National Geographic Editor: "...it’s never OK to alter a photo."

[Damon DAmato]

<p>National Geographic Magazine has addressed t<a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/editors-note-images-and-ethics/">he issue of altered photographs in this editorial</a> from Editor in Chief Susan Goldberg. <br /><br />"At <em>National Geographic,</em> where visual storytelling is part of our DNA, making sure you see real images is just as important as making sure you read true words."<br /><br />Thank you, Ms. Goldberg. I agree completely.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. D’Amato…<br>

<br>

Yes, I too agree with Ms. Goldberg. When I tried your link, it did not work. So I have included the internet pathway below: <br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/editors-note-images-and-ethics/">http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/editors-note-images-and-ethics/</a> <br>

<br>

There’s been some pretty nasty arguments on here (Photonet) about fully exercising one’s artistic juices vs. what you see is what you get. Surprisingly, the Photoshop artists who enjoy using Photoshop and/or are talented in Photoshop are supporting of the artistic license. <br>

<br>

Art for art is fine. Manipulating reality for the sake of swaying public opinion in what is supposed to be an informative news article is not. In the mid-1960s, I thought it would be interesting to take a journalism class at the local university. All the rest of the students were green kids. The first day of class, and as almost the opening statement, the professor said (as close as my memory allows me to quote), “The purpose of modern journalism is no longer to inform the public, but should sway or create public opinion. Those of you who feel differently than that should come up and sign up to drop my class because any of your work that does not reflect that philosophy will get you an F.” I dropped. <br>

<br>

I’m really old, but the boys and girls who were of normal college age back then have become the most senior members of the various news organizations or did so prior to their retirement. It’s no surprise that so much of what is passed off as a news story, whether print, internet, or broadcast media, contains so little factual data and so much untruthful data passed off as being truthful, with a strong bent toward the news room’s political, social, or economic outlook. Furthermore, at this point, I no longer feel compelled to give special fourth estate privileges to these liars and hustlers. But of course, 99% of you people reading this will violently disagree. <br>

<br>

There’s a rather quaint black and white old-time movie that is probably available with at least some of the premium channels or Firestick-type entertainment suppliers entitled “Teacher’s Pet.” Doris Day portraying a journalism teacher attempts to impress upon her class the importance of the Who, What, Where, How, Why, and When. Clark Gable plays a cantankerous newspaper editor who poses as a student. When my contemporaries saw this as a new film, we all thought, “of course, why would anybody do it differently?” All but a few have since gone to the grave wondering how we got so far away from that concept. <br>

<br>

The Superman television slogan used to be “Truth, justice, and the American way.” Time has made that such a ridiculous concept in its entirety. <br>

<br>

A.T. Burke</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Although I agree with the idea....in reality things get manipulated....even documentaries. Just by excluding certain portion of a shot or it's importance....these manipulations (editorial, etc) were and will be with us > swaying the "truth" towards the impending goal.</p>

<p>I've talked with my friend about St Ansel and she was under the illusion that he never manipulated his photos. Had to explain how AA operated in the dark room. </p>

<p>Anyhoo, one has to understand the motivations and cut through the bs....and that requires education and keen observance.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I once saw Doris Day step out of a limousine in front of the Chicago Hilton. To my astonishment, I discovered that the heavily diffused look of her film images was, in fact, how the physical world reacted to her presence.<br>

She's certainly an appropriate example for "truth in imaging"!</p>

<p>Please, not again and again. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>A. T. Burke, thank you for cleaning up that link!<br /><br /><br /> Also, thank you for your point of view-- you said a lot of what I think about journalism, j-school, and more. I had a couple of more traditional journalism classes as part of a photojournalism major back in the mid-seventies. A lot of what passes for journalism now would never have made it out of my 101 class.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>So long as her comments reflect only the clear policy of her employer, and refer only to the requirements of that magazine, that's fine. <br>

Once you attempt to translate that point of view to cover outside the narrow National Geographic application, I disagree with it and feel totally free to ignore it. </p>

[randrew1]

<p>The rules are different for photojournalism. While vacationing at Chautauqua Institution last summer I went to a presentation by the staff photographers who contribute to the daily newspaper that publishes during the summer season. One of the photographers showed a photo of the village square taken from the 2nd floor window of the library. I had taken a picture from the same spot. I had removed the electrical cables that ran from one side of the image to the other. That is that way I think of the scene and I created the picture for my own satisfaction. The photojournalist was bound by professional ethics to present the actual truth rather than his inner vision. Different rules are appropriate for different purposes. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Damon: You and Ms. Goldberg seem to have a preconceived, somewhat myopic, notion as to what constitutes a "real image." I can understand and possibly agree with her statement if, for example, she's referring to the use of Photoshop or some other software to replace a bear in Yellowstone with a koala. But what's wrong with such basic edits as cropping, sharpening, altering saturation levels, etc.?</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I totally agree with David H. above.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Art for art is fine. Manipulating reality for the sake of swaying public opinion in what is supposed to be an informative news article is not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's fair. If you're documenting the world, keep it real. If you're making art, go nuts. Manipulating photos can be fun, but I got that out of my system pretty quickly.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But what's wrong with such basic edits as cropping, sharpening, altering saturation levels, etc.?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing. Interpreting what exists is not the same as manipulating the relationship of objects in a scene. All negatives have to be interpreted, so to speak. Sure, some of this interpretation is poorly done, but most photos are mediocre in any case.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>As has been said many times here and elsewhere, a photo that is straight out of the camera does not represent "reality." What is represented will change depending on lens selection, perspective, framing, shutter speed, aperture, white balance, as well as the moment when the photographer shoots. Consider the effect that either exposure or post-processing can have, as in different representations of the skin color of President Obama (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/11/skin-color-eye-beholder"><strong>link</strong></a>).</p>

