Comments on: Canon violates journalistic ethics...twice

Canon, who makes fantastic cameras, uses the NFL to force professional photographers to choose between ethical behavior and no paycheck. Time to call them offside.

[rich ea]

Not a Question of Journalistic Ethics

The writer of the article claiming that Canon has violated journalistic ethics offers such a narrow perspective on journalistic ethics as to do be no violation at all. Consider first the image in the ad which has been according to the article manipulated to show the canon lens image at the end of the lens shade. It's an ad, not a photo journalism essay. I would point out that Maria Sharapova did not actually spell out her name in spontaneously hit tennis balls in the popular Canon TV commercial. It's an ad and creative license is applied.

As to the Canon logo on the NFL sanctioned/ordered sideline vests, consider this. The NFL (like MLB,NBA, NASCAR and the Olympics to name but a few) are very effective and aggressive marketers who collect large fortunes from corporations in order to be designated the official whatever of the league and have their logo appear on official league sanctioned items. What's more, that logo is exclusive within that field. Only one sport drink, only one car company, only one airline, only one camera company. By providing journalists with the opportunity to stand on the sidelines to cover the games photographically, the NFL has the right to demand that no ads conflicting with their licensing intersts be displayed on clothing and Canon has a right to expect that as the official camera of the NFL, their logo would be displayed on the photographer's NFL mandated photo vests.

Any media outlet that would rather cover the games without visuals than comply with league rules has a perfect right to do so. Ironically, next time you watch an NFL game or just about any other major sporting event, count the number of white lenses on the sideline. Those are for the most part, Canon lenses on Canon cameras. Nikon, the other choice of professional sports photogs have black lenses. Given the greater number of white lenses to black lenses, the endorsement of the professional community seems clear without logos.

Finally, comes the question of endoresement compensation to the photo journalists who are forced to wear the logoed vests. Nobody is asking for their endorsement and if they were being asked they would no doubt be compensated. They are simply being offered a quid pro quo by the NFL...wear the vest, stand on the sidelines. Don't wear the vest, watch on TV. If there are to be complaints, they can address them to the NFL among others for tatooing brand logos on everything that moves and everything that doesn't move. Canon anted up the promotional bucks to be seen as the NFL's camera brand of choice. They have a right, ethically and otherwise, to see their brand appropriately displayed within the guidelines the NFL establishes.

[TAFB]

Article exhibits journalistic stupidity...twice!

If Canon were in the business of selling red vests, this article might have a point. The above ads, cited as evidence of Canon's purported violations of journalistic ethics, show a group of photographers using Canon's white lenses. Did Canon photoshop black lenses into white lenses? Did the NFL force the photographers in the ads to use only white lenses in exchange for some payment from Canon? Will people run out to buy Canon lenses because everyone in the picture is wearing a red vest? The analogies used in the article of a doctor prescribing medicine and a stock broker recommending a trade are hardly applicable to this scenario. The photographers in the ads are recommending Canon's lenses by their use of such lenses, not by wearing red vests. In fact, I did not see "Canon" on any of the red vests used in the pictures.

How is Canon violating journalistic ethics when an advertisement shows the surface of a lens at the end of a lens hood? The ad is an ad, not an article on the construction of a lens. Are you suggesting that the lenses depicted in the ads don't really have lenses? Are you concerned that a customer will be duped into buying a lens only to find out that the lens surface is deeper inside the hood than as shown in the ad? What does the location of the lens surface and the lens hood have to do with the red vests?

If you are going to accuse a company of violating journalistic ethics, you should first consider whether such an accusation has merit. The facts presented in the article do not justify the accusations made in the article. Journalistic ethics should require a journalist who is making claims of ethical violations to use higher standard than the one used in this article.

[Howard_V_Agnew]

Criticisms go to show ...

Corporations have nothing to fear, they won't be held to account and seemingly well-educated persons in the public fail to understand nor care.

How about if all photographers at White House press confererences were required to wear shirts stating "We support George Bush"?

The claim that a Canon logo on a shirt somehow improves security is a farce ... I'm sure there are some photographers who do not use canon products, and I'm sure many of them decided to nix NFL coverage as a result, which helped Canon monopolize for these ads. They actually benefit from severely angering people!

[rich ea]

Specious Analogies Do Not Add Credibility

Mr. Agnew's lament that "seemingly" well-educated people are letting corporations off the hook for their excesses seems oddly directed in this manufactured controversy between Canon, the NFL and an undetermined number of supposedly offended photo journalists. Mr. Agnew makes the specious analogy that wearing a vest supplied by the NFL for use at its games with a Canon logo on it is tantamount to the White House demanding reporters wear "I Support George Bush" signs.

