Winner, Outstanding Essay, First-Year Writing Category, 2004

Becky Smith
ENG 101-L80
Professor Martha Viehmann
6 December 2003

Ethics of Manipulation in Journalism

While giving a magazine rack the thirty-second look over, the typical customer on the run will be attracted to the most eye-catching cover. Knowing this, often reliable news source magazines are using the same dishonest shock tactics as The National Enquirer to pull their readers in. According to scholars at Ball State University’s Department of Journalism, one such controversy involved Time and their use of an OJ Simpson mug shot, retouched and unmistakably darkened, for the cover of their June 27, 1994 issue. Onlookers might see this African American portrayed as such and think that the editing was done in a racist manner. Along with already apparent problems, Americans could compare such drastic measures when a Newsweek issue was released using the same cover shot, however, simply untouched (Wheeler & Gleasen). Time’s managing editor, James R. Gaines, released an explanation and public apology in the next issue claiming that, “If there was anything wrong with the cover, in my view, it was that it was not immediately apparent that this was a photo-illustration rather than an unaltered photograph; to know that, a reader had to turn to our contents page or see the original mug shot on the opening page of the story.” To someone like the editor of Time, the outcome was overlooked but for those critics claiming that OJ was portrayed as “some kind of animal,” controversy erupted (Gaines). As you can see, a magazine’s reliability and credentials are at stake in such a technologically advanced world where photo manipulation is being taken for granted.

A photograph’s purpose is to be the artist’s medium; the viewer gets to look through the eyes of the artist to observe a first hand experience. Roland Barthes’ Camera Lucida states that, “In Photography I can never deny that the thing has been there” (qtd. in Swanson). In a general sense, one can say that photography is truth. As soon as an editing program has been opened to add the simplest manipulation to a photograph, it can no longer go by such a definition. Alterations and modifications are only the start to creating a fictionally based photo. It has also been argued by such anti-manipulation advocates that editing is distasteful and shows lack of true talent due to its mechanical process (Chrzanowski). It doesn’t take a professional to make a picture perfect by using software that is available to the general public.

An artist by the name of Nick Rain has a section dedicated on his Web site to express his views on the importance of “truth in photography.” Sticking to his theory, Rain’s prints are one hundred percent first hand experience—no “visual trickery or any other illusions” (Rain). Other photographers following along the same lines, like Grazia Neri, who blatantly states that an editor should receive the artists’ permission before their work gets cut up or altered. It can be discouraging for photographers to see their work changed from the original format.

Not only artists are holding such strong willed opinions about keeping photos truthful. Journalists can possess similar values regarding morality in the work force. The Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics states that accuracy is the most important principle. Being accurate by their definition means, “it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public.” One’s job, as a journalist, is to historically depict records with the preservation of factual images (“Digital Manipulation Code”).

Photo manipulation has gone past being an issue of testing personal morals and values and has led into a bigger controversy—what visual sources can be trusted? This actually presents a problem for people who are visual learners; a photo could have been deliberately altered in order for them to construct false assumptions. Presently, a photograph shown in court for evidence might be questioned in a skeptical manner. The validity of a photograph in a major newspaper will be difficult to judge accordingly. At the National Union of Journalist’s (the union for journalists in Britain and Ireland) 1996 annual delegate meeting, a campaign was launched that requires all manipulated photos displayed in any newspaper or magazine to be marked with a symbol. In their terms, manipulation excludes: “normal dodging, burning, color balancing, spotting, contrast adjustment, cropping, and obvious masking for legal or safety reasons” (Holderness). If this campaign is monitored and enforced effectively, the trust factor for particular news sources may be reinstated. It can also help weed out the unreliable sources that are just trying to make a quick buck out of a gullible reader.

Currently, unless stated otherwise, the general public is actually able to assume that even editorial photos are manipulated because of specific examples that have popped up recently (Wheeler & Gleasen). The situation can range from one extreme to the other: food altered to look more pleasing to the eye isn’t going to change the way the world thinks, even if it is stretching the truth. In 1982 National Geographic literally moved two Egyptian pyramids to make a better cover image (Chrzanowski). This was an issue because the original was shot as a horizontal while the magazine cover had a vertical format. National Geographic is a magazine that gets its prestige from the pictures themselves; when you can’t even tell whether they’re edited, do they hold the same value for the viewer? The National Press Photographers Association has gone as far as stating that the magazines credibility was destroyed with their creation of “a visual lie (“Ethics In The Age of Digital Photography”). Imagine how many times you’ve formed an opinion based upon an image alone. Some of your own beliefs could be influenced by false news sources; credibility shouldn’t be something to second guess about. My personal beliefs are that photos used in journalism should not be altered. By not tolerating manipulation period, sources can assure validity.

Works Cited

Chrzanowski, Michelle. When Seeing Isn’t Believing: The Digital Manipulation of Photography. 30 Nov. 2003 <http://www.gwu.edu/~english/ccsc/chrzanowski.htm>.

"Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics: NPPA Statement of Principle" National Press Photographers Association. 1991. 30 Nov. 2003 <http://www.nppa.org/services/bizpract/digitalethics.html>

Wheeler, Tom & Gleasen, Tim. “Digital Photography and the Ethics of Photofiction.” Ballstate University Department of Journalism. 30 Nov. 2003 <http://www.journalism.bsu.edu/classes/pfarmen/ethics.html>.

"Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography." National Press Photographers Association. 2002. 02 Dec 2003 <http://www.nppa.org/services/bizpract/eadp/eadp8.html>.

Gaines, James R. “Time Domestic.” Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. 4 July 1994. 30 Nov. 2003 <http://www.sree.net/teaching/gainesletter.html>.

Holderness, Mike. “If You Mac It, Mark It.” National Union of Journalists. 09 Nov. 1997. 30 Nov. 2003 <http://media.gn.apc.org/manip.html>.

Neri, Grazia. “Ethics And Photography.” The Digital Journalist. 16 Nov. 2003
<http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0101/neri.htm>.

Rains, Nick. “Truth In Photography.” Rainspirit. 2003. 30 Nov. 2003
<http://www.nickrains.com/T_I_P.html>.

Swanson, Gunnar. On Nations of Truth in Photography: Semiotics and the Stereograph. 1991. 30 Nov. 2003
<http://www.gunnarswanson.com/writingPages/TruthInPhotography.html>.