photoprof.htm

Photojournalism professors weigh in on the LA Times doctored photo story:

Hey viscom folks,
It just so happens that this week is also my ethics discussion in photo
class. I don't understand how something so obvious to us (don't manipulate
news photos) is so ignored by some. Did Brian Walski miss that day in class?
Perhaps his photojournalism professor should retroactively alter his grade:-)
Rob

> Folks,
> I found the following bio on Mr. Walski on the foto8 web page:
> http://www.foto8.com/links/photographers/
>
> I'm saddened to see that he did study journalism right here
> in Illinois. Obviously, not all lessons are learned by students.
> Let's redouble our efforts to instill a concern for truth above all
> else, particularly "composition."
>
> Jim

AN innocent comment by Rob started me thinking...."Maybe he missed that day in class...."
It made me think -- what are the really important values and concepts I want my students to leave school with? These values and concepts can't be relegated to one lecture in one course --they need to permeate my courses. Started me thinking about how to look at my curriculum a little differently. What are the core outcomes for each course but also the degree in whole....
Thanks to all for a great discussion.

I have a few questions. First, how does it happen that a photojournalist obviously doing well professionally (LA Times, Iraq assignment, etc.) make such an error? I am quite serious is asking this. Is it the technical "ease" in altering an
image? Is it a quest for awards or photo play in the publication? This
photographer was not inexperienced -- having been at the Times since 1998.
My questions really amount to wondering why the erosion of ethics? He MUST
have known the paper's policy and even if he didn't he MUST have heard
debates about other alterations. So, because photographers now perform much
of their work with digital images, is that part of the problem? Is it
simply easier to cross the line in Photoshop than it would have been in a
darkroom?
Thanks for indulging me. -- Jean

Jean asked, “So, because photographers now perform much
of their work with digital images, is that part of the problem? Is it
simply easier to cross the line in Photoshop than it would have been in a
darkroom?" I've long thought this has been a part of the problem. The public
now understands how easy it is to manipulate photographs and there has been
a backlash against any manipulation.
But I have a copy of "Visual Impact in Print" by Gerald Hurley and Angus
McDougall, (two guys who have had at least a minimal impact on
photojournalism ;-) ), published in 1971, that has a ten-page section on
"retouching". On these pages, the authors advocate quite a bit of
"manipulation" including airbrushing out background distractions, dodging,
burning, adding highlights, and even airbrushing out people who aren't
critical to the image.
So what is it that has changed? Why now the condemnation of all
manipulation? Or is it condemnation of just the manipulation that changes an
image's meaning?
I've always argued that "the camera never lies" is a myth that is not at all
true, because a camera is merely a recording device in the hands of a human
being, whose biases and attitudes will effect his or her perceptions and how
he or she records a scene or an event. A photojournalist can change
positions, take the photo at a particular moment, crop a certain way,
include some things and exclude other things. So I agree that we should help
educate people away from the belief that photos contain some sort of "truth"
that can be manipulated out.

So what?
There are two pretty good pictures and he picks sides and combines them.
He didn't change truth he merely presented.
Text 'artists' in every newspaper on every news program, radio, tv and/or
the internet, do this every single day, every single minute. They assemble
words into the most effective fashion to present a story. They decide what
the heading will be. They decide what the lead will be. They decide what
it will go next to. They decide what page it appears on. They decide what
to write about or not write about.
The photographer makes a decision about what to photograph or not
photograph. They decide what to develop. They decide what to crop. They
decide what to not present.
Why are visual communicators held to higher standards than textual
communicators?
Women, fire and other dangerous things ... nothing is objective.
I think the real ethical mistake is not teaching students that media
always lies and only by lying is the truth ultimately presented.
--Thom

Amen to Thom’s comments. And some of my own:
Mainstream U.S. journalism is broken, perhaps irreparably. The unrestrained
jingoistic, dogmatic attitudes in the coverage of this war are embarrassing
and revealing. The nearly complete lack of U.S. minorities reporting on this
war is revealing. The imbalance of "glorious" images of war over the truly
painful images of war is profoundly irresponsible. The presentation of a
parade of generals and war mongers--in the near absence of other points of
view--is profoundly irresponsible.
But then again, why would anyone trust the objectivity of war coverage by
media outlets that are owned by, among other mega-corporations, the world’s
largest weapons manufacturer?
The mainstream U.S. media faithfully promoted this war and now refuse to
question it's validity--or even allow others to dissent. The lack of outrage
from people who owe their jobs to the First Amendment over the silencing of
dissenting voices, from the Dixie Chicks to Peter Arnett, betrays the very
principle of free expression through which our industry is empowered.
The co-opted myth of “balance” has led to a failure of the mainstream media
to serve and protect democracy. Journalists seem to be unwilling to make
independent moral judgments and seem to be all too willing to parrot the
propaganda they’re fed by their puppet masters. Pulitzer and Hearst would be
proud. (In their roles as the godfathers of yellow journalism.)
It's about time this subject was breached among journalism
educators--especially considering the role they have played in fomenting
this industry-wide crisis of ignored ethics violations and lowered
journalistic standards by concentrating their criticism on less important
and distracting micro-issues.
As for this particular micro-issue: considering that the moral issues and
journalistic ethics surrounding of the acceptability of manipulation of
photographs are still so gray, how can we justify the instantaneous
crucifixion of those who make the mistakes that actually produce the
beneficial dialog over the issue? Because if we're going to crucify
journalists for misrepresenting "truth", there won't be many working
mainstream journalists left after the carnage.

