Robert Stevens, Photo District News; May2004, Vol. 24 Issue 5, p26, 3p, 2c

ETHICS AND PHOTO MANIPULATION: A ROUNDTABLE

In the last year, we've seen a number of controversial cases of photo manipulation in newspapers and news magazines. Brian Walski of the Los Angeles times digitally composited two images from Iraq into one, and it appeared on the paper's front page. Patrick Schneider of The Charlotte Observer had three NCPPA awards rescinded after it was revealed that he had used Photoshop to remove distracting background elements from his photos. Sports Illustrated and People both had manipulated photos exposed.

More recently, political photos of John Kerry and Jane Fonda, taken by Ken Light and Owen Franken, respectively, were digitally combined to look like an AP newspaper clipping; the forgery was widely circulated on the internet and mentioned in several mainstream newspapers, including The New York Times (the paper later declared it a fake).

What have we learned from the instances above? Have cases of photo manipulation become more frequent in the digital age, or are we just more aware of them now? Have these cases eroded the public's trust in photojournalism?

We raised these issues with our panelists: Kenneth Irby, visual journalism group leader at the Poynter Institute, Robert Stevens, photo editor at Time magazine, and documentary photographer and teacher Ken Light. They debated these points via e-mail with PDN news editor Jay DeFoore.

Jay DeFoore: I thought I'd start the discussion by asking people to comment on the recent manipulation of the photo from the bombings in Madrid. The photo, which was taken by Pablo Torres Guerrero and distributed through Reuters, had a bloody piece of human remains visible among the carnage. When the picture was published around the world, many newspapers Photoshopped it out altogether, while others desaturated the color to de-emphasize the gore. Time magazine put a headline over it.

Are there acceptable ways to deal with a potentially gruesome photo like this? Is cropping or putting headlines over the offending parts better than Photoshopping out the offending detail?

Ken Light: I will start off the conversation by taking a stand against all Photoshopping in editorial publications, newspapers and newsmagazines. I am not comfortable that newspapers create "photo illustrations" in parts of their publications that they feel are not news, such as business and cultural sections. From my perspective, the whole publication should have the same standard: We stand by the images we publish, we do not support such activity. How do readers distinguish from one section to another? This stand includes the cover, which many editors see as not being part of the editorial package. I disagree.

If a news picture is brutal, editors need to discuss what their readers feel comfortable seeing. To Photoshop the image is lying, and this is unacceptable. Images should not be run if the only way to print them is to change the reality.

Placing type in a strategic point in the image, to cover up something that the editors would rather not share with the reader, is, in my opinion, a better choice than physically altering the image. Cropping is an accepted practice in photography. But the electronic age has allowed us to take cropping too far. Going inside the image to crop out something that is distasteful or simply visually distracting (such as telephone wires) is not O.K. We need to draw a line that says no to any electronic alteration.

Robert Stevens: I agree that putting the headline over the photo is not a terrible option. We would never take out the body part.

I make a point to show [our] managing editor the strongest, most shocking photos because it is important that he knows what the event looked like. Now, sometimes he will judge that it will be too upsetting to publish and he won't run some of them. That is his final call. I believe that viewers should not be shielded from the visual evidence when something tragic happens. Words cannot describe what a photo shows.

Kenneth Irby: As for Photoshop and the growing pervasiveness of illustration, I feel that we must not paint with too broad a brush. Photoshop is indeed a powerful tool, and I teach the need to write contemporary guidelines for this powerfully useful tool, and not continue to state the irresponsible position that "we will do in the digital darkroom anything that we could do in the traditional wet darkroom." [However,] there is a necessary and permissible amount of Photoshop work needed to prepare the digital image for the publishing environment.

We must accept that the media serves a very sophisticated but visually illiterate audience. Most folks "know what they see, when they see it" but have little or no framework to discern, analyze and comment on what they are seeing.

Generally, the term "illustration" has no meaning to the average reader/viewer in newspapers or magazines today. This is an inside journalism conversation that almost no three people in a single company agree on.

