justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #4 · Photojournalism and altering photos | |
I think there are some misunderstandings in this thread-- and overall a great discussion.
First, some background: I write and shoot for major publications as a journalist. That's my job.
ButchM, I agree with you that these examples are over the line. But I don't agree that each generation lowers the bar. That's a common thing to say with respect to objective-media arguments, but it is also false starting right back at the beginning. Journalism in America was, in its very first incarnation, a means by which those with an opinion found an audience. Newspapers were the voice-projectors of people, or parties, with an interest in influencing the public (or the part of the public with power).
The objective/investigative golden age was in the 1960s and 1970s, a limited time.
In fact, controversy over objectiveness, specially when it comes to photos, is what has created the "rules" most news organizations follow when it comes to photojournalism today. There weren't rules, and that was the problem. And this far, far preceded the Photoshop era. See: Filo's Kent State photo. Or take a look at Errol Morris' incredible blog at the NYT looking at photographic truth/lies/argument over the past century. Nat Geo ran that infamous Egypt/Pyramid cover, and then it instituted tougher rules. The rules are becoming MORE stringent, not less, when it comes to "news." Photo manipulation has become more common and more complete in non-news applications (see: fashion, adds, covers).
In this particular case, I tend to think the Economist should have made it clear in the credits that the cover was an illustration (for the record, I don't know if they did or not). But, at the same time, it is the Economist. A paper (well, that's what they call themselves) that takes a stance on things, runs covers that are photo illustrations all the time.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that "journalism" and objective are not universally overlapping concepts-- and never were intended to be. There are outlets that strive for the ideal of objectivity, and there are those that explicitly state they are not objective. Both may be doing journalism (the collection, packing, and sharing of information about the world), journalists may work at both. But they are different forms of journalism. And both may be of service to the country (though it's one thing to have an opinion, explicitly stated, and share truthful facts to support one's position, it is another to have an opinion, explicitly stated, and share untruths). Both The Nation, and The National Review contain journalism, and both take mostly opposing explicit political opinions.
Finally, I wouldn't blame the news organizations-- on the whole (there's plenty of blame for specific situations)-- for the shift towards a more subjective form of journalism becoming popularized these days. I would blame the news consumers (if blame is even the right word), who vote with their time, money, and attention. For-profit news organizations chase dollars, and audiences LOVE (from a time, money, and attention standpoint) loud, opinionated, news these days. It sells, and as a bonus, it's cheaper to produce.
Wrapping this up with respect to the OP: It all comes down to disclosure. When photos have been altered in a way that changes the meaning of the image in a drastic, material way (whether through cropping, cloning, or other) I think it needs to be disclosed as an altered photo-- and in some cases simply not done when the disclosure is too hidden as to confuse a large portion of the readership even if disclosure is given. The same should be said of written words: if an opinion is being consciously taken in the piece, it should be clear to the reader either by how the piece is labeled, where it appears (section of publication/or publication itself: It's clear that something in The Nation or The National Review isn't news without an opinion), or as explicitly stated in the article.
There are many forms of journalism, from hyper-partisan to aiming for objectivity. There's room for all of these, and the word journalism/photojournalism doesn't preclude any of these forms. For me, the Economist cover is more closely journalistic satire than journalistic news-- but it's easy to be mistaken for the latter, and therefore should require disclosure to make it clear.
|
