Chapter six in our textbook details a variety of ways to fake the news. The section on manipulating photographs (page 110) highlights several dramatic examples of images that have been doctored to influence the viewer in some way or another, and I agree with the authors that this is unprofessional and harmful journalism. Since image manipulation via computers is so easy and common these days, apparently the National Press Photographers Association included the following in their guidelines:
"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" (from our text, page 114).
Certainly this is a good step toward mitigating the work of some of the more heavy-handed Photoshoppers out there. However, what about when photographers resist tampering with the finished image and instead manipulate the photo shoot? I'm thinking of the story that emerged last year--right before the presidential election--where photographer Jill Greenberg took a decent picture of John McCain for the cover of Atlantic Monthly (though apparently didn't work too hard to touch up skin/eye issues) but also took photos of him in extremely unflattering strobe lights. The images made him look mean and ghoulish, and while the Atlantic Monthly did not use those photos for their magazine, Greenberg put them on her own website (ironically enough, titled www.manipulator.com).
Technically, Greenberg did not tamper with the images; in fact, she was criticized by some for NOT tampering with them to make McCain look more favorable. She had the right to put her own photos on her own website (where she did end up tampering a bit, I believe). Yet this story still chafes at me (and I'm a staunch Democrat!). Perhaps because McCain was so blissfully unaware of her intentions that it comes across as devious and cruel? Or is it really just pure irresponsible journalism? Even if she isn't actually a journalist?
What are other opinions about this?
NB C-notes
14 years ago
1 comment:
Hi everyone,
I agree with Lauren, the Greenberg photo of John MCain is somewhat cruel. This is an example of bias journalism. By the way, where were his aids to advise the poor man he was being mislead?
What does everyone think of the July NYT front page photo of two kids texting while driving at 60 miles per hour?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html
The photographer, Dan Gill, claims the photo is not staged, but explains it was taken for another assignment months prior. Is it unethical to use a photo taken for another story? Furthermore is it unethical he allowed the teenagers to continue a dangerous behavior for the sake of a good shot, putting them and himself in danger? On the other hand those kids would have texted while driving even if he was not in the car, it is possible this photo will bring attention to serious problem.
Post a Comment