As analogies go, this one is so disproportionate as to be absurd (as were analogies in the original article like the one about Doctors pushing certain drugs for financial gain). For one thing to be analogous to another it must be in proportion and this simply is not equal to President Bush strong-arming the press or Doctors co-opting their Hippocratic oath for a hot kickback from the pharma giants. Corporations get away with literal murder in this country and we "seemingly well-educated" types have been attacked relentlessly anytime the subject arises. Canon's logo on a red sideline photovest does not remotely rise to that level of corporate interference. And for the record, if there is any claim to a safety/security aspect of the vest it is the red color and not the Canon logo...but I suspect Mr. Agnew already knew that.

Frankly, I know of no professional sports photo journalist, assigned to cover the NFL (a prized assignment I would add) with their trusty NIKON of choice, that would turn down the job because of a logo on their vest. Maybe there are a few, but I doubt their dominance. They would certainly not give up their coveted assignments because the equipment in their hands and around their neck doesn't match the logo on their vest. Besides, the logo is just a logo...it doesn't say "I Support Canon."

Mr. Agnew...when you take on the health establishment, the oil and energy establishment and the military industrial complex let me know and I will join you. I'm guessing a number of my seemingly well-educuated peers will join you too. Hell, focus on the lack of journalistic ethics demonstrated by every major media outlet when they spent the first few years of the Iraq war cheerleading the President instead of reporting the truth, largely because they wanted continued access and were afraid of the public backlash any criticism might bring their way. Then I will pay attention.

When you seek to fault a company for having their logo appear on an officially sanctioned garment of a sport that they pay dearly to be the official sponsor of, then you lose me. It's not only a non issue, it is nonsense.

[alegr]

Not impossible

"it is tantamount to the White House demanding reporters wear "I Support George Bush" signs"

What if Secret Service tells that all the press members got to wear SS-provided jackets. Which coincidentally are visibly branded with "Bush" company (not related to GWB, of course) logo?

[Phillep_H]

Cheerleading

I read too many military blogs to accept the claim that the news media is "cheerleading" for the US in Iraq. Does AP or any of the other news outlets actually investigate their stringers?

[Chuckle8]

It takes ethics to recognize a breach of ethics.

"When you seek to fault a company for having their logo appear on an officially sanctioned garment of a sport that they pay dearly to be the official sponsor of, then you lose me. It's not only a non issue, it is nonsense." - rich ea

It is definitely an issue, and a glaring example of a much larger problem. And if you can't recognize that, you are a part of that problem.

[rich ea]

My ethcs are intact, Thank you for your concern

Chuckle8 apparently finds it more productive to attack me for a supposed lack of ethics and then opine that it is "defintely an issue," and "a glaring example of a much larger problem." He or she then goes on to tell me that if I don't agree with this take on the issue, vague and unspecified as it is, that I am ethically challenged and "part of the problem."

Please enlighten us all Chuckle as to the the nature of that "much larger problem" as you see it and how my belief that when someone pays for sponsorship they should receive value from that purchase is part of the problem.

Are you simply opposed to sponsorships?

Are professional sports too commercial for your taste?
If so, where would you begin to de-commercialize these multi-billion dollar industries?

Are vests with logos on them your only hot-button or shall we do away with all branding and co-branding campaigns?

Is it only the media that you are concerned with? If so I can understand, given the inviolate, even chaste way they typically do business. After all, the news media exists in an environment sans advertising, promotions, special events, political pandering, paid endorsements or sweeps week sensations.

Beyond your vague assertions and personal attacks, what exactly are your objections to my two rather lengthy and specific posts on the subject and how can I repent my sins in this matter and live a righteous, commercial-free life in your eyes?

[rich ea]

My ethics are intact. Thank you for your concern

Chuckle8 apparently finds it more productive to attack me for a supposed lack of ethics and then opine that it is "defintely an issue," and "a glaring example of a much larger problem." He or she then goes on to tell me that if I don't agree with this take on the issue, vague and unspecified as it is, that I am ethically challenged and "part of the problem."

Please enlighten us all Chuckle as to the the nature of that "much larger problem" as you see it and how my belief that when someone pays for sponsorship they should receive value from that purchase is part of the problem.

Are you simply opposed to sponsorships?

