Fact and Fiction in Modern Photography

<p>"Supriyo, my example was of John F. Kennedy Jr., at age 3, saluting the coffin of his father, John F. Kennedy (the assassinated President of the U.S.)<br /> <a href="http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jfkjrsalutes.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nov. 25th, 1963. Photo by Stan Stearns</a>"</p>

<p>Oh yes, I have seen that picture. Sorry for getting confused.<br /> I don't know whether his mother coached him or not. As far as I know John Jr's relation with his father was quite affectionate (remember that picture under Oval office desk, that was surely not staged). Anyway, his father being a womanizer has little to affect the son's love for him at the age of three.</p>

<p>Anyway, lets not divert into discussing this picture. My point is, there is no proof that the journalist who took this picture was aware of the staging part. I agree sometimes plain pure facts (like the picture above) can be misinterpreted. But I would still prefer the misinterpret-able raw fact than be presented with facts convoluted by a third person's judgement. It is somewhat like trusting benign dictators. But thats just my point of view.</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>May I divert anyway? </p>

<p>Was it just a little boy’s salute like we took it at the time? Was it a cheesy publicity stunt as some have said? What is the truth? Was it tautology truth? Was it Orwellian truth? Who really knows? </p>

<p>As an ex WWII serviceman and a graduate of the canoe school, many of the friends I maintained contact with were also in government service. The Secret Service is government service. They are pretty tight lipped. However I did hear a UNVERIFIRD story second or third hand many years ago from an old school source. </p>

<p>John-John could not grasp death per se, but was told his father was gone for good. He was a very unhappy little boy, to say the least. His mother was telling him about what would take place the next day (funereal day). One of the things she said was that all the soldiers (he liked soldiers) would be saluting his father as the Caisson passed. John-John confused and bewildered, never the less evidentially had some understanding and asked if he too could do that. The mother naturally replied in the affirmative. </p>

<p>If that is just a story or untrue rumor, at least it is a nice one. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Thats a nice story, Mr. Burke. Sounds convincing to me. I did not know this.</p>

<I>I believe pure journalism should be about presenting clean true facts in a neutral way and then letting public opinion take over. </i><P>

In the context of photojournalism, how would you do that? Close your eyes, wave the camera around randomly while continuously shooting, then publish every image it captures? If you make decisions about where to point the camera and when to fire the shutter, you are not operating in a truly neutral way.

<p>Mr. Dixon: I understand your question. Let me try to explain what I meant. Journalists are usually assigned to cover a specific event, say a war. In a war, you can choose to show the glory and victory of the soldiers from your own country, or you can cover both sides in a more neutral way. A neutral photojournalist will show both pictures of glory, as well as wounded soldiers. He/she may also show shell shocked civilians or damaged properties from the opponent country.</p>

<p>I believe a not so neutral journalist would fish through his/her portfolio and only publish images that portray the event in a certain light. A neutral journalist would still select images (one cannot publish every single picture), but his/her choices would be more neutral, not aligned to a certain cause or ideology.</p>

Choosing to cover that war at that location at that time is far from being a neutral decision. A person's perspective cannot be divorced from his cause or ideology. While that person can attempt to present a more-balanced view, his idea of "balanced" is still profoundly influenced by his beliefs.

<blockquote>

<p>A person's perspective cannot be divorced from his cause or ideology.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure I am not disagreeing with that. As I said earlier, photojournalists are human beings. So it is only natural that their depiction of facts would be somewhat colored by their ideology.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>While that person can attempt to present a more-balanced view...<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A true journalist can still attempt to be neutral, and not consciously distort facts. Such ability comes with lots of experience, I believe.</p>

This is when a good editor steps in to make sure the

photos that are selected for publishing meets

certain standards.

That good editor is in the same predicament. A "balanced" view can only be given by acknowledging that there are viewpoints, and points of view, but no neutral facts. Neutral journalism can only be neutral by presenting all of the possible views, leaving the choice of which to subscribe to to its audience.<br><br>By the way: the entire event that little boy attended was staged. Many things in and about life and death are accompanied by staged events. Why focus on the action of that little boy as something special? As an example of how selective, how un-neutral our 'critical' appraisal of 'facts' is?

