Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Spazito

(55,352 posts)
14. it seems it was the PTA that requested the 'smiley face'...
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:12 AM
Apr 2012

as opposed to it being the photographer who made that decision. Here is his explanation:

"As he tells it, after the picture was taken a liaison with the Parent Teacher's Association, that helped organize the photo shoot at the school, notified them that two of the students pictured needed to be removed because their parents did not sign a consent form.

Claussen said he was able to use the photo editing software Adobe Photoshop to lift one of the kids out, but had explained to them that there was a problem with the second student. He was sitting in the front row, right in the middle.

He showed me the notes he had written down on a white piece of paper as the pair discussed what to do. He said he would have gladly come out there to reshoot the image. Instead there was talk about putting a star over his face and then, he said, the P.T.A. asked him to place a smiley face.

He's never received a request like that before. In the nearly four decades he's been in business he told Local 10 he's never done such a thing."

http://www.local10.com/news/Parents-call-school-photo-offensive-degrading/-/1717324/10151720/-/2yu1sjz/-/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

As the father of an African American son,... MarianJack Apr 2012 #1
When will this racist shit ever end???? newfie11 Apr 2012 #2
Wow Live and Learn Apr 2012 #3
Serious question. Would it have been better or worse if it was a smiley white face? nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #4
Flame bait lunatica Apr 2012 #5
Not at all. Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #6
PWW trumad Apr 2012 #12
That does not answer my original question. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #13
Your question was not worth answering. n/t ceile Apr 2012 #27
Always the answer of someone who cannot answer. nt. Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #28
I disagree. It's an honest question. TalkingDog Apr 2012 #7
I don't understand your reasoning for that at all.... snooper2 Apr 2012 #9
It would have better if they realized they did not have permission to photograph him ScreamingMeemie Apr 2012 #15
I'm thinking that they didn't realize until well after the photo was taken. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #16
Then, admit the error, and don't publish the photograph. ScreamingMeemie Apr 2012 #18
Looks like according to Spazito below it was a PTA decision. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #19
Right, but they shouldn't have made that decision. ScreamingMeemie Apr 2012 #21
How completely bizarre imo. Rex Apr 2012 #8
Apart from that, those are huge looking kids for second grade. n/t LeftinOH Apr 2012 #10
No Parental Permission for photo, child should not have been included. Fla Dem Apr 2012 #11
it seems it was the PTA that requested the 'smiley face'... Spazito Apr 2012 #14
I call Shenanigans!!! Drahthaardogs Apr 2012 #17
We have no idea what the size of the chairs are. One child's legs are dangling. ScreamingMeemie Apr 2012 #22
From the clothes, I also think it's an older picture. proud2BlibKansan Apr 2012 #24
I'm with you, those are gigantic second-graders. Ikonoklast Apr 2012 #25
That's pretty awful. chrisa Apr 2012 #20
I'm sorry. But what was the point? proud2BlibKansan Apr 2012 #23
FLORIDA!! slampoet Apr 2012 #26
People that find this offensive need to find something better to do with their time. Pacafishmate Apr 2012 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Parents Upset Over 'Degra...»Reply #14