News Photography and the Ethics of Photoshop?

[DemonLlama]

On the way home this afternoon I was listening to a piece on "All Things Considered" about this week's Pulitzer announcements and the decision by the Toledo Blade to release a finalist from his contract because he had photoshopped nearly 80 different pictures, removing people or power lines, adding limbs or shrubs, etc.

I wondered if anyone else found the "ethics" of this somewhat vague to fire a photographer over, but I also appreciate the idea that news journalism is supposed to be held to a higher standard of "truth".

Here is a link if you would like to hear the interview with the editor of the Blade if you'd like to hear his opinion:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9626782


Your thoughts?

 

[ukcatfan]

I really do not see the harm in a little enhancement to make the image look nicer, but you can completely alter a scene if you wanted. They have to use an all or nothing approach b/c who can make the call of what is cosmetic and what alters a scene?

Kevin

 

[RitchG]

It was once explained to me (by an elder photo wizard) that every time we take a picture we do so to communicate something-an idea, an event, a feeling, etc. When a word journalist (reporter) interviews a subject, the resulting transcript is always edited before publication. This removes the ums, ahs, and off-topic parts of the conversation but should not change the tenor, style or content/context of what was said. The same should be true of the photo-j; take a photo to make a point, perhaps editit to remove the visual "ahs" and "ums", but do not change the tenor, style or content/context of the image.

The final point was that the originator of the material (reporter or photo-j) should never be the one doing the editing; that's why we have "editors".

It seems as though many news sources have strayed from the straight-arrow advice given by my old aquaintance and have moved to manipulation of words and images to suit their own editorial stand. How many times have we read/heard words/sound bites that are way out of context? On the other hand, a look through the archives at the Boston Public Library shows that alteration of fact for publication is at least as old as America.

If I was an editor at the Toldeo Blade, I would probably agree with power line removal but not with people/places alteration. But I understand their position of not allowing any edits to get out of the situation of deciding what is "correct".
---Ritch

 

[boBQuincy]

A photo is a departure from reality by definition. Shutter speed, aperture, exposure, framing, and lens choice all play a part in making the scene look the way we wish, not the way it was.

A news photo however, is a part of the public record and should be accurate. How would Doc in "Back to the Future" know what time lightning would strike if the photo of the clock were altered?
Ok, maybe that's not the best example but how about someone doing research on WDW, and the archived images have been edited? There is no good answer but I tend to think news photos should only be edited with a very light touch.

 

[jann1033]

i do find it kind of humorous in this day of news shows that constantly report the news in a biased way that they are worried about a couple of legs . in ancient times (when i was in school) it was supposed to be facts, & just the facts if so that were still so, they shouldn't change it but given that journalism is the way it is now, what's the big deal about a power line compared to a totally misleading/erroneous news blurp

 

[Gdad]

i do find it kind of humorous in this day of news shows that constantly report the news in a biased way that they are worried about a couple of legs . in ancient times (when i was in school) it was supposed to be facts, & just the facts if so that were still so, they shouldn't change it but given that journalism is the way it is now, what's the big deal about a power line compared to a totally misleading/erroneous news blurp

Yup

 

[DVC Jen]

i do find it kind of humorous in this day of news shows that constantly report the news in a biased way that they are worried about a couple of legs . in ancient times (when i was in school) it was supposed to be facts, & just the facts if so that were still so, they shouldn't change it but given that journalism is the way it is now, what's the big deal about a power line compared to a totally misleading/erroneous news blurp

I totally agree. How is taking out a power line or removing or adding a shrug changing news? Maybe the photographer thought the power line distracted from what actually was news so in order to bring the reader/viewer to the subject s/he removed the distracting bits.

In the scheme of things - it just doesn't bother me. Now if it the edit affected the news of the photograph then yes - it shouldn't be done.

 

[photo_chick]

I thought this was why art photography is taught in the art department, and photojournalism is taught in the journalism department. Photojournalism is supposed to be reporting the story an beyond a little color adjustment and cropping really should not be edited, IMO. Where as art photography is fair game for editing because it is, well art. It holds no responsibiltiy to be factually accurate, it is there to convey the artists idea and message.

Of course this does not apply to tabloid journalism where excellent photoshop skills are a must to create the 4 headed cats and Mary weeping syrup in a pancake!

 

[MICKEY88]

NPPA Code of Ethics
For further details about NPPA's rules and guidelines for professional behavior, see the NPPA Bylaws. Preamble
The National Press Photographers Association, a professional society that promotes the highest standards in photojournalism, acknowledges concern for every person's need both to be fully informed about public events and to be recognized as part of the world in which we live.

Photojournalists operate as trustees of the public. Our primary role is to report visually on the significant events and on the varied viewpoints in our common world. Our primary goal is the faithful and comprehensive depiction of the subject at hand. As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its history through images.

Photographic and video images can reveal great truths, expose wrongdoing and neglect, inspire hope and understanding and connect people around the globe through the language of visual understanding. Photographs can also cause great harm if they are callously intrusive or are manipulated.

