The Ethics of Photo Editing in Journalism - Essay Example

In February Bryan Patrick a long serving photojournalist with the Sacramental Bee was fired for altering some pictures for documentaries and by so doing violating the papers ethics policy (Garfield). When his work was investigated, it was found that he had manipulated several more photos and in addition to costing him his job, it put his entire career as a photojournalist in jeopardy. This and many other similar case bring to the fore the controversy surrounding the editing of photos by journalists to achieve a desired effect. This paper will examine a few arguments discussing the unethicalness nature of photoshopped images being used by journalists despite being termed as digital photography. By virtue of their professional tag, their readers naturally trust journalists since they are expected to provided objective and honest reporting. Therefore, whenever engage in deceptive actions such as exaggerating a story, or giving false information they stand the risk of misleading thousands of readers that respect their opinion. The same applies to photographs, for most readers, photos are the basis of empirical proof since they render evidence that can be verified with one’s own eyes. Nonetheless, sometimes these may be edited and subsequently altered for effect by the journalist. Admittedly, photographs do not really represent reality per se, largely they show the viewer a representation of the image based on the parameters of the device used to record it. Furthermore, photographers will often choose angles, filter and even adjust contrast and colors in the picture, this begs the question are these also not dissertations? In the context if this discussion, it must be acknowledged that editing photographs is not a new skill and it has been done for nearly as long as photography has been in existence Retrospectively, backgrounds would be rearranged, scenes restages and sometimes editors would manually add few hairs here and there (Stephens). Fast forward to today, computers make these attempts much more easy and convenient but also conscionable. In many occasions, they have been used with ulterior motives such as darkening O.J Simpson’s face for the time magazine cover without labeling it as such or acknowledging that it had been altered. When the press uses digitally manipulated photos are used to deceive the public, it is both immoral and unethical since they take advantage of their position of trust to manipulate public opinion. In such situations, digital manipulation of images can also be considered a blatant lie to the public. When people discover the press is lying to them, they will likely lose faith in journalism in general which will not bode well for the integrity of mass media in society. On the other hand, proponents of Photoshop hold the view that the advent of digital photography has not actually created the need for new ethics. They claim that the manipulation of images does not present a new problem but rather required people develop new principles to process images in view of the technological advancements. These arguments can be justified through considering the other side of photo editing, how it improves the quality of the image or even in some case the “truth”. In some cases, it can actually be unethical not to digital alter photos given that the tools used to take these photos may have rendered the result incorrect. For example when a photo has a red eye, editing it out is necessary since it would never have occurred had the photographer not changed the scene by adding a flash. In the same way, correcting the green cast that normally ensures when an image is shot under Florescent light since human eyes adapt to the color but in daylight, it is rendered green. In such scenarios, the edited photo may not be a hundred percent accurate but it is more “truthful”. Furthermore, in the modern information age, editing photos can be used as a tool for attracting the attention of audiences who will then end up reading the story attached to the photo. An example of this was the front page of the New York Newsday on February 16, 1994 where two Olympic skaters embroiled in an assault scandal were depicted during a “practice session” that had not taken place yet (Stephens). Their pictures were aligned using a computer to create the impression that they were skating together but in reality, they were scheduled to do so the next day. With such and “impossible” picture, it was expected the paper would attract a great deal of attention. They had explained that the picture was a composite of what would happen and this way they had succeeded in using technology to draw attention while at the same time preserving their integrity. In addition taking to account the globalization of news and information, digital editing of photos can be used to avoid offending people whose cultural standards may not allow certain photos to be published while at the same time preserving freedom of information. For example, in a recent tour to Iran, America’s first lady Mitchell Obama’s photo was adjusted by one of Iran’s dailies because of her low neckline (Kamali). To an American audience, the dressing may have been normal but in the context of a more conservative culture, it is important to respect the opinions of different people. Moreover, some photos may have offensive content that editors may not want to publish so they edit out something for the sake of the story. For example, if a paper is covering a protest and there is a demonstrator wearing a T-Shirt with racially discriminative or abusive content on it, the editors may opt to edit the writings out to preserve the integrity of the paper. In conclusion, while digitally editing images remains a controversial topic, it must be acknowledged that it has bot its positive and negative sides. Furthermore, the technology that allows people to edit images keeps developing and growing and therefore it makes more sense to come up with ways of regulating the practice ethically rather than condemned or fight it indiscriminately. The decision to edit or publish an “original” image ultimately lies with the journalists in question therefore, it is incumbent of them to be familiar with and respect the ethics of their profession to avoid sacrificing the truth sake of cheap publicity. Works Cited Garfield, Bob. “Photographer Photoshops image shock”. The Guardian. 2012. Web. Oct. 20, 2014. Kamali, Seed. “Michelle Obamas Oscars dress too revealing for Iranian media”. The Guardian .2013. Web. Oct. 20, 2014. Stephens, Mitchell. Expanding the Language of Photographs. Media Studies Journal. .1997. Web. Oct. 20, 2014. < http://academics.smcvt.edu/dmindich/photoshop.html> Read More