The Digital Darkroom: Ethics of Digital Image Manipulation in Photojournalism
Download 19.3 Kb.
|
| Kelsey Keegan
Theater 380 Prof.Wilson 11/19/12
Doctoring photographs has been around almost as long as photography itself, but as photo-editing software, like Photoshop or GIMP, has both advanced and become cheaper in price (making it easily accessible and extremely popular) the practice of digital image manipulation has become much more commonplace and faked photos are becoming even harder to detect. Many consider this photographic fakery a new art form, but when it works its way into photojournalism and the media, the issue of ethics comes to the forefront. How far can we take digital image manipulation and still maintain photographic integrity? The main dilemma that presents itself in this case is if it is morally or ethically right to create, publish, and disseminate images that have been overtly digitally edited in attempt to alter the public’s perception of reality. Photojournalists (along with their credibility) and the public, whose understanding of both historical and current events is being influenced, are the primary stakeholders in this issue. Depending on how it is utilized, photo editing can be a positive tool by using minimal manipulation that merely enhances and restores photos while at the same time maintaining photographic integrity (resulting in a positive outcome) or a negative tool that attempts to alter reality either intentionally or unintentionally (by using so much digital editing that photographic integrity is lost, at which point it is no longer considered a photo, but rather a photo illustration), leading the public to distrust photography as a source of truth (resulting in a negative outcome). The morality of photo-editing software depends entirely on the purpose for which it is used. If a photojournalist feels it necessary to blatantly manipulate images, then some sort of disclaimer should be attached to the image, alerting the public that the photo is now out of context and is an individual’s interpretation of a situation or event. The public has the right to know the complete truth, even if the truth is hard to grapple with, particularly because it is impossible for everyone to experience events first-hand. The public relies on gatekeepers of information, and it is imperative that these gatekeepers are ethical and honest in their dissemination of information, which will inevitably influence public perception. If the purpose of a journalist’s photography is to depict an honest scene to the public as a record of history, then nothing more than cropping and sharpening should be done. An early example of this blatant editing is a photograph in which General Ulysses S. Grant appears to be in front of his troops at City Point, Virginia, during the American Civil War. However, some detective work by researchers at the Library of Congress revealed that this photo is a composite of three separate images. According to Hany Farid’s article “Photo Tampering Throughout History,” the “head in this photo was taken from a portrait of Grant,” the “body and horse are those of Major General Alexander M. McCook,” and the “background is of Confederate prisoners captured at the battle of Fisher’s Hill, VA.” Manipulation of historical photos is one type of photo editing that is generally dishonest and damaging to the historical record, especially when original copies of the photos in question are not readily available and preserved. This is much less of an issue today, when digital copies of a photo can be preserved in many locations. However, it can still impact the historical record if a photograph is manipulated in the same way, released to the public, but not archived and/or made widely available in its original form. Additionally, if such images are portrayed as factual without any sort of disclaimer or warning that the images are highly edited, then this is explicitly against the ethical standards of photojournalism, which are mentioned later. CNN was recently criticized for damaging the historical record when it edited a photo that other news organizations released unaltered. The article “CNN’s Photo Editing Raises Ethics Controversy” states that in February 2011, CNN blurred the faces of a group of men behind CBS correspondent Lara Logan, in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, who was assaulted by a mob of Egyptians soon after the photo was taken. Many people criticized CNN for altering the photo, saying that the network had “unethically tampered with a historic photographic record” (“CNN’s Photo Editing”). CNN defended the decision, explaining that they blurred the crowd's faces because they had no way of knowing whether the people in the photograph were the same people who had assaulted the correspondent. Not wanting to incriminate the potentially innocent crowd members, CNN protected their privacy. This type of photo editing (done to protect the individuals in the picture), in effect, does not harm the historical record since many other news organizations released the unaltered photograph, and because there is no reason to believe that the original, unaltered photo will become unavailable. Digital photos, especially those used in news media, are typically preserved in many locations and would be readily available to authorities if charges were pressed. Additionally, the facial blurring was done with good reason, did not change the photo’s meaning, and did not misrepresent the situation within the photograph. CNN altered the photo