As I look at our own comments about the digital manipulation at the L.A. Times,
I think of how many times I tell students at critique sessions something like:
"That's really good, but it would be great if you had ..."
a) another person responding to the action
b) a related element in another layer
c) not had that distracting background or foreground element
d) something else that could tempt a photographer to cheat.
When photo editors and other potential employers look at student and
professional portfolios, they say similar things, sometimes harshly.
We all assume that "don't EVER manipulate or in any way change the integrity of
the image" is implicit. But at the same time, there is pressure to produce an
image that appears a certain way in order to get A1 or cover shots, job
advancement or employment.
I think we need to couch any discussions on inappropriate digital manipulation
in terms of the processes and culture that leads to them. In my forays into the
real world over the last few years, I have seen a lot of pressure to produce
great images, but few reminders of the ethics involved. I see too much
hand-wringing after the fact, but not enough discussion of process beforehand.
as educators, I really think it's our responsibility to address address this
sorta thing as fully as possible.

Thanks for the url for Information Clearing House. The web has proven its strength the past couple of years, especially. I wish that Information Clearing House had captions, though. Knowing that a little girl named Saja Jaffar, aged two, was critically injured by a bomb in her neighborhood on a specific day gives her validity beyond her injuries. In looking at the AP site, where they do have caption information (and where I saw the photograph of Saja),one can see so many pictures that haven't been used by our media. The pictures are there. Many that have the same powerful message as ICH are never printed.
I, too, hope our goal still is to assure that journalism protects and serves our democracy. I've never been so apprehensive or disappointed in the ways that stories are being covered (or aren't). Worse yet, if we didn't have access to the BBC, the Guardian or sites like Truthout.com that link to a wide variety of stories, we'd be totally dependent upon the mainstream stories.
And we always talk about those poor people in far away
countries who have no idea what's going on....


