Week 12 - PHOTOJOURNALISM

Photojournalism is one of the most important  career in the media. This is because images taken by photojournalists plays a major influence and can shape viewers perception.  For this week’s journal, I would like to argue  to what extent is editing a photograph considered ethical in photojournalism.  The reason why I would like to argue about this topic is because I am interested in photojournalism and photographs that I have seen portrayed in the media has affected me.

Photojournalism is where pictures of events are taken about the truth values and showed to the world through the use of media. According to Eastlake, (1857,p.24) “Photography bears witness to the passage of time, but it cannot select or order the relative importance of things at any time”.  Images have always been appreciated by the message of ‘eyewitnessing’ authority and the idea of ‘having been there”. According to McCullin (1987, p.11), it’s not a case of “There but for the grace of God go I”: it’s a case of “ive been there”. Photographs are used for displaying events of war which nobody will get the chance to witness except for the photo journalist.

  However, there are debates between scholars that claim photojournalism is dead.  Mitchell (n.d , p.20) suggest that we have already moved in a ‘post-photographic era’. The old photograph has been replaced by the new photograph through the means of the emergence of latest technology called editing. This raise questions because if photojournalist edit their photographs, where does the truth value of the photograph lie.  

The above photograph shows an example of manipulation of photographs that can be done with the latest technology. If we observe, on the left is the image of a shark that has been washed ashore. However, on the right side of the photograph is the edited version of the shark which makes it look more like a dinosaur washed ashore. Notice that the little boy in the left image has also disappeared on the right image. This photo manipulation is absolutely prohibited in photo journalism because it is able to give false information to the viewers and this is against the ethics of photojournalism. Photographs like this questions the existence of photojournalism, and whether it is still alive or dead with the rise of the new photograph. According to Rodchenko, (p.135, n.d), “we can no longer be sure that the image we see documents anything at all....photogaphers need to be aware of the issues determining his or her approach to the subject as well as the ethical implications and the representational consideration.”

It is important for a photo journalist to present only what is the truth to the viewers. This is because the status of the photograph as evidence is not questioned by anyone. Photographs are taken for granted. Like what Minto (1970, pg. 31) pointed out, “More than words, more than paintings or prints , old photographs convey an immediate, undistorted impression of the past”.

Below is a picture taken from the The Independant newspaper.  The photo depicts poverty in Africa and the number of children that is dying due to starvation, war and poverty. I chose this image because it is very heart breaking to see that the boy is left sitting with a skull beside it. I believe that the image creates a social critic towards the government of Africa.

Figure 1

In this picture, the image itself is enough to express the intended meaning of the story. As a visual communicator, we can use semiotics to analyse the picture. We can analyse the denotations of the image which is the boy, skull and deserted place. However, the image also  connotes poverty and death. As long as the journalist retains the truth value in the photograph then it is considered to be an ethical photograph.

In photojournalism, there are ethics to taking photographs. There are arguments between theorists that we are now moving from old photography to new photography. The debate is that new photography is able to create many changes through the use of editing without even being detected . Thus if this is happening, how far can the photographs taken by photojournalism represent the truth value?

With the emergence of new photography, pictures can be edited  with  ease and manipulation of photographs can be done without getting detected at all because it leaves no evidence of changes. This is the consequences of the change from analogue to digital photography.  Nowadays, we rarely see photographs in their original state as it is portrayed to us through magazines , newspapers, advertisements etc. Here, their social meaning has designed them into the space often accompanied by text that gives us the prefered reading of the producers. Captions from news reports are also able to distort the truth of the image. As Harold Evans stated, “It is one of the central contributions of photojournalism that it goes beyond the limits of imagination. It makes the unbelievable believable” ( Warburton, 1998, p. 150 )

Above is an example of doctoring President Obama’s photograph. The original photograph on the right was taken by Reuters photographer, Larry Downing which shows Coast Guard Admiral Thad W. Allen and Charlotte Randolph, a local parish president, standing alongside the President. However,  Emma Duncan, Deputy editor of the Economist magazine admitted that she  cropped the picture and made Obama looked as if he was isolated , as we can see in the left picture because "Charlotte Randolph was an unknown woman to the public and it might cause the public to be puzzled." (cited from http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/).  However, Reuters was dissapointed because according to one of Reuters spokesman, "Reuters has a strict policy against modifying, removing, adding to or altering any of its photographs without first obtaining the permission of Reuters and, where necessary, the third parties referred to" (cited from http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/).  This changes the meaning of the image and makes Obama look as if he is lonely and staring into the water. According to the editor of The Economist magazine, she edited the photograph "not because she wanted Obama to look isolated but it is because she wanted the readers or viewers to focus on Obama" (cited from http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/). Here, it is already an evidence that the media has edited the image for the sake of shaping the perception of the audience into how they want the audience to percieve the image. Hence, their social meaning has "designed them into the space often accompanied by text that gives us the prefered reading of the producers" ( Stuart, 2005). For people who have only seen the left photograph and not the right photograph, their perception towards how and the way they interprete the photograph is totally different from how the photograph should be interpreted if they have seen the original photograph before cropping. Here, we can see that just by cropping the picture, it can cause major change to the way an image is presented thus it can change the meaning of the image.

However, there are certain exceptions to where photojournalists are allowed to edit their photographs. For example, minor adjustment of colours , burning in of important details or cropping out unnecessary information is acceptable in certain circumstances. Adding a caption to give identity to the image about place, time and events happening is also accepted.

Here, is another  case study of a photojournalist Dr. Bernardo who photographed children in the 1870’s to show their condition and appearance in order to aid his fund raising enterprise for his children’s home. He used the diachrome technique of before and after pictures ( which involves editing issues and moral selection) for this cause. However, Barnardo was accused of falsifying informations by making the children look worst than in actuality and he was taken to court and found guilty of ‘artistic fiction’ (  Wright, 1999,p. 137). This is because he has exagerrated the fact and what his photograph represent is not the actual truth. This event shows that editing image even for a good cause is unethical and against the law. The most important rule that every journalist must follow is to present the photo to the public as the truth value and the originality of the photograph should be preserved.  According to an American journalist, 'it is a tradition...that when an event or history is raised to a level of great importance, we use pictures to reflect that importance" (Bill Marinow, cited in Nesbitt, 2001, pg. 23).

Nevertheless, to remain a good photojournalist, the photograph taken should represent the truth value to the viewers and should be presented to the viewers as the camera’s eye view.  Editing can only be acceptable at a certain condition. If this is practised among all photo journalist ,then hopefully photojournalism can last and not be overtaken by what is called the new photography in order to maintain the truth and to let the world see what is true.  

REFERENCES.

Zelizer, B. (2005), Journalism through the camera’s eyes. In Allan, S. (ed.), Journalism : Critical issues . Berkshire : Open University Press . Retrieved November 1 , 2010 from UBD Ebrary Website.

Warburton ,N. (1998). Electrical photojournalism in the ae of the electronic darkroom.In Kieran, M.(ed), Media ethics, London: Routledge. Retrieved from November 2, 2010 from UBD Ebrary Website.

 Warburton, N. (1991), Varieties of photographic representation, History of Photograph. London: Gordon

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/index4.html retrieved on November, 3, 2010