22 November 2008
When pictures tell a thousand words – or lies
26 April 2007
Commentary by Eleanor Woods: Te Waha Nui Online
 |
|
As technologies expand, photo manipulation becomes increasingly controversial. Digital deception no doubt damages photojournalism, in that it creates suspicion. In a media environment that demands truth, credibility and accuracy, one fake photo can bring all photojournalists into disrepute.
A picture tells a thousand words. But what if those words are lies? Are they fit to be alongside truthful news reports?
Sharpening, adding contrast, retouching and brightening, all of these photo manipulation techniques seem harmless.
What about air brushing and cutting and pasting? These digital manipulations have the power to change the actual meaning of photographs.
We know how easy it is to alter images in this digital age. But, how far is too far? And what effect is photo manipulation having on the media industry?
In August 2006, photographer Adnan Hajj made the decision to digitally enhance photographs he had taken of an air strike by Israeli forces in Beirut.
In doing so, he changed the meaning of the images. The photographs were no longer moments in time, but an exaggerated portrayal of what had occurred.
According to a report by Bryan E. Denham, associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Clemson University, Hajj “admitted to using Photoshop software to doctor the images.”
What Hajj had done “constituted a major breach of journalism ethics,” he says.
In an endeavour to make his photographs more newsworthy, Hajj cost himself his career and also brought doubt to the profession.
As technologies expand, photo manipulation becomes increasingly controversial. Digital deception no doubt damages photojournalism, in that it creates suspicion. In a media environment that demands truth, credibility and accuracy, one fake photo can bring all photojournalists into disrepute.
Think how tempting it must be for some photographers, to be armed with the modern advantages of Photoshop.
Creating images
Chief of photography for The Northern Advocate, John Stone, thinks that when digital manipulation comes into play “the magic of photography is lost. You’re not really taking photos, but creating images”.
Stone admits he does modify photographs to enhance their picture quality, but “never to change their meaning”.
He emphasises the importance of differentiating between “photographs” and “illustrations”.
“I always make sure it is clear where I have manipulated an image,” he says.
“When you start playing with things [photos] here and there, some people find it hard to stop,” he says.
Stone thinks that some photographers don’t know where the boundaries lie.
He estimates that around 20 per cent of photojournalists probably seriously manipulate their images without being caught.
American Journalism Review's Cheryl Johnston discusses how photographer Brian Walski’s decision to manipulate two images of Iraq in an attempt to capture a moment, cost him his career with the Los Angeles Times. It also cost the media industry in credibility.
Merged photographs
Walski merged two photographs, taken seconds apart, to create a better photo.
It’s unethical for journalists to merge two quotes. It’s no different for pictures. Photojournalism should accurately reflect the world, not interpret it.
Time magazine recently featured a doctored image of former U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, with a tear rolling down his cheek. This, under the headline ‘How the right went wrong’, alters the meaning of an otherwise standard headshot.
This self-governed creative licence has serious implications for photojournalism, says Johnston.
Journalists supposedly abide by codes of conduct that demand truth, accuracy and credibility. In an attempt to capture that ‘perfect shot’ that ceased to exist, photo forgery discredits the industry.
Han Faird, associate professor of science at Dartmouth College says: “Seeing is no longer believing. The technology that allows digital media to be manipulated and distorted is developing at breakneck speed.”
The ramifications are severe. Society already has little trust in journalists.
Low trust in media
In a British study, conducted by MORI Social Research Institute, findings showed that public trust in journalists was very low. The study of 2141 people aged 15 and over revealed that trust in journalists paled in comparison to that of other professions. In 2003 only 18 per cent of the people questioned believe that journalists tell the truth, compared with 91% trust for doctors and 87 per cent trust for teachers.
According to Sir Robert Worcestor, chairman of MORI, “everyone in the communications business is now faced with a fundamental decline in trust”.
“Trust is built over time,” he says, “but it can be lost in an instant.”
People trust news photographs to be a moment in time, an accurate reflection of what has happened.
Widely known photographic consultant and critic Philip Douglis says:
“Photojournalists regard human eyes as windows into the souls of their subjects.”
Imagine you are a photojournalist and you have captured a great shot but one of the subjects is blinking. Do you “correct” the photo by super-imposing an eye in place, or do you leave it as it was captured?
If, as Douglis says, “Eyes can tell us how their owners feel”, then photojournalists have no right in manipulating those feelings, and further, the meaning behind the image.
Douglis says: “As subjects for the camera, they [eyes] can express profound meaning.”
‘Capture a moment’
New Zealand Herald photographer Greg Bowker was faced with this predicament in a recent paper. On the front page of the business section, his photograph of Pete Maire and Keith Phillips was run with Phillips blinking.
He said the decision was easy for him because he does not believe digital manipulation adds to news photographs. Instead, he believes it takes away from it.
“Photojournalists should capture a moment, not create one,” says Bowker.
“There is a time and a place for creative control, and it’s not in news,” he says.
Bowker uses “the darkroom test” to identify whether or not photo manipulation is ethical.
“If you can do it in a darkroom, then it’s acceptable,” he says. Things such as cropping, dodging and burning are fine.
“Anything that changes the truth is strictly off limits,” says Bowker.
Greg Bowker suggests that the reason photographers digitally manipulate their pictures is because of the desire to create the perfect image. Pressures for quality, quantity and meeting deadlines are all contributing factors.
‘Temptation to dabble’
“It’s a temptation to dabble. Some photographers see Photoshop as a toolbox,” says Bowker.
“It makes it hard for everyone when someone gets caught faking it,” he says.
“Accuracy and credibility are crucial in journalism. Every morning people pick up the paper expecting to see something true - if it’s not then we lose trust,” he says.
We must be conscious of these things as the field of photojournalism becomes more and more malleable. With technology snowballing, the manipulation of photographs becomes easier and more technically unidentifiable.
As image manipulation becomes increasingly difficult to decipher, we should consider reading an image, as we should a text. Not as “truth” but as “one version of the truth”. For there are many ways to tell a story, but in a photograph’s so-called thousand words there is much room for interpretation.
Eleanor Woods is a student journalist in AUT’s School of Communication Studies. This article was an ethics assignment in the Public Affairs Reporting paper.
Links:
- Reuters says freelancer manipulated Lebanon photos, 7 August 2006
- Digital deception, American Journalism Review, May 2003
