Read on Twitter
OK so everyone has seen the "viral" photo going around of the piles of mailboxes in Wisconsin being used as evidence that Trump is sabotaging USPS. Problem is, they have been there for years: Hartford Finishing Inc. powder coats and refurbishes the old mailboxes. (1/8)
When I called up Hartford Finishing, Inc., a woman on the phone confirmed that they have a government contract for the mailbox refurbishing and that they "get them from all over and make them look good again" (2/8)
This is where I have to give some tough love to my friends at @reuterspictures. They sent a staff photog to these mailboxes. And then posted them to the wire labeling the site of the mailboxes as just an "industrial lot" when context is our entire job as journalists. (3/8)
To find this location on Google, you have to search for "Hartford Finishing". It's a side road, not like you can spot the mailboxes from a highway. The sign for the business is 20 feet away from the mailboxes. To omit all this from the caption is journalistic malpractice. (4/8)
Let me be clear: the @reuterspictures photos are very good. And as stock art for "pile of mailboxes", it works. But @Reuters is one of the best news organizations in the world. And telling the full story and context is everything. This is an intentional omission. (5/8)
Especially since @Reuters is a wire service, other news orgs are going to use these pictures as evidence of Trump tampering with the USPS. When it's later revealed that it was just a place where mailboxes get refurbished, trust in news organizations is further eroded. (6/8)
Is having a photo go viral worth it if it's at the expense of journalistic integrity?? I think at the very least my friends at @reuterspictures should issue a caption correction for every single one of these frames, and alert editors that have used them out of context. (7/8)
For the non journalists out there: I get it, you're anxious about the election. And maybe there ARE shenanigans going on! But this is the wrong way to conduct journalism and why you don't run stories based on random info on social media without vetting the hell out of it. (8/8)