I feel strongly that the bigger issue is a need to establish an understanding for the range of photographic reporting practiced in media companies today and to distinguish the difference between photographic reporting (active witnessing) and photographic illustrating (conceptual execution of ideas) as a starting point.

So, how about: What is your working definition for a "photo illustration"?

Light: A photo illustration is any photographic image that has been added to, altered or has had something subtracted (not by traditional cropping).

If editors continue to allow illustration, it will eventually backfire. The belief that a photograph actually is witness will be destroyed within the media. Illustration is a serious disease, and my feeling is that it is caused by laziness. It's so much easier to make an illustration (especially under deadline) than to actually send a photographer out to photograph a complicated story.

What are we going to think when we see the image of Osama bin Laden captured? Is it real, maybe a government illustration, how will we follow the chain of image making? This has become a very slippery slope.

Irby: Ken, I agree with your call for more reflective and effective guidelines. A few thoughts:

An ethical position statement is essential: Countless editors, station managers and leaders say to me that they "always deal with the ethical situations on a case-by-case basis." Yet, I feel that there needs to be the common starting point of what you stand for that will allow you to engage and explore the given situation that is a part of the foundation of your culture.

New guidelines are a must: Most older ethical rules are flawed documents in the 21st century. Photoshop and the new imaging tools of the day are far and above what the best of us did in the wet darkroom. The precision of the software program is amazing. Plus, there are far more users of the tool than folks in photography departments. Heck, in some newsrooms, everybody in the building has the ability and opportunity to tamper with photographs.

Language is key: Ideas are the currency of the newsroom for sure, but we must watch the things that we think; they become the things that we say, and they become the things that we do. I deliberately address photographs in a thoughtful manner when articulating photographic value and purpose. I use the terms "report," "document," "witness," "capture" and "record" when discussing news and sports action coverage, which are bound in my mind to accurate documentations.... We cannot deny that the terms "portraying," "illustrating" and "conceptualizing" are open to far more creative license and interpretation.

It is not an "art" thing: Here is where I place my indentation in the sand. In a journalistic enterprise, photographers are reporters and their primary contribution is journalistic and not artistic--esthetically executed, yes, but not solely art. I discourage the use of the term "art" when referring to journalistic photography. Art is not held to the same values of accuracy, honesty and fairness that are essential qualities of journalism.

DeFoore: After Sports Illustrated was caught Photoshopping a soccer player's leg out of a picture for esthetic reasons, the magazine seemed to make some changes to its policy. Now photographs that are altered are labeled with a "photo illustration by" credit. This would seem to be a step in the right direction, but is it only a half step? As Kenny Irby points out, many of the consumers of news aren't familiar with the terms those of us inside the industry use. I'm not sure what percentage of the public looks at photo credits, but I'm willing to bet its pretty dang small. So is that enough?

Stevens: This is a perfect week to consider this. Not only is there a "photo illustration" on pages 44-45 of Newsweek [March 29 issue showing Al Franken in a "Mission Accomplished" pose aboard a U.S. military aircraft carrier], but there is also one in Time on pages 24-25 [illustrating the war on terrorism].

I am not against "photo illustration." There are times--as in our story, which is complex and not easily illustrated by one photo--when a photo illustration works. Whether the people know this is not an unmanipulated image, I don't know. I hope they know ours isn't. But do laypeople who read Newsweek and see the Al Franken photo know what "photo illustration" means?

Light: But how do we allow photo illustration in papers and news magazines when we do not allow false reporting, plagiarism and other anti-journalistic efforts?

What is it about photography or photographers that allows others to think they can breech this trust of image making? How have we allowed the artist/illustrator to have such power over our editorial work? Who are the directors of photography and managing editors allowing photos to be altered by the design team? Have photographers been relegated to be a voiceless workforce within the editorial process?

In today's newsrooms, the photographers are stuck in their cars or in the field doing Photoshopping work. Starbucks seems to be the new darkroom. It has become a lonely profession, so I am told by my newspaper and magazine friends. How can we foster change and standards?

