IDP Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 I've always thought that one of the reasons that buyers will continue to use established agencies is that they can generally rely on the product they're buying. They assume that captioning is accurate and that a place or an object is what it says it is; this isn't the case for the internet as a whole. I know that mistakes have been pointed out on this forum before but none have been quite so glaring as one I saw in today's Telegraph. It's in the iPad version but not online - and I don't know if it's in the printed edition. Below is a screenshot: One thing that article definitely doesn't show is a shot of Death Valley in California. There can be few more recognisable sights than Monument Valley in Arizona/Utah. I found the image on Alamy and, sure enough, it's captioned as Death Valley, which is an unforgivable error on the part of the photographyer/agency (Acestock). However, even more startling is the fact that the editorial staff at the Telegraph didn't notice the error and have boldy put it up as a shot of Furnace Creek in Death Valley. If such stupid errors are made by contributors, then the reputation of the whole Alamy brand suffers. I would suggest that those guilty of this sloppy behaviour have their accounts closed, as it is in nobody's interest to see such glaring howlers. Ian D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.