A friend sent me an interesting news article on photojournalism a little while ago. I've not had time to read it until just now, but I find the thoughts that it brings to my head fascinating. The news article, which can be found here in Newsweek, is about the credibility of photojournalism. It talked about how a doctored image of Iranian missiles that showed an extra missile and how the Beijing Olympics were enhanced for television audiences.
I know I've gotten used to air-brushed models so that things look their best on film. I've gotten so used to the idea that it doesn't bother me. It is just a fact of life. After all, we all want to look our best. I view the Olympics being doctored in the same way. Somewhere between reality and TV, the images can loose their ability to be that powerful. So, making it look spectacular would be in their interest.
When does it cross the line and become a lie? What we are seeing in those pictures, even of the model and the Olympics, is not there. If it is not there, it is a lie. I could tell the photographer I want all my tan lines gone from the picture, to make my skin flawless, to make my hair black instead of red. When would I be lying? The face is still mine, but it is not
what I look like any more.
I would draw the line when it becomes malicious. An extra missile in the Iran picture could send up a signal that would cause a lot of unneeded panic. Wanting to look better is honest, in my mind. It could be seen as vanity in others, but I have to ask them, would you put up every picture of you for the world to see, or only the best ones? When one knowingly
deceives those that they are trying to convince, that is the line for me. It just seems to be fuzzy and broad in places.
In the end though, it means mistrust, as the article said. Who would trust a news source that would put those pictures up without checking them over for credibility?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think things done for entertainment value (photos of authors in books, airbrushed images in fashion magazines, enhanced images on the olympics) are ok. But things done meant to teach the public, or educate them in some way, or telling the news... those images shouldn't be doctored.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Images in text books are often doctored to look their best as well. I've never seen a picture that has been meant for illustrating an idea that has not been looked over to make sure it is what is really intended. I know I usually doctor the ones I put in papers in some way. I put a line in here and there to highlight something, I try to erase the shadow cast on the thing that is most important... Is that so wrong?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've thought about this extensively... I haven't been ignoring you, I promise.
I think there's something to be said for using undoctored photos when educating someone. I mean, if I look at a picture of a bacterium under a microscope that's been doctored, and then look at that bacterium under the microscope, I may not recognize it for what it is, due to the doctored photo. But, I do recognize that some pictures do need to be altered in order to show what is being focused on properly.
However, that wasn't exactly what I meant when I said that they shouldn't be altered if they're for education. I was thinking more along the lines of news stories... where the newscasters (whatever form they may take) are trying to educate the public on a certain story. Altering photos in that medium is flat out wrong... too many misconceptions can occur with even the smallest alteration, and the doctored photos from the Syrian conflict with Israel a few years ago comes sharply to mind.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I remember studying minerals under the microscope and comparing them with the book. The only thing they had done with the pictures is lighten the photo enough so the student could see the different minerals outlines. Yes, it looked different, which threw me off completely until I got around it. In text books, they rarely do it for less than an educational reason.
In the news however, they put biases on things. It is bothersome, and even after years I can't identify what is wrong that I need to get around before I get to what really lies beneath. Each story teller will tell it their way. They will highlight their own truths.
When I was in college (American equivalent to high school), we had an assignment of reading the same story that was written by three different people. They gave us one version of the story each week and expected us to write an essay of our impressions on it. Each of story left a different impression on each of us, as is normal.
When we got into groups at the end of the experiment to discuss it. A few arguments broke out as to what was really meant by the story. We all saw it different. It turns out that the bias is told by the story teller and perceived by the reader. It was an interesting lesson on how to read literature that taught us that deceit is also perceived and received in different quantities from different sources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See this is where scandals can come in as well. People, not just photojournalists know how to doctor photos. A few of my friends know how to change and manipulate pictures, to make them look better, or to totally change the meaning of the picture. A woman standing in modest clothes could be changed to a woman in skanty pieces. So I agree with what you are saying. I figure this is also how most celeb scandals happen, someone feels like stirring up trouble, finds a picture of a celeb, doctors it, and bam, celebrity scandal front page. I know that isn't always the case, but I don't believe that every scandal is authentic.
I am who I am and who I am is someone unique.
We as a society live a lie. The truth is hard to seperate from a lie, if the lie is good enough. To me there is a thin strand between a lie and the truth. One picture, one word, one misconception could change someone's view in a negative way. So what is truth? I often wonder if it even exists. People seem so dishonest even if they have everyone's best interest at heart..it still seems like we are all living a lie.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am voting for Lewis Black.
DrifterDani~
I think that there is a way you can look at things a little differently. One can say a truth that is a truth to them. However, the listener can misunderstand it, making it hurtful and a maybe even a lie in their eyes.
Not only does the truth have to be so for one person, but it has to be that way for the believer. For instance, I'm an archaeologist, but many people don't believe that humans evolve. To them, I lie. To me, they are crazy, but I'm no liar. I had a gentleman trying his hardest to convince me that humans and dinosaurs were around on the earth at the same time. His reasoning was because he believed in the human footprint cast that had been put over a dinosaur cast. (It's a fake, by the way. The materials that it is made from are completely different.)
Lies and truths are created by one's perception of life and reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~