I almost choked on my latte this morning when I got to the Readers' Ed section of the SMH - lots of readers got all steamed up about the photos the SMH has been using to illustrate climate change/carbon tax stories, and the editor has even issued an edict about how they're going to caption these things in future.
The thing I found interesting is that Judy Prisk did have a look a the original photo and questioned the photographer about whether it had been manipulated - it hadn't. That's reassuring. However, I think the SMH is starting to get the message that its readers don't appreciate the pudding being over egged when it comes to climate change stories. Or should I rephrase that as "we're all about to die - how climate change is producing mutant killer ants".
I wonder if anyone at the SMH sees the irony in this paragraph:
First, the photographer did not manipulate the image in any way. He says he shot a series of four in the middle of the day using F22, which means a small aperture made the images razor sharp. And the reason he stopped to take the pics on the way to another job was because the scene looked so unusual. He presumes the darkness of the vapour was because it was heavy with moisture.
Hmm. The cloud was full of moisture. Yet it was used to illustrate a story about invisible CO2. The stupid - it burns!