<p>Publications can decide how much post-processing to allow in the photos they publish, of course. Still, it's odd to me that this issue should be brought forward by National Geographic, a magazine better known for its lovely photos than for its journalism. For example, in 2000, a time when language and ethnic identity were helping to re-draw the borders of southern Europe, NG published a map that badly misrepresented the languages spoken in Greece (<a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/215-languages-and-ethnicity-balkan-politics-macedonian-bulgarian-and-albanian"><strong>link</strong></a>). The language identity of Greeks was manipulated a lot more than the pixels in NG's image of the pyramids.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I'm not entirely surprised that NG might write or publish something that offends or is at odds with other people's interpretation of Balkan languages or ethnicity. These are very sensitive issues and it takes very little to upset one or other party. After all Greece still does not recognize Macedonia as the name of the state, insisting on calling it FYROM, nor Serbia, Kosovo. It is a minefield as indeed your link shows.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Edits for contrast, lighting, white correction etc change the aesthetic value or correct the image for loses through the camera's limitations. But the content or meaning of the photo doesn't fundamentally change as would removing the knife from the killer's hand or other cloning type manipulations. The latter changes "truth". To argue the former is the same won't pass muster to most people or in a courtroom especially. The judge will throw you in jail for perjury or tampering with evidence. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If you are trying to make out like the crime was committed during the day when actually it was committed at night, and you adjusted the lighting accordingly, then you'd get thrown in jail for perjury by altering the lighting, it wouldn't just be an aesthetic corrective.</p>

<p>The point is that lighting changes aren't automatically aesthetic and cloning something isn't automatically a relevant material change to a relevant truth.</p>

<p>While zero tolerance rules can always be put in place and seem to simplify the world by those who refuse to allow themselves to think contextually and on their feet, they will rarely be sufficient. A lot of the time, more is required. So having a zero tolerance policy for cloning in the absence of actually having photographic sensitivity to all that can be done to change the truth of a scene through photography would be to miss a lot of potential for truth-changing. Then, of course, there's the photojournalistic need to recognize that, in some more profound instances, the truth of a scene may be more elusive than one photo or many photos can ever capture. There could be more danger in assuming a non-manipulated photo automatically captures truth than there is in cloning out some telephone wires when they are not related to the materially relevant aspects of what is being shown.</p>

<p>I'm all for having journalistic standards that don't allow cloning. But that's just a bare beginning.</p>

<p>Accuracy has to be distinguished from truth. A non-manipulated photo may be very accurate. It shows the scene as framed by the camera. It would be wrong to clone out the church and bishop in the background of the scene of the priest being arrested for child molestation. That would be both inaccurate and untruthful. But taking the shot of the priest being arrested from a perspective that does not include the bishop and church in the background is certainly accurate of what the camera sees when held in the position and pointed in that direction, but may not give the full truth of the scene.</p>

<p>Not cloning buys you a somewhat limited degree of accuracy, not necessarily truth.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Truth is not the standard of good journalism; objectivity is. Nobody is asking photojournalists to turn in "the truth," because, as was said, a photograph is never the truth.<br /><br />But a photograph can most definitely be a lie. Big difference between "not truth" and "lie."<br /><br />Can journals, at the very least, require that the photographs they print or display not be outright lies? If not, what's the point of journalism at all? Journalism isn't an art gallery of pretty pictures. <br /><br />(Jeez, I can't believe I just typed that-- asking people if it's okay if their newspapers and other journals don't deliberately lie to us. And, I'm quite sure, there will be those here who think it's just fine with them if news services serve up lies.)<br /><br /></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Damon, we agree on objectivity. It's an important goal and one that's not necessarily only achieved by not cloning stuff out of photos. </p>

<p>Objectivity is not an easy goal to achieve. When one takes that photo of the priest being arrested, including the bishop in the background puts one spin on it and not including the bishop in the background gives another spin. Which one is the objective view? Usually, it would be to give the most information possible and let readers and viewers decide, but photojournalists don't always have the luxury of stepping back to include everything and often have to get in tight. Maybe one photojournalist decides the facial expression of the priest being arrested is important. Another decides something else. None of these choices has to be a matter of actively lying.</p>

