Although
your book talks about a variety of ethical issues related to visual
images, I think two are especially challenging.
One is the
manipulation of images, which of course is especially
easy with digital photos (and digital photo manipulation software,
such as Adobe PhotoShop).
The other
involves taste and judgment in the use and placement of sensitive,
disturbing, gruesome or otherwise troubling photos.
|
The
short version of a ethics guideline for the manipulation or staging
of images is: Don't
do it.
But the
fact is, photos are manipulated all the time -- and it's not always
a problem.
* Sometimes,
anyone with an ounce of common sense knows the photo is fake.
A publication such as Weekly
World News, for instance, is obviously
meant as pure entertainment. No one takes it seriously, and the
photos (and the text) make us laugh. No harm, no foul (usually).
Similarly,
much advertising uses blatantly false sounds and images. We know animals
don't speak English -- or sell beer, tacos, insurance, whatever.
We know cars don't travel at warp speed. And so
on. |
* Some
photo manipulation techniques are standard practice in newsrooms
and everywhere else.
Examples
include "cropping" photos (electronically
trimming them so that the interesting or important elements
are retained while extraneous background stuff
is
eliminated) and "dodging and burning" (lightening
or darkening unimportant background elements -- the sky, say --
to enhance contrast). |
The
problems arise when information that a viewer would reasonably expect
to be true is manipulated, particularly with the intent to deceive (rather
than simply create a more aesthetically pleasing, but still essentially
true, image).
Patterson
and Wilkins summarize a useful guideline for distinguishing between
acceptable and unacceptable changes to a visual image this way:
"While
art may be manipulated, information may not" (p.
232).
|
Sad to say,
though probably not surprising to you at this point in the course,
the guideline
is not always followed. A computer science professor at Dartmouth,
Hany Farid, has compiled some great
examples on his Web site.
Here's a
nice set of somewhat overlapping "tests" to apply, or
questions to ask yourself
as a photographer or photo editor in determining whether it's OK to
digitally manipulate an image. This "reality
check" comes
from Tom Wheeler and Tim Gleason at the University of Oregon:
* Viewfinder
test: Will the photo show what the photographer saw through the
camera's viewfinder?
|
* Photo-processing
test: Will the photo be changed in ways that are
not routine? (Routine changes include resizing and basic color-correcting,
as well as cropping, dodging and burning.)
|
* Technical
credibility test: Will the change be technically obvious
to viewers as one made for visual effect?
|
* Clear
implausibility test: Will the altered image itself
obviously be so outrageous that we know it's false? (Hitler's "cloned
nose" is an example.)
|
The National
Press Photographers Association (NPPA) has its own general code
of ethics, as well as a separate set of guidelines related specifically
to "ethics
in the age of digital photography." (Check out the links for some
examples!)
Here is
what the NPPA says
about the manipulation of news photos:
"As
journalists, we believe the guiding principle of our profession
is accuracy; therefore, we believe
it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way
that deceives the public.
"As
photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society
and to preserve its
images as a matter of historical
record. ... Accurate
representation is
the benchmark of our profession. We believe photojournalistic
guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the
criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph."
|
|
Issues
of taste and sensitivity involving visual images are harder to resolve.
There are fewer clear guidelines. Decisions often come down
to the journalist's personal judgment of news value in relation to
other goals, such as protecting privacy or avoiding sensationalism.
Careful,
honest consideration of your loyalties (for instance, through application
of Bok or the
Potter Box, among others) can be helpful.
An
important point: Journalists -- including photojournalists --
should not shirk from telling important truths, including unpleasant
ones.
Photos
have helped instigate important social change ever since the
invention of photography nearly 200 years ago. Many of those
photos have been disturbing -- disturbing enough that viewers
were motivated to act. Just a few historical examples:
* The
Holocaust.
* The
civil
rights movement, including Americans being attacked with dogs and fire
hoses.
* The Vietnam
War.
* Fallujah ... and Abu
Ghraib. There
are many, many more. You get the idea.
|
*
The question you must ask yourself
-- and honestly answer -- is whether you truly believe the photo
or video will serve the public.
"It's
a great shot" is not an ethically compelling argument all by
itself. That's a "want to know" sort of rationale (as well as
a Machiavellian one for you, the journalist).
The
photo or video should convey an important truth,
one that citizens need
to know. And
you as a journalist should
believe,
and
be able to explain why, the visual image you are considering
is the best way to convey that truth. |
|