Visual Editors

I checked out CNN.com and ran across two different “duped readers in uproar” stories (two too many, in my opinion.)

One was from a (non-presidential) political campaign where the candidate’s head was superimposed on a slimmer body in mailing propaganda.

The other was the recent cover of Golfweek magazine, which cost the editor his job.

There are no rules against photoshopping in politics apparently, but interestingly, the Golfweek cover was an image of a noose to echo remarks made earlier in the month by a Golf Channel anchor in reference to Tiger Woods. Woods had since issued a statement dismissing the remarks and the Golf Channel anchor had apologized for her “poor choice of words.”

It seems any editor of a golf magazine would be greatly amiss to not at least mention this in the next issue, and it is quite possibly cover-worthy. But the use of a noose angered and upset hundreds of readers. In the end, the only person who has lost a job (so far) is the Golfweek editor.

To me, this says a lot about the high value on the printed word, the impact of visuals and the incredible importance of readership. Are there some images that are just off limits? Does printing something mean more than saying it? If anything’s for certain, at the very least it seems readers are destined to speak up when they know the answer.