NY Times Acknowledges Error In Hendricks Image

Left: doctored image from the NYT; Right: orignal image.

It's been a couple of days since we pointed out that the Gray Lady ran an altered image of Christina Hendricks at the Golden Globes, in an article where writer Cathy Horyn used an anonymous quote to call the actress "big." Since then, the story has made the rounds, and the Paper of Record has printed an explanation, of sorts, saying: "The photo was slightly distorted inadvertently due to an error during routine processing. The photograph has been replaced."

Whether or not you believe that the image didn't catch anyone's eye at the New York Times before it ran, it was definitely a bit more than "slightly" distorted (which makes it harder to believe this was a "routine processing error"). In case the above side-by-side shots aren't convincing enough, one reader sent us an animated gif where he "superimposed one of the photos over the other" — you can see it after the jump.

So: did a Times intern simply make an "oops" or did Horyn specifically use that image to make some sort of point? We'll never know. However, we do know that the same paper ran an article on the same day cattily opining that Jennifer Aniston, Courtney Cox and Kate Hudson had all gained weight in their upper arms.

And not to put the Times's writers under too much of a microscope (but they're just so tiny!), we also know that someone at the NY Times Twittered, upon seeing Michael C. Hall in a hat at the same awards show: "Is Michael C. Hall playing Bob Marley in an upcoming movie? Don't get the hat or what he is hiding under it." Hall, in fact, is in remission after battling Hodgkin's lymphoma. Unsurprisingly, this is the same Times writer who Twittered asking if Morrissey was dead. And this is the kind of top notch journalism you'll soon be asked to pay more for!

Courtesy of RadiantPics

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Carlson in News on January 21, 2010 12:06 PM

Comments [rss]

TimSPC

We should rerun this picture until we get to the bottom of this story. Every day if we have to!

aspiringrapper

So according to Gothamist, it's not quality journalism if every article, usually lifted from another source, doesn't come flanked by an American Apparel ad?

garbnzgh

the story is now on abcnews.com: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nyt-photo-post-christina-hendricks-sparks-controversy/story?id=9623129

jaycjay

"And this is the kind of top notch journalism you'll soon be asked to pay more for!"

Really? I hadn't heard about this plan to charge for "tweets" from the NY Times' Twitter account. How is that going to work? Please give us the details!

Sommelier

Ha! Ha! I get it! You're trying to act like the person who made the comment about the Times charging for content doesn't know what's going on because you think it was a "tweet"? It was a news piece in the New York Times in print and on the website... which they ARE going to begin charging for... as per their own announcement. So now, instead of looking smart, you look like a moron! How's that working out for you? Feel good... like you were trying to make someone else feel? Try reading the article before you write an opinion on it.

jaycjay

The comment I quoted and responded to is part of paragraph that refers only to statements that were made via the NYTimes Twitter account, not in print or on the website.

So, yes, I feel good. Thanks for asking.

Waldorf_hysteria

Why would I ever pay for the NYT when gothamist reposts the entire paper here for free? thanks guys, for creating an entire site around reposting the Times so-called top-notch journalism!

handsomedevil

"And this is the kind of top notch journalism you'll soon be asked to pay more for!"

Thank god we can get top notch journalism for free right here.

Tower18

No doubt, I laughed at that. 80% of the content on Gothamist is taken nearly word for word (add a little snark) from the mainstream media.

zodak

she looks gorgeous in both versions. i don't think she can ever look bad.

Snoopy

It appears that whoever "shopped" her didn't know how to crop and enlarge images. The image was cropped to make her larger but nor proportionately. But then again I can't tell from looking at the side by sides if they are the actual image proportions used in the Times.

Either way fire the assistant photo editor.

Rocknrope

Between this and the Michael C. Hall comment, I'm beginning to agree with some that the Gray Lady is turning into a hack piece of trash no better than the News or Post. Paper of Record my ass.

Trilby16

"Incase" is not yet a word. It should be "in case."

dignam

Seems to me a "deliberate mistake" -- i.e., the photo box didn't match up with the dimensions of the photo, so a cack-handed late-night editor decided to stretch the horizontal a few picas, hoping no one would notice. The Golden Globes were on late, the next day's edition is early, and so someone thought it was better to stretch the photo rather than redesign the page on a deadline of minutes.

It certainly doesn't look deliberately *malicious* to me, just a combination clusterfuck created by events, deadlines and digital layout shortcuts.

Ishtar

And lets not forget the commentary by that frumpy hag, Horyn.

FelixtheCat & Christine Quinn'

Her boobs are the tops and I wish they were on top of me.

SP

The image was stretched in the X axis. No big deal. It's not like they cut her out, stretched only her, and then pasted her back in. That would be intentional manipulation, and the NY Post does that kind of shit all the time. In this case the entire image was stretched. This happens in page layout software, be in in HTML or Quark or InDesign. If the page layout is expecting an image of a certain width, and you provide one that is smaller, it will resize the image to fit. You are making a big deal out of nothing. Get over yourselves, you are not scooping anything. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, asshats.

John_Matrix

we need to clone this chick. several times.

dr zippy

Definitely not a "routine processing error". Why would the Times ever need to resize a photo in only one dimension?

Also, that thing about the upper arms... Really? Why would someone notice this, why would they care, and why would the Times print it? Is it news, or even interesting, that women in their 30s and 40s aren't as skinny as they were 10-15 years ago?

beardofbees

My concern is for the guy behind her in sunglasses. He look HUUUGE.

hotstepper

now can we get a gif of her strutting around in the dress? there is a lot of motion in the ocean.

inoyourider

The image could easily have happened by mistake.

Image formats are easy to screw up.

Plus, the NYT has been cutting costs, so some underpaid recent college grad without the sense (or time) to double-check their work probably goofed up.

robingee

I don't see how it could have been sized widthwise and not heightwise as well, unless someone sized it to fit the wrong size box... still, seems unlikely.

Tien

Well, if you resize an image in Photoshop and have the "constrain proportions" box unchecked, then the proportions of the original image can easily get messed up. I've had this happen innocently before.