The Camera Never Lies – A Preconceived Notion?

Just To Look Nicer?

I personally do not approve of visual alterations for manipulation purposes or to achieve a particular impact. However, photojournalism and visual ethics have become prevalent in the journalism community (Winslow, 2006).

An article was published by Tim Leberecht for Cnet News on May 18 2008 entitled ‘…just make something look nicer?’ in which he touches on visual ethics amongst document designers in current times. In the article, the question of drawing the line between company ethics and sales boost is discussed in relation to a few examples of document design companies.

This photograph taken for The Observer caused controversy as the toning of the sky and its color was tampered with and caused the departure of the photographer from the publication.

Photojournalism Ethics

The article brings to attention an issue pertaining to ethical media presentation – photojournalism ethics. Contrary to popular belief that the ‘camera never lies’, the faking of photographs either through stage direction or through picture manipulation has a long tradition (Lester, 1999). It is rumored that several Pulitzer Prize winning images filled with human depictions of joy, sorrow and hardships have been digitally manipulated to achieve a particular impact.

In 2006, two editors were in hot soup when they combined two separate photographs into one fake picture for the el Neuvo Herald (Winslow, 2006). This is just one case of many in which editors and photographers are faced by controversial criticism over an altered image.

This picture was published in Time Magazine featuring a man jumping out of the WTC building during the 9/11 bombings. This picture was deemed unethical as it raised questions of human desperation.

Also, the media has been criticized for publishing gruesome images to the public which has been deemed as ethically wrong. For example, the gruesome images of Nurin Jazlin’s battered body were blatantly portrayed in mainstream media although some parties deem it as unethical and unfair to family members of the victim. According to Webber (2000), the principle of utilitarianism, in which consequences of one are considered in relation to another’s consequence, may be used to justify the publication of gruesome accident photos.

Pictures as this is not ethical as the gruesome factor portrayed is not necessary and may cause fear in readers. Plus, family members of victims in pictures such as this may find them it to be offensive.

A media consumer might view unethical photos differently according to their culture and background. As Shriver (1997, pp.375) suggests, a reader’s knowledge and cultural context plays a role in evaluation of graphics. Therefore, in my opinion, photojournalism should be delved into with respect, dignity and consideration of all parties regardless of culture.
____________________________________________________________________

References

Leberecht, T 2008, …just make something look nicer?, Cnet News, viewed 9 November 2008, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13641_3-9947035-44.html?tag=mncol

Lester, P 1999, Photojournalism an ethical approach, Fullerton Education, viewed 9 November 2008, http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter6.html

Shriver, K 1997, Dynamics in document design: creating texts for readers, Wiley Computer Pub, New York

Webber, J 2000, The ethics/skills in interface in image manipulation, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, vol.7, no.2, pp.90-94

Winslow, DR 2006, A question of truth: photojournalism and visual ethics, National Press Photographers Association, viewed 9 November 2008, http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html