<p>These kinds of clean dichotomies (between truth and lies or objectivity and lies) aren't the only considerations to come into play. It's often much more nuanced than that. Disallowing cloning, as I said, is just a beginning. It's not that easy. And it's not as easy as simply asking people if they want their newspapers to deliberately lie. The answer to that ought to be obvious. The devil is in the details and not all journalistic cases are that simple.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>It's definitely not easy to make editorial cropping decisions like the example with the bishop. These questions are, of course, going to come up. Which gives us a place to start-- that the editor has to at least start from a position of presenting what was recorded and note when it isn't. Editors, for example, regularly omit words from a quote with an ellipsis. Nothing wrong with that, in itself. These days, they seem to more and more use something like this [...] to make clear the ellipsis is not just a pause, and that words have been omitted. <br /><br />It also tells me that there should be no question when it comes to the easy ones. <br /><br />Attribution and disclosure are also part of the editors tools to at least lean toward objectivity. As long as you brought up the priest example, if the bishop is in the shot, the editor should be checking for reports or statements from or about the bishop, and the slug line, nearly always present with photos in journals, should present that information, properly attributed. If he's not part of the story at all or had no comment, report that or crop him out like any other bystander. If you don't know, report that. That's just basic journalism. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>There have never been objective newswriters and photojournalists, but that is only to say that no one can ever attain perfect objectivity. To complicate matters even more, the values that one brings to the viewing or the writing will affect what one interprets as happening or as having happened.</p>

<p>If one dares to try to change the world, one is yet advised, I think, to<em> try</em> to do it with one's best effort at the truth than with deliberate falsehood. One can at least try to be objective, even as one knows that perfect objectivity is and will always be an unattainable ideal.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Each news organization has their own rules, but in general, edits that affect the entire image (contrast, color balance, sharpening, etc.) are permitted while local edits (cloning, dodging, burning, cut and paste) are not. Using the healing tool to eliminate a dust spec is a gray area. In the end, the photo must be a fair representation of the actual scene. </p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>The text can be slanted by the writer as well. It's up to the editor to make sure that objectivity extends to both the written word and the associate photos. A good editor for a news magazine or newspaper will quickly seer how their photographers and writers handle their assignments. A good boss in any business learns very quickly when his staff is cutting corners and its up to him to straighten them out. That is if the editor or newspaper doesn't itself have a ax to grind.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Lannie and Alan, I completely agree with those sentiments.<br>

<br />Ron, I think those are great rules to have in place to avoid various slippery slopes and thin edges of the wedge.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>In the end, the photo must be a fair representation of the actual scene.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's look at the U.S., for example. The readership here is so divided and biased toward their already baked-in points of views that the notion of objectivity is almost a joke at this point. A boss at National Geographic can definitively state their intention to be objective which won't amount to a hill of beans when speaking to readers who a) assume there's a bias (often rightly so) and b) come to "news" with so much bias to begin with that there really is no opportunity for objectivity.<br>

<br>

So, an editor might determine (reasonably and rightly) that in this instance the story was just about the priest and not about the bishop in the background and so he might accept the photo that excludes that background bishop. Half the population will see that as a biased decision, thinking the editor is purposely leaving the bishop out in order to save face for the church hierarchy. And, of course, if the editor includes the bishop, you'll have an equal amount of people claiming the editor showed bias against the hierarchy of the church.<br>

<br>

If the media uncover "objective facts" about either Clinton or Trump that are unflattering, each side will simply chalk it up to media bias. The so-called news media is not trusted. Period.<br>

<br>

For good reason. They are bought and paid for, for the most part, by corporate interests. They are mostly entertainment or cheerleaders for one side or the other. Disallowing cloning or selective dodging and burning will not bring back confidence in our media. Cutting the ties between corporate interests and media might be a better approach. Before worrying about cloning, I'd worry about who these editors were beholden to in terms of the bottom line, profits, and keeping their jobs.<br>

<br>

The cloning things is a bunch of smoke and mirrors masking a much bigger and harder to solve problem.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><em>Frango ut patefaciam</em> (break in order to reveal)<br>

— motto of the Paleontological Society, according to Stephen Jay Gould</p>

<p>[My sympathies lean strongly to the OP's position, but this issue is not resolvable. Period. IMO.]</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I knew a police dept. forensic photographer quite well. His photography intent was 100% straight documentation. Otherwise he'd have been fired. Viewing his prints wasn't esthetically very rewarding. I've had the same kind of flat visual experience viewing some examples posted by "straight" photographers making their case.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Fred: I don't understand your point. Are you saying that because some or even a lot of media is biased, or that readers themselves are biased, then it's Ok for a news outlet that purports to be telling the truth, to continue the ruse and deceive us further instead of trying to be objective? Is that the new standard? Shouldn't we insist by cancelling our subscriptions, or writing to the editor, or complaining in some way when media deliberately distorts the truth? </p>

<p> </p>