What about the need to sell a publication as

effecting what text, headlines and photos are

selected? Who could resist buying a paper with a

photo of a cute little boy saluting his father's funeral

procession? Do editors resist the urge to present info ìn a way that matches their reader's political viewpoints?

<p>Mr. Klein... </p>

<p>"This is when a good editor steps in to make sure the photos that are selected for publishing meets certain standards."</p>

<p>Yes, and they are not doing a right and proper job. Some taint content with their own political, social and/or moral views. Others pimp for their bosses and employers. Either way the title “Editor” has been well tarnished.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

Lots of good shooters, editors and pubs out there doing a great job of informing and enlightening the curious mind, so is

there really a need to always drop it to the lowest common denominator?

<p>A free press is the best answer. While it's not perfect, and certainly many publications or media slant "the truth", there will be others presenting opposite views. Beyond that, the best defense is to read and view critically, questioning what's presented and looking at different points of view. Of course most people do not have the time or want to bother. They accept pretty much what's handed to them. </p>

<p>Daniel, it's only your judgment that individual and/or cultural perspective and bias are somehow the "lowest common denominator." For some of us it's a simple fact of life and human finiteness, something we're willing to be aware of and willing to work with, something we're not willing to naively dismiss, as if it ever could be dismissed. Something we don't simplistically call "lies" but rather recognize is a feature of human existence, perception, and communication.</p>

<p>To assume that any individual photo or individual story contains "neutral" facts may well be as dangerous as whatever vast conspiracy of propagandistic Photoshopping is supposedly going on.</p>

<p>Mr. von Weinberg. </p>

<p>I may well be one of the ones you do not miss. Nevertheless, I have greatly appreciated both your participation and the quality of your participation. You have continued the sprit promoted by the founder Mr. Greenspun “People helping each other to improve their photographic skills.” </p>

<p>I wish you well in all you do,</p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>P.S. Today I received my copy of your recommended “The Commissar Vanishes.” I have only thumbed through it briefly, but remember some of the included photos “way back when.” Some were first published when I was a schoolboy. Others preceded my literacy, but were probably seen while doing a school paper on a related subject. As a naive lad, I would have never questioned their authenticity. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I realize I’m in the minority opinion by disapproving Photoshop manipulated (sensationalized) so-called news pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Has anyone here defended the sensationalized manipulation of news pictures? If so, I missed it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Photoshop has nothing to do with it and the

problem is not new. Media manipulation goes back to the printing press if not before when the church took it upon itself to

preserve records and history, The problem occurs when governments etc have total control of the media and manufacture

truth. Nazi Germany in the past and Russia in the past and now have done just fine without it. By comparison what

network TV does in this country is just a wrinkle with lots of fact checking. Fortunately we do not kill off our good

journalists.

Donald, I agree with you, but I will add:

In the era of wet labs and darkrooms, such manipulation took lots of expertise to achieve without raising suspicion. It

wasn't an easy job. Now in the "photoshop" era, amateurs can do a fine job of manipulation in quicker time sitting in the

bedroom. Photoshop has made the job infinitely simpler. In fact when people here talk about photoshop, it is more about

the topic of software aided image manipulation, not about the software photoshop. The name photoshop comes up more

often because it undoubtedly is the most popular software of choice for photographers.

I was using Photoshop in the generic sense since "Photoshopped" is practically an idiom now. It seems that this thread

has two elements. One is as you point out is how easy it is to misrepresent fact and also just the idea of how much power

there is in distorting facts. These two elements are not contradictory but go hand in hand.

I think I was just trying to put some definition to it.

