(For the record, this was just before 11 p.m. Eastern time on 7/17/09, 10 days after the NYT claimed the images were removed.)

Although Gawker does acknowledge that Adam Gurno's made the initial discovery at the end of their post, they oddly begin it with the claim that “Photo District News has found evidence of digital manipulation…” and proceed to link to PDN's related article: <http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/new-york-times-…>.

PDN's own article is both self-promotional and deceiving. In the paragraph immediately preceding the manipulated photos, the editor writes:
“Working from a copy of the Times Magazine, PDN has identified evidence of manipulation in three of Martin's six published photos. A blogger first noticed the project was suspect based on a photo that ran online only.”

I realize that they point out that their print investigation differed slightly from Adam Gurno's digital analysis, but they not only don't mention his real name or handle (both easily discoverable). They don't even specify the website/blog where the discussion took place, which I think may be a lie by omission to imply that one of their own bloggers found the error. Well, maybe that last one is a stretch, but I find PDN's journalistic ethics questionable, at best.

[Note: The Gawker article may seem a bit confusing, but since they don't benefit from claiming either party the initial investigator, and they acknowledge Adam Gurno by his full name, I think their entry can be chalked up to awkward writing style, at best.]