Image Manipulation and the "news"

[jazzology]

Ethics in Journalism has always been an oxymoron. Manipulation of images is nothing new... seems like it would be do-able to put a tell tail in the software letting everyone know whether an image had been futzed with...

http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/...e-of-photoshop

[cyclohexane]

Ethics in Journalism has always been an oxymoron.

That's quite a strong statement...

seems like it would be do-able to put a tell tail in the software letting everyone know whether an image had been futzed with

Actually, there already is. Photoshop's had the ability to log any and all edits made to file for as long as I can remember.

[jfrancho]

It seems to me that 99.99999999999% of the journalism industry operates within the ethical standards. It makes sense for Reuters to publicly post their rules, though, as a guideline for submission, and to ease the general public. I'd think that stock agencies would have a better handle on ethical use of image editors, and that they would carry most of the burden of maintaining ethical standards in the work.

[cyclohexane]

I'd think that stock agencies would have a better handle on ethical use of image editors, and that they would carry most of the burden of maintaining ethical standards in the work.

If only everyone else thought that way.

What doesn't help is that everyone has a different set of beliefs for waht constitutes ethics, and it often varies significantly by region too (i.e UK vs US), so so on.

[jazzology]

My statement regarding ethics in journalism is not directed at the individual. I agree with JF in that everyone I know would not manipulate an image for news. Certainly not from an editorial standpoint.

I have worked in 'news' for over 20 years and once the story is in the hands of the editorial and legal departments, you can bet that ethics and truth take a backseat to the $$$ interests of corporate parents and advertisers. The image of the "News" as some benevolent bringer of truth is a little naieve IMO. It's a business that sells eyeballs to advertisers, is very competitive and prone to sensationalism in their quest for ratings.

With deregulation regarding cross ownership of media outlets (see the telcomm act of 1996) there is more and more conflict of interest than ever. Ironic that many people beleive, the most "Truthy" news these days...is a parody on Comedy Central...

Buy me a beer, I'll tell you how I really feel

Jeff

[Medved]

Having worked as a journalist and photo journalist for a daily newspaper I have to agree, always some manipulation of photo, just not to the extent of the incident in question.
I think the difference is intent. Especially with photoshop type software, it is so easy to make changes, there is a lot of temptation.

Medved

[MrB]

I wonder if those who paint verbal pictures are held to the same standards. Is the glass half empty or half full? The improvement (a positive) in the economy was not as much as expected (a negative).

[Leehman]

IMHO Grocery Store Tabloids are the biggest offenders of photo minipulation in jounalism............ The six hundred pound ant.

[Paul Shields]

There have been many cases of doctored images in the UK newsprint over the years (much more so since the dawn of digital editing). Of course, this is nothing new as Joe Stalin would testify . I agree with Leehman that it's the tabloids who tend to be the biggest offenders. As they're also the most widely read it's quite a disturbing trend.


Reuters have been caught out in the past posting images that had clearly been manipulated so it's in their interest to take a stand on this, but it's always going to be tricky to spot the fabrication regardless of any published guidelines.

[cyclohexane]

There have been many cases of doctored images in the UK newsprint over the years (much more so since the dawn of digital editing).

There was a bit of "excitement" over at SportsShooter over some members from the UK who had been brought into the business being told it was okay to photoshop news images (clone out trash, crowd, etc.). What was garnered from the ensuing discussion was that different regions have different standards.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

It seems to me that 99.99999999999% of the journalism industry operates within the ethical standards. It makes sense for Reuters to publicly post their rules, though, as a guideline for submission, and to ease the general public. I'd think that stock agencies would have a better handle on ethical use of image editors, and that they would carry most of the burden of maintaining ethical standards in the work.

I disagree. The lines between opinion and journalism have been blurred by those with political agendas rather than sticking to strict reporting of facts and letting people make up their own minds.

It's even subtle sometimes. I got a kick out of a report a few days ago here in Florida about an older man who shot and killed one of two armed robbers who tried to rob a Subway later in the evening when the older gentleman happened to be there, and happened to have a valid concealed weapons permit and was carrying a firearm.

To my surprise, all day long, we heard the report, "Older gentleman won't face charges for shooting armed robbers..." The gentleman was an ex-Marine to boot. Now why on earth would charges even be an issue? I'd say give him a medal and a tax break for saving the taxpayers money for keeping the case out of the court system, saving us thousands of tax money to keep the thug in jail and saving the lives of the criminal's future victims when some bleeding heart bed-wetter decides that we're too tough on criminals by giving them 20 days in prison for armed robbery.

Now why would the opening report be read in this way? Slanted journalism perhaps? Especially if you're not a fan of laws that promote self defense or lawful carrying of firearms by citizens perhaps?

It's rediculous. Editing photos to match your agenda or portray things in a certain way is merely the evolution of purpose driven media reporting.

Should we go back to the photo of the US soldier seemingly holding his automatic weapon menacingly at children sitting at bay who looked scared along with their parents? Turns out he was having them keep down due to incoming fire and he was protecting them, but that's not how it was slanted in the news article... I think it was Reuters. Reuters has had a history of doing this kind of image manipulation if memory serves me correctly.

Reuters Photo Fraud

Here's a link....

ABC falsified documentary evidence to suit their agenda and Dan Rather took it on the chin for it.

I don't care what politician, issue, etc... you like or don't like, keep journalism to factual reporting and use the editorial page for personal opinions.

Photographers don't always have control over this either. Sometimes it's done in the back room and the photographer has no control over it.

Julio