<blockquote>

<p>Now in the "photoshop" era, amateurs can do a fine job of manipulation in quicker time sitting in the bedroom. Photoshop has made the job infinitely simpler.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The salient question is whether there's any connection between its being easier for <em>amateurs</em> to more quickly manipulate images while sitting in their bedrooms and any supposed modern-day increase in <em>journalists</em> distorting their images for political purposes. If a connection isn't going to be made between the ease of amateurs manipulating photos and a rise in journalists falsifying images, then the discussion really doesn't say much. If there is a connection to be made, it ought to be made with examples, statistics, studies, or other evidence, none of which has been supplied.</p>

Any study begins with an observation, the hunch that there maybe something going on that could deserve delving into. That has been supplied by this discussion, and is something that may be falsified or verified by further investigation, but is not something that can be poo-pooed and ignored because of a lack of such further investigation.<br>Focusing on a amateurs vs journalist thingy is a bit of a red herring. The not so unrealistic notion is that if things are difficult, only people who have a very good (in their opinion) reason to do so will give it a go, and that the readiness to do something increases as the effort involved decreases, i.e. those reasons do not have to be so good anymore. If a distinction has to be made between normal people and journalists such that this works that way for normal people, but not for journalists, it ought to be made with examples, statistics, studies, or other evidence, none of which has been supplied.

Referring to Fred G: "it ought to be made with examples, statistics, studies, or other evidence, none of which has been supplied."

 

I thought it is the evidence of such practice that started this thread.

 

The original story link from the NY Times blog article:

 

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world-press-photo-manipulation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/

<p>Supriyo, yes, indeed, that article did start this thread. And it shows evidence of an increase, in submissions to the World Press Photo Awards, of photoshop manipulation. The one specific example given in the article is of a photo that was toned so severely that areas became black, effectively obscuring objects and details that would have been in the shot. I do understand that's a no-no in photojournalism and understand why it's a no-no and have no problem with its being a no-no. But what I'm not seeing in the article and seeking evidence for is photo manipulation for <em>political</em> purposes, which has been my focus throughout the thread, based on what A.T. Burke initially said. Clearly, objects and detail could be deleted and have political ramifications and really present a "false" political view of things, even a propagandistic view of things. But, likewise, objects could be obscured for other reasons that wouldn't really affect the political slant of a photo, and might be done more for aesthetic or expressive reasons. Now, if the rule is that it shouldn't be done, and you've taken a job where those rules are in place, then you shouldn't do it. So there's no question in my mind that those photos breaking the rules were correctly disqualified from the World Press Awards. But that still doesn't mean that any or most or all cases of photo manipulation in journalism is done with an eye toward political propaganda. I would suggest, especially if we're not going to use evidence but rather our own observations, that most photos submitted for this award (and for lots of publications and uses) would be altered simply to look stronger or have a bigger wow factor, to have fewer distractions, etc. In other words, I don't think the motives, as I read this article, were nefariously political or propagandistic as much as they were meant to increase the visual impact of the photo.</p>

Altering photos for aesthetic or expressive reasons is a slippery slope. I would think that if this is the World Press Awards

there is no justification since they are of a documentary nature and archived for posterity where they might be referenced

for all kinds of nuances. They are not works of art. Even the most benign changes could be significant depending on the

intended audience and consistency of the changes.

 

You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize how likely it is for these things to occur especially since we do

have evidence and statistics regarding false reporting. We know it happens, it is just a question of how and if I was a

betting man I would bet the farm that it is done with photos. If you think the burden of proof is solely up to the consumer

then I have a couple of great business deals to talk to you about.

Fred G.: if you are looking for evidence of politically motivated photo manipulation, here are a few that I found.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies

 

Also look for the John Kerry incident in the article below

 

http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4383

 

I found these after only five minutes of research. I am not sure how many could be surfaced through extensive searching.

 

Also, we are not talking about just US, or the big international news agencies which are subject to independent

watchdogs. There are small news agencies in every county and town in every country all over the world. How many of

them are honest and will not manipulate images for political reasons is subject to debate. The important fact is if they do,

they may get away with it and real harm could be done. Today it is so easy.