Are professional sports too commercial for your taste?
If so, where would you begin to de-commercialize these multi-billion dollar industries?

Are vests with logos on them your only hot-button or shall we do away with all branding and co-branding campaigns?

Is it only the media that you are concerned with? If so I can understand, given the inviolate, even chaste way they typically do business. After all, the news media exists in an environment sans advertising, promotions, special events, political pandering, paid endorsements or sweeps week sensations.

Beyond your vague assertions and personal attacks, what exactly are your objections to my two rather lengthy and specific posts on the subject and how can I repent my sins in this matter and live a righteous, commercial-free life in your eyes?

[rich ea]

My Ethics Are Intact. Thank You for Your Concern.

Chuckle8 apparently finds it more productive to attack me for a supposed lack of ethics and then opine that it is "defintely an issue," and "a glaring example of a much larger problem." He or she then goes on to tell me that if I don't agree with this take on the issue, vague and unspecified as it is, that I am ethically challenged and "part of the problem."

Please enlighten us all Chuckle as to the the nature of that "much larger problem" as you see it and how my belief that when someone pays for sponsorship they should receive value from that purchase is part of the problem.

Are you simply opposed to sponsorships?

Are professional sports too commercial for your taste?
If so, where would you begin to de-commercialize these multi-billion dollar industries?

Are vests with logos on them your only hot-button or shall we do away with all branding and co-branding campaigns?

Is it only the media that you are concerned with? If so I can understand, given the inviolate, even chaste way they typically do business. After all, the news media exists in an environment sans advertising, promotions, special events, political pandering, paid endorsements or sweeps week sensations.

Beyond your vague assertions and personal attacks, what exactly are your objections to my two rather lengthy and specific posts on the subject and how can I repent my sins in this matter and live a righteous, commercial-free life in your eyes?

[rich ea]

Apologies for the duplicate posts

Not a filibuster. Simply a posting glitch.

[newsshooter]

As a pro photographer

First of all, IF I shoot with a white lens (I don't) it's MY choice, just as it's my choice to put a piece of gaffers tape over the name, should I not feel like being a walking billboard. The problem comes when that choice is taken away from me, and I'm plastered in some magazine ad without my having any say so.

The problem lies in the fact that journalists need to maintain an arms length relationship with the entities they're covering, and that INCLUDES photojournalists. Forcing us to become a billboard is no different than your daily paper agreeing, for a price, to force the local business reporter to cover the opening of a certain business. It's just not done, at least by ethical papers.

[kfarouki]

but your *not* plastered in some magazine...

I don't at all understand this complaint: "The problem comes when that choice is taken away from me, and I'm plastered in some magazine ad without my having any say so."

The ad in question that I've seen is available here: http://www.usa.canon.com/app.html/NFL . (I believe there is a link to this in the original source article). The bottom of the ad says very clearly: "Individuals shown wearing red vests are arctors, not real photographers."

Does this change your position?

[sanenazok]

Edited Pictures don't violate ethics

While I basically understand the gripe about having to wear Canon ads to do your job, the so-called "second" breach of ethics here is stupid. Editing or enhancing pictures used as part of advertising isn't a breach of ethics unless the edited pictures somehow mislead the viewer. Sure, lenses visible through hoods might look stupid, but claiming that this is a breach of ethics is a gross overstatement. Commercials have no duty to convey reality, just "truth." Claiming that editing a picture is a breach of ethics actually causes the whole concept to loose meaning. Ethics are very important, and should not be demeaned just because some author wants a catchy title.

[Phillep_H]

How Hilarious

I will not buy anything with a Canon lable because of the way the did not support their Innova laptop, but I think the complaints are hilarious.

First, it's not like NBC or ABC stuck their lable on the vests, so there is no competition issue with the photographers, just competition with other equipment suppliers.

Second, what's the gripe? That the photog's aren't getting a cut?

Third, and best, journalists using the word "ethics". I follow too much politics to take journalists gassing about ethics as anything but the rankest hypocrisy.

[Travis Ernst]

It's called Gaffers Tape

We do it all the time on stage to cover up shirts and brand name on hats. We
had to cover up the on loan keys printing on the back and top brand due to
the artist being endorsed by the other company. If they don't care to have
that name exposed just use your gaffers tape or a similar color duct tape to
cover it up. As long as you didn't agree to any terms or endorsement
agreement by wearing it then go ahead, you would not be in violation of
contract. Don't look into it deep.