		last updated: 4/4/03 *Photojournalism professors weigh in on the LA Times* doctored photo story:** Hey viscom folks, It just so happens that this week is also my ethics discussion in photo class. I don't understand how something so obvious to us (don't manipulate news photos) is so ignored by some. Did Brian Walski miss that day in class? Perhaps his photojournalism professor should retroactively alter his grade:-) Rob > Folks, > I found the following bio on Mr. Walski on the foto8 web page: > http://www.foto8.com/links/photographers/ > > I'm saddened to see that he did study journalism right here > in Illinois. Obviously, not all lessons are learned by students. > Let's redouble our efforts to instill a concern for truth above all > else, particularly "composition." > > Jim AN innocent comment by Rob started me thinking...."Maybe he missed that day in class...." It made me think -- what are the really important values and concepts I want my students to leave school with? These values and concepts can't be relegated to one lecture in one course --they need to permeate my courses. Started me thinking about how to look at my curriculum a little differently. What are the core outcomes for each course but also the degree in whole.... Thanks to all for a great discussion. I have a few questions. First, how does it happen that a photojournalist obviously doing well professionally (LA Times, Iraq assignment, etc.) make such an error? I am quite serious is asking this. Is it the technical "ease" in altering an image? Is it a quest for awards or photo play in the publication? This photographer was not inexperienced -- having been at the Times since 1998. My questions really amount to wondering why the erosion of ethics? He MUST have known the paper's policy and even if he didn't he MUST have heard debates about other alterations. So, because photographers now perform much of their work with digital images, is that part of the problem? Is it simply easier to cross the line in Photoshop than it would have been in a darkroom? Thanks for indulging me. -- Jean Jean asked, “So, because photographers now perform much of their work with digital images, is that part of the problem? Is it simply easier to cross the line in Photoshop than it would have been in a darkroom?" I've long thought this has been a part of the problem. The public now understands how easy it is to manipulate photographs and there has been a backlash against any manipulation. But I have a copy of "Visual Impact in Print" by Gerald Hurley and Angus McDougall, (two guys who have had at least a minimal impact on photojournalism ;-) ), published in 1971, that has a ten-page section on "retouching". On these pages, the authors advocate quite a bit of "manipulation" including airbrushing out background distractions, dodging, burning, adding highlights, and even airbrushing out people who aren't critical to the image. So what is it that has changed? Why now the condemnation of all manipulation? Or is it condemnation of just the manipulation that changes an image's meaning? I've always argued that "the camera never lies" is a myth that is not at all true, because a camera is merely a recording device in the hands of a human being, whose biases and attitudes will effect his or her perceptions and how he or she records a scene or an event. A photojournalist can change positions, take the photo at a particular moment, crop a certain way, include some things and exclude other things. So I agree that we should help educate people away from the belief that photos contain some sort of "truth" that can be manipulated out. So what? There are two pretty good pictures and he picks sides and combines them. He didn't change truth he merely presented. Text 'artists' in every newspaper on every news program, radio, tv and/or the internet, do this every single day, every single minute. They assemble words into the most effective fashion to present a story. They decide what the heading will be. They decide what the lead will be. They decide what it will go next to. They decide what page it appears on. They decide what to write about or not write about. The photographer makes a decision about what to photograph or not photograph. They decide what to develop. They decide what to crop. They decide what to not present. Why are visual communicators held to higher standards than textual communicators? Women, fire and other dangerous things ... nothing is objective. I think the real ethical mistake is not teaching students that media always lies and only by lying is the truth ultimately presented. --Thom Amen to Thom’s comments. And some of my own: Mainstream U.S. journalism is broken, perhaps irreparably. The unrestrained jingoistic, dogmatic attitudes in the coverage of this war are embarrassing and revealing. The nearly complete lack of U.S. minorities reporting on this war is revealing. The imbalance of "glorious" images of war over the truly painful images of war is profoundly irresponsible. The presentation of a parade of generals and war mongers--in the near absence of other points of view--is profoundly irresponsible. But then again, why would anyone trust the objectivity of war coverage by media outlets that are owned by, among other mega-corporations, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer? The mainstream U.S. media faithfully promoted this war and now refuse to question it's validity--or even allow others to dissent. The lack of outrage from people who owe their jobs to the First Amendment over the silencing of dissenting voices, from the Dixie Chicks to Peter Arnett, betrays the very principle of free expression through which our industry is empowered. The co-opted myth of “balance” has led to a failure of the mainstream media to serve and protect democracy. Journalists seem to be unwilling to make independent moral judgments and seem to be all too willing to parrot the propaganda they’re fed by their puppet masters. Pulitzer and Hearst would be proud. (In their roles as the godfathers of yellow journalism.) It's about time this subject was breached among journalism educators--especially considering the role they have played in fomenting this industry-wide crisis of ignored ethics violations and lowered journalistic standards by concentrating their criticism on less important and distracting micro-issues. As for this particular micro-issue: considering that the moral issues and journalistic ethics surrounding of the acceptability of manipulation of photographs are still so gray, how can we justify the instantaneous crucifixion of those who make the mistakes that actually produce the beneficial dialog over the issue? Because if we're going to crucify journalists for misrepresenting "truth", there won't be many working mainstream journalists left after the carnage. As I look at our own comments about the digital manipulation at the L.A. Times, I think of how many times I tell students at critique sessions something like: "That's really good, but it would be great if you had ..." a) another person responding to the action b) a related element in another layer c) not had that distracting background or foreground element d) something else that could tempt a photographer to cheat. When photo editors and other potential employers look at student and professional portfolios, they say similar things, sometimes harshly. We all assume that "don't EVER manipulate or in any way change the integrity of the image" is implicit. But at the same time, there is pressure to produce an image that appears a certain way in order to get A1 or cover shots, job advancement or employment. I think we need to couch any discussions on inappropriate digital manipulation in terms of the processes and culture that leads to them. In my forays into the real world over the last few years, I have seen a lot of pressure to produce great images, but few reminders of the ethics involved. I see too much hand-wringing after the fact, but not enough discussion of process beforehand. as educators, I really think it's our responsibility to address address this sorta thing as fully as possible. Thanks for the url for Information Clearing House. The web has proven its strength the past couple of years, especially. I wish that Information Clearing House had captions, though. Knowing that a little girl named Saja Jaffar, aged two, was critically injured by a bomb in her neighborhood on a specific day gives her validity beyond her injuries. In looking at the AP site, where they do have caption information (and where I saw the photograph of Saja),one can see so many pictures that haven't been used by our media. The pictures are there. Many that have the same powerful message as ICH are never printed. I, too, hope our goal still is to assure that journalism protects and serves our democracy. I've never been so apprehensive or disappointed in the ways that stories are being covered (or aren't). Worse yet, if we didn't have access to the BBC, the Guardian or sites like Truthout.com that link to a wide variety of stories, we'd be totally dependent upon the mainstream stories. And we always talk about those poor people in far away countries who have no idea what's going on....