007/08/20/five-lessons-from-fletch) – it just made me smile. I was a big fan of the movie “Fletch” in college. This blog weighed the journalism practices of Chevy Chase’s Fletch (he’s a reporter in the movie) against the SPJ Code of Ethics.

The NFL now explains that, yes, journalists covering their games must wear vests with Reebok and Canon logos (see July 25 entry on this blog) – but the logos are not ads. The logos are simply “directly related to the manufacture of the vest.” I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like a solution to this conflict is easier than we thought. If the logos are not ads and just happen to be there, journalists have no obligation to make sure they stay there or that they remain visible. Duct tape might work. How about a different way of manufacturing the vests, so the logos are not there? (Or is the NFL neglecting to say that the logos are required to be there – like, say, ads?) Better yet, since the NFL is digging in and blaming it on a clothing production process, media organizations should avoid all this silliness on their own. They can meet the NFL’s standards for distinctive media vests, with the right style, color, “Photographer” label, etc., by supplying their own. Why does the NFL have such a tin ear on this, when it’s important for news organizations to maintain their journalistic integrity? The size of the “ad/logo” is not the issue; being forced to wear one is. Read the NFL’s letter for yourself at http://spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/07/8198.aspx