The primary reason companies are doing this is people like me record the
game on DVR like devices (or on the PC) and skip over the commercials and
time between plays. I have NOT watched a commercial break in a year. This
is how it's heading and the industry is starting to see the light. They will have
to be using product placement (like the name on the vest here!) or all
characters driving brand name XYZ cars, or the office has 123 computers.
It's advertising without the commercials.

[fotosfx]

Canon violates Journalistic ethics, NOT

First advertising is NOT editorial, period. If Canon creates an ad it can do what it wants with it. Editorial content written by actual journalists is a whole other issue. They are not allowed to alter facts, just as PJ;s are not allowe to alter images.

This particular issue has been discussed at length by photographers on www.sportsshooter.com. Many photographers were concerned about the vests in the beginning. But after thinking about it we realized that we are walking ads anyway. Nike shoes, Canon or Nikon camera straps, North face jackets, on and on.

Professional soccer, Skiing, the Olympics all require media vests, credentials etc, so it really is nothing new. It is done for security reasons so that at a distance the pro photographers are readily visible. The vests are ugly, the color runs when it rains and it makes using vests or fanny packs more diffcult. If photographers wearing the vests don;t like the logos they can use gaffers tape to cover them. It has pretty much become a non issue.

Les

[The_Decider]

How can a non-journalistic company

Violate journalistic ethics?

You argument is bogus.

If it violates photo-jounalists ethics, that is a different story, and they can deal with it in several ways

[mattflaschen]

I agree that the manipulation of the lens image isn't a real issue. However, forcing the journalists to wear ads for a spurious security purpose is. Clearly, security is not the motivation here. The NFL can afford to buy every photojournalist a plain vest without a Canon logo. Instead, they've asked journalists to compromise their integrity by advertising for the NFL. And it's clear that Canon is taking full advantage by picturing the journalists in the vests, which are already becoming associated with Canon.


I commend the Chicago Tribune for refusing to accede to this demand. The AP's response, "The Canon and Reebok logos, while of some concern, appear reasonably sized and we acknowledge the common practice of sponsorship" stinks of appeasement. "The Sudetenland invasion, while of some concern, appears reasonably sized, and we acknowledge the common practice of imperialism".

[rich ea]

"...The AP's response, "The Canon and Reebok logos, while of some concern, appear reasonably sized and we acknowledge the common practice of sponsorship" stinks of appeasement. "The Sudetenland invasion, while of some concern, appears reasonably sized, and we acknowledge the common practice of imperialism".
--mattflaschen

Matt, Matt , Matt...and everyone else with the overblown analogies...we're talking about a vest with a logo here...it is NOT analogous to a Doctor pushing drugs on patients for graft...it is NOT analogous to the President or the Secret Service strong arming the White House press corps for endorsements, and it sure as hell is NOT analogous to the aliies complicity in Hitler's invasion/annexation of the Sudetenland.

A little proportion, A little perspective, please. Not everything is the same as everyhting else. Sometimes appeasement is just saying, "Yes, Dear" to your spouse because it's easier than fighting. It doesn't make you Neville Chamberlain.

And how did Canon get to be the villain here...and the only villain at that?

If its the ad showing the sidelines, the most recognizable thing in the picture is not the red vests, its row after row of the white lenses. I must say, the red vest does set the white of the lenses off nicely. In the meantime, no individual photojournalist or media outlet was identifiable or recognizable (except perhaps to each other) and no one was asked for a pro-Canon testimonial. Indeed, if there is any testimonial it is a tacit one, represented by that gaggle of white lenses.

In reality, Canon did not and could not mandate the wearing of the vests,,,they only funded their manufacture in exchange for their logo appearing on the vest along with manufacturer Reebok (which has not been accused of anything) and of course the rather large logo of the NFL which did and does mandate the wearing of the vests and whose logo is the largest on the vest.

Furthermore, the photojournalists objecting to "advertising" Canon on their vests (when Canon is not even the object of their coverage) makes little sense in context with any ethics question since they have voiced no objection to the big NFL logo that appears on the same vest. And guess what folks...they are standing on the sidelines to cover the NFL, while I suppose advertising the NFL. Shocking!

Why that would be like a reviewer from Car & Driver test driving a Mustang while wearing a FORD sweatshirt. How ethically bankrupt can one get?

(That, by the way, is an analogy with some proportion to it).

If there is any complaint to be made, any accusation of breach of ethics -- which I still think is baloney -- the complaint should be directed at the NFL.