in an attempt to be ethical, not for the purposes of deceiving the public in a harmful manner. Another example of the power of digital image editing comes from the 1994 photo illustrations of O.J. Simpson in Newsweek and Time during his infamous murder trial. According to “Photojournalism,” both magazines used the same picture, yet the alterations done to the Time magazine, the darkening of the mug shot to make Simpson appear more menacing, generated a different connotation compared to Newsweek’s unaltered issue. A large amount of the contrast done to Time made Simpson look guilty, which shows the bias nature of the magazine and, in effect, could have influenced the judgment of the readers before the verdict was decided. Those who violate the core ethical rules of photojournalism also undermine the work and credibility of thousands of ethical photojournalists, many of whom risk their lives to present honest images to the public. Alex Lloyd Gross, a Pennsylvania-based freelance photojournalist, urges other photojournalists to “’always follow tight ethics. Without them, there is no trust between the reader and the journalist’” (Hancock) There is even more to the ethical standards of photojournalism than this basic principle. In fact, according to Mark Hancock’s “Ethics in the Age of Digital Manipulation” article, the National Press Photographers Association released a modernized Code of Ethics in 2004, as the old code was written in 1946 and didn’t address television or digital editing. While the standard isn’t universal, most professional photojournalists around the world abide by the code, which spells out the goal to achieve the highest standards while maintaining public confidence in the profession. This is accomplished through an honest and complete presentation of visual information, which promotes accuracy and honesty in recording of events, event fidelity, digital editing and captioning (Hancock). Furthermore, in Tana Stevenson’s article “Digital Manipulation,” the statement of principle declares that “’it is wrong to alter the content or context of a photograph in any way that deceives the public,’” and/or misrepresents or stereotypes subjects, as photojournalists “’have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record.’” Of course, there must be a defining line between a simple enhancement of a photo, like a crop or contrast (where there is no agenda to influence perception), and a blatant use of editing to alter the public’s perception of reality (“Photojournalism”). However, putting a barrier between what is allowed and what isn’t is difficult because not everyone sees eye to eye and every photojournalist has his/her own ethics. In May 2004, The Daily Mirror newspaper in the United Kingdom fired editor Piers Morgan after learning he was a party to staged images of British soldiers supposedly abusing Iraqi prisoners. Morgan refused to resign, stating that the photos “accurately illustrated the reality about the appalling conduct of some British troops” (Hancock). This is a tougher subject to deal with ethically as the reality of war may very well include appalling conduct of POW abuse, but to stage or digitally manipulate photos in order to depict one of these scenes if, in fact, such a scene was not occurring in real time when the camera flashed and the shutter went off, then the integrity of the photo is in serious question, because this is just one photojournalist’s interpretation or representation of the situation. While political image manipulations are nothing new, the ease of modern software programs has accelerated the frequency of manipulated images for political gain. However, because of the technology’s accessibility it is imperative that photojournalists and other digital photo manipulators make wise, ethical decisions when using photography to report ‘events’ as evidence due to the impact and emotional influence that such decisions have on public perception and opinion. Photographs “depict the world as it is,” and it is “due to the concept of seeing is believing” that “seeing validates our experience” (“Photojournalism”). In other words, photojournalists control what the photographs depict and readers connote the meaning of the photographs via the lens of the photographer. Ultimately, then, photojournalists’ control public perception. Despite the fact that photo editing has become so widespread and the public has become more skeptical about digital image manipulation, photojournalism is still incredibly influential with its denotations and connotations. It is important to remember that photo editors are only tools. The way that they are wielded depends entirely upon the person using them and that person’s intentions. Though some photojournalists use them excessively for shallow or harmful purposes causing the public’s distrust of photojournalism, many others utilize the digital editors minimally in order to create or enhance works of contextually accurate ‘truth tellers’ (photographs) that contribute positively to education, art, and society’s understanding of the World.
“CNN's Photo Editing Raises Ethics Controversy.” Studio Briefing. 18 Feb. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. Technologies, Incorporated. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. Hancock, Mark. “Ethics in the Age of Digital Manipulation.” Global Journalist. 1 Jul. 2009. Missouri School of Journalism. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. stories/2009/07/01/ethics-in-the-age-of-digitalmanipulation/>.
Web. 18 Nov. 2012. |