DeFoore: Ken may be best able to answer this: Are students today leaving school with a clear set of working guidelines as far as what's acceptable in digital manipulation and what's not? And Kenny, when these students are hired at newspapers or magazines or wires or agencies, are the employers doing a good job of articulating their own policies?

Light: Our students and the UC Berkeley Journalism program have a required class called the Law and Ethics, which you must take to graduate. We are very clear about alteration and have a no Photoshopping policy. We push our students hard to understand the responsibility of being ethical and seeing and reporting as truthfully as possible. We understand and support personal point of view, especially in our documentary photo classes, but this personal point of view doesn't mean adding or subtracting using the mouse. Whether all journalism schools or art schools teach this in their photography programs is a big question. I doubt it!

I know that the Associated Press has not been too happy with the Kerry image having a fake AP credit line. But I have not heard whether AP and Corbis will legally go after the person and persons who created the hoax and posted it online. What a great opportunity to take the moral high road and educate the public and photographers. This would show that our industry will be vigilant and seriously react to such ethical breeches. If they ignore this, what type of message are they sending?

But when you really look out there in medialand, I have not seen any bold statements on the alteration of images. The New York tabloids (the Post and Daily News) have incorporated Photoshop as part of their daily activity: the [illustration of] the Weasel in the UN, Clinton shaking hands with Castro, the list goes on.

The only good news is that these sorts of indiscretions are outed by the industry, other newspapers snickering at their counterpart when this happens.

So, who will make a stand? Is it too late? Have we reached the point where people question a photo, is it real, has it been changed? I know with my image there are many who think the original of Kerry (by himself) is the hoax and that I took out Jane Fonda!

Stevens: Remember people used to say, "Photos don't lie"? I never bought that because, even beyond the whole Photoshop problem, we know that a photographer chooses what to leave out of a frame and when to make the image. So we end up with the photographer's opinion about what was important to include at the moment. Now, you could say that what is in their chosen frame is "real," as long as they don't change it later in Photoshop. So is that what was or is "real" about photos?

I guess I'm cynical but I don't think we will ever get all the print or other media who use photos to agree on a guideline for photos.

Irby: I am in full agreement that there will never be a universal agreement on photo ethics, but there can and should be guidelines and protocols at the local organization level.

There is a great need for established standards that can be shared across the organizations and build a solid base for visual literacy and integrity's sake.

By the way, I advocate the terms "computer image" or "composite."

Stevens: When readers see the words "photo illustration," I would bet that they just think it is a photo that illustrates the story. I do not think they know it is a collage or manipulated image. I think it would be better to call them "altered photo" or "altered photos" or as you said "computer image" or "composite," though I don't think laypeople know that a computer image might be altered.

Light: Robert, I think you are right; "photo illustration" doesn't mean anything to the average reader. I have seen "computer altered image"....not sure "composite" makes sense. Let's bang heads and see if we can come up with something new....

I also wonder what happens when these alterations and composites begin to reappear 20 years from now. Will the tag line disappear, like the caption, and will the photo illustration become real? I still think if you say something like "altered photo" or "composite photo," it's pretty clear to the public.

Stevens: At time, we do not touch any news images that run with news events. When we alter a photo or combine photos, it's for stories that are broader or more sweeping, i.e., not a single news event. We do still say "photo illustration." I will talk to the department heads and get their opinions on why we use that phrase and where something else like "altered" or "combined photo" should be used in light of our discussion.

DeFoore: Thanks to everyone for agreeing to take time out of your busy schedules to discuss this topic.

PHOTO (COLOR): Many of the newspapers and magazines that ran this picture from the March 11 train blast in Madrid chose to soften the impact of the human remains by cropping them out, desaturating the color or digitally removing them with Photoshop. Others obscured it with type.

PHOTO (COLOR): Photo composites like this one from the March 29 edition of Newsweek have some in the industry wondering if the term "photo illustration" sends a misleading message to readers. Some have proposed alternate labels like "composite" or "altered image."