This code is intended to promote the highest quality in all forms of photojournalism and to strengthen public confidence in the profession. It is also meant to serve as an educational tool both for those who practice and for those who appreciate photojournalism. To that end, The National Press Photographers Association sets forth the following Code of Ethics:

Code of Ethics
Photojournalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
Ideally, photojournalists should:

Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.
Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media.
Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view.
Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence.
Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects.
Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.
Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. Photojournalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it.

 

[Anewman]

When a movie plays on tv and has been altered or edited in any way from the original theatrical release(even aspect ratio), the TV networks always let the viewer know this...

I dont have a problem with altered photos, but they should be labled as such.

 

[PhotobearSam]

If you alter a NEWS photo, it should be labeled as such...

Remember this?

Time Magazine, June 27, 1994: When O.J. Simpson was arrested for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend, both Newsweek and Time used his mugshot on their cover. Time Magazine later admitted they intentionally darkened the Simpson photo. Compare this cover with the Newsweek magazine cover.

Now the Newsweek one...

This should not have happened. They did not CHANGE the photo...they just darkened it...Not GOOD.

I want the news to be REAL.

Now this picture did not convict this man, but it could have in the eyes of the public. It's not ethical to manipulate images in this way. JMHO.

Now I did not say if I thought OJ was guilty or not...

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I totally agree. How is taking out a power line or removing or adding a shrug changing news? Maybe the photographer thought the power line distracted from what actually was news so in order to bring the reader/viewer to the subject s/he removed the distracting bits.

In the scheme of things - it just doesn't bother me. Now if it the edit affected the news of the photograph then yes - it shouldn't be done.

The problem, to my mind is that if you *know* they removed powerlines or a bush, how do you know what *else* they might have removed (or added).

What's the difference between removing a couple of powerlines and adding a couple more bodies to the Iraq-war scene? Or, putting a gun in a bystanders hand? Or, replacing the shot of the white guy robber with a black guy?

Cropping, adjusting levels, color balancing seems perfectly fine ... but adding or removing from the actual scene feels WAY too close to cheating/lying for journalism....

Did Tom Hanks really shake hands with President Kennedy?

 

[jann1033]

since the oj trial was already brought up i'll tell my story bout how i realized just how big of liars journalists can be i had a broken foot and was bedridden for most of that trial and considering it was the trial or soap operas, i watched the trial...i was totally shocked to see what happened at the trial and then what was reported on the major network national news programs as what they interpreted as happening at the trial, totally changing the connotation etc, .not saying if he was guilty or not but the guilty angle was certainly overplayed more than the reality of what the evidence etc showed... it really opened my eyes, it used to be you could somewhat trust the news( big somewhat, maybe more print than tv) but that simply is not the case now which is why i find it hypocritical for them to gripe about a photo being retouched when they have "retouched" the whole story. should they retouch the story or the photo as "journalists"? nope. are they really "journalists"? nope.
ot warning and no doubt controversial so i won't say anything else about his but....never knew that about the photo of oj...and of course race had nothing to do with any of it how is that any less racist than Imus ( except Simpson was already being portrayed as guilty where as those girls of course didn't do anything )

 

[Groucho]

I don't want to get into specific news stories (that kind of controversy belongs on the Community Board IMHO, we can stick to photography-related debates here ), but I'm definitely on the side of the newspaper in this one... a news photo should not be "photoshopped" in any way. If power lines are in the way, either the photographer should move or they should be left in. They should be telling the real news, not the fantasy news where power lines don't exist.

If something like that is altered, it should be clearly stated that it is, in the byline.

As for cover story retouching - the best IMHO is when they (Newsweek?) darkened the teeth of that one snaggletoothed mom, I think from a couple years ago... I don't even remember the details.

Then there are the other stories, like the rumors of how Disney CGIed Lindsey Lohan's breasts smaller for Herbie: Fully Loaded (which the director denies), or how some female singers/actresses are digitally "stretched" to make them appear thinner in some photos... not really "news" per se but still amusing attempts to alter reality.

All this photoshopping is why I get all my news from Weekly World News - you'd never catch them presenting anything but an original, unmolested photograph! Go, Batboy!

 

[MICKEY88]

Cropping, adjusting levels, color balancing seems perfectly fine ...

actually these things can drastically change the look or mood of a photo...

 

[MICKEY88]

I won't get into comparing photo editing to news stories, just because one group does something doesn't make it right for another group

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

actually these things can drastically change the look or mood of a photo...

True, but they're also things you could do with nothing but your camera. You could underexpose to darken, soften the focus or frame the shot however you want....

IMO, adding or removing whole parts of the image is on a different "level" than setting the tone or mood of the shot....

 

[MICKEY88]

True, but they're also things you could do with nothing but your camera.

IMO, adding or removing whole parts of the image is on a different "level" than setting the tone or mood of the shot....

true, but at least what is done with the camera is more limited.........and unless the exposure is really bad, proper printing will correct it