It was a stunning image, if only it had been real.
In this article that I wrote for Poynter.org, I explain why the image is problematic and why NPPA’s president said it is “not journalism.”
The main question the dust-up raises for journalists is “how much disclosure is enough when you are presenting an image that isn’t real?” Is it enough to call it an illustration? A compilation? A composite? Or do we owe the reader a full explanation of how we did what we did and that this is not really what happened, but instead it is made up?