TRUTH AND THE PHOTOJOURNALIST : THE ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE HEART OF THE DEBATE ON DIGITAL IMAGES
This thesis is submitted by Kerri Sue ELGAR, Bachelor of Arts (Australian National University), to the Department of Journalism and Communication, University of Queensland, for examination in the award of a Doctor of Philosophy.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 2/282
Statement of Originality
I declare that the work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original and my own work, except as acknowledged in the text. This material has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any other university.
Kerri ELGAR 17 June, 2002
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 3/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 4/282
Acknowledgements This research owes much to many. By far my greatest debt is to Geoff Turner. His constant guidance, inspiration and scrupulous editing go beyond what could be expected of a supervisor, and I know I have been the most fortunate of doctoral students. On the numerous occasions over the past four years when I felt like abandoning this project, he provided the lifeline, often from the other side of the globe, giving countless hours of his time. On each of these occasions he has suggested a way forward with the integrity of the best academics and the common sense of the best journos. Without him, I am almost sure I would not have started this work, and very sure I would not have finished. His personal and professional ethics and courage will continue to inspire me, as I know it does many others. I am also grateful to my principal supervisor, John Henningham, for his encouragement in this undertaking and confidence in the work. His advice on methodology and the structure of the research, and his insights on the thesis structure, statistical content and approach, was always exacting and illuminating. He is indisputably a great journalism academic, and I have learned much from him. His additional support in research and scholarship applications, as well as in funding for equipment and travel expenses, are also much appreciated. To Claude-Jean Bertrand in France, Paul Lester in the United States, and Tony Delano and Linda Christmas in the United Kingdom, I extend my thanks for their help in facilitating entry into overseas newsrooms, as well as for their academic advice in this research. I can only now confess my amazement at all those photographers, editors, librarians, journalists, and managers who agreed to be questioned and monitored on their own and their organisation’s ethical practices. Even when those standards differed dramatically, their pride in their work and willingness to share what they saw as their strengths or weaknesses, has gained my greatest respect. There are many others who have provided inspiration, help and support throughout this work, and I apologise in advance to those I have left out. My great thanks to Murray Smith at the Leader Newspaper Group in Melbourne, who first opened my eyes to the professional responsibilities of the journalist and provided one of the best educations possible for a young reporter. Not only did he hand me my first copy of the AJA Code of Ethics, but he introduced me to the ideal of consistent ethical thinking ahead of any textbook. I am also indebted to my former Leader colleague, journalist and photojournalist Pat O’Donnell for his constant updates on photojournalism codes of practice, as well as for his insights into the professionalisation of photojournalism in Australia. To my friends and former colleagues Desley Bartlett, Jennifer Ryan, Duska Sulicich, Lindy Percival, Tom Burton, Dave Waters, Kerry Green and Victoria Gurvich, my thanks for all their help in gathering resources, tracking the latest digital manipulation scandals, and for providing introductions to busy newsroom editors and photographers. I would also like to thank my friends Alys Milner, Mike Francini, and Cheri Cornell for their support in the American research component, with special thanks to Bruce Burger for his help in organising the Microsoft interviews. To my parents, sister Tricia and other family members, I owe far more than this sentence can convey: their support and patience throughout this process has been invaluable. For all the late nights and weekends spent pagesetting, scanning, editing French text, and for the word “polymorphous”, I will always be grateful to Nicolas Paulin. Above all, I thank him for giving me the best possible reason to finish. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 5/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 6/282
Abstract In the past two decades, newsrooms around the world have undergone significant changes in photographic and image processing techniques. Traditional photojournalism tools of analogue cameras, film, darkrooms and chemicals have given way to digital cameras, scanners, computers, the internet and electronic archiving. Some hail this change a sign of evolution in the science and art of photography, while others warn of a revolution with serious consequences for the credibility of photographs in general, and for photojournalism ethics in particular. This study of 12 daily newspapers in Australia, Britain, France and the United States examines the impact of these developments on photojournalism ethics domestically and cross-culturally. The philosophic concept of truth in journalism is traced historically, before focussing specifically on the ideal of veracity in news photography. A written survey and oral questionnaire are used to provide evidence of tolerance for image retouching and manipulation techniques at different organisational levels in each newsroom. These results are used to explore the ethical questions at the heart of the debate on digital imaging and to help define future challenges in photojournalism. This study shows few differences in attitudes to photojournalism ethics within Australian newspaper “types” or organisations, with so-called “quality” newspapers no more likely than “popular” newspapers to provide guidance or training in photojournalism ethics relating to digital technology. The only notable area of divergence is the level of confidence in ethical standards and the photographer’s control over the final published image, which was found to be greater at “quality” newspapers than at “popular” ones. However, more substantial differences emerged in cross-cultural comparisons of attitudes to ethics, with American photographers least likely, and British photographers most likely, to approve of the study’s defined manipulation practices. As a general rule, Australian photographers’ approval rates were around mid-way between these extremes, but attitudes at French newspapers were more difficult to quantify for a variety of reasons. Participation in professional training programs in photojournalism ethics was extremely limited in all countries, except in the United States. Furthermore, while there was evidence of substantial intraorganisational differences in attitudes to ethics between managerial layers in Australia and Britain, these were far less marked in the United States and France. The research ends by outlining some resulting professional developmental challenges and advocating an overhaul of previous approaches to photojournalism ethics.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 7/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 8/282
Table of contents 1.
INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________ 17
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW___________________________________________ 19 2.1.
TRUTH _____________________________________________________________ 19
2.1.1.
Truth in philosophy _______________________________________________________ 19
2.1.2.
Changing perceptions of truth _______________________________________________ 19
2.1.3.
Applying truth as a social value: Ethics________________________________________ 21
2.2.
TRUTH AND PHOTOJOURNALISM ETHICS ___________________________ 22
2.2.1.
The role of truth in journalism_______________________________________________ 22
2.2.2.
The role of truth in photojournalism __________________________________________ 24
2.2.3.
Cross-cultural differences __________________________________________________ 32
2.3.
PHOTOJOURNALISM ETHICS and TRAINING _________________________ 38
2.3.1.
The role of the photojournalist: artist, craftsperson or professional?__________________ 38
2.3.2.
Professional development in journalism _______________________________________ 39
2.3.3.
Professional development in photojournalism___________________________________ 43
2.3.4.
Cross-cultural differences __________________________________________________ 47
2.3.5.
The impact of new technology on professional values ____________________________ 50
2.4.
DIGITAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS ______________________________________ 52
2.4.1.
The technology __________________________________________________________ 52
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 9/282
2.4.2.
Differences between traditional and digital systems ______________________________ 57
2.4.3.
Impact of the new technology on perceptions of photographic truth__________________ 61
2.4.4.
A positive or negative trend? ________________________________________________ 63
2.4.5.
Cross-cultural differences __________________________________________________ 65
2.5.
RESPONSES TO THE DILEMMAS_____________________________________ 67
2.5.1.
Professional responses _____________________________________________________ 67
2.5.2.
Public responses _________________________________________________________ 73
2.6.
CHALLENGES FOR PHOTOJOURNALISM ETHICS ____________________ 75
2.6.1.
Archiving_______________________________________________________________ 75
2.6.2.
Training of the photojournalist ______________________________________________ 77
2.6.3.
The impact of industrial concerns ____________________________________________ 79
2.6.4.
Forces for Change ________________________________________________________ 82
2.7.
HYPOTHESES ______________________________________________________ 88
3.
METHOD _______________________________________________________ 91
4.
AUSTRALIAN RESULTS_________________________________________ 101 4.1.
Demographics_______________________________________________________ 101
4.2.
Attitudes to the introduction of digital technology _________________________ 104
4.3.
Difference between traditional and new methods __________________________ 108
4.4.
Perceptions of differences between newspapers ___________________________ 113
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 10/282
4.5.
Codes and regulation _________________________________________________ 116
4.6.
Perceptions of intra-organisational differences ___________________________ 121
4.7.
Photographers’ attitudes to their job as art or profession ___________________ 125
4.8.
Perceptions of readers’ attitudes _______________________________________ 129
4.9.
Acknowledgement of manipulation of images_____________________________ 133
4.10.
Attitudes to digital cameras__________________________________________ 142
4.11.
Industrial concerns_________________________________________________ 145
5.
OVERSEAS RESULTS ___________________________________________ 151 5.1.
Demographics_______________________________________________________ 151
5.2.
Attitudes to the introduction of digital technology _________________________ 153
5.3.
Difference between traditional and new methods __________________________ 158
5.4.
Perceptions of differences between newspapers ___________________________ 164
5.5.
Codes and regulation _________________________________________________ 166
5.6.
Perceptions of intra-organisational differences ___________________________ 172
5.7.
Photographers’ attitudes to their job as art or profession ___________________ 176
5.8.
Perceptions of readers’ attitudes _______________________________________ 180
5.9.
Acknowledgement of manipulation of images_____________________________ 185
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 11/282
5.10.
Attitudes to digital cameras__________________________________________ 195
5.11.
Industrial concerns_________________________________________________ 201
6.
AUSTRALIAN / OVERSEAS RESULTS COMPARISON _______________ 211 6.1.
Demographics_______________________________________________________ 211
6.2.
Attitudes to the introduction of digital technology _________________________ 212
6.3.
Difference between traditional and new methods __________________________ 214
6.4.
Perceptions of differences between newspapers ___________________________ 215
6.5.
Codes and regulation _________________________________________________ 215
6.6.
Perceptions of intra-organisational differences ___________________________ 216
6.7.
Photographers’ attitudes to their job as art or profession ___________________ 216
6.8.
Perceptions of readers’ attitudes _______________________________________ 217
6.9.
Acknowledgement of manipulation of images_____________________________ 218
6.10.
Attitudes to digital cameras__________________________________________ 221
6.11.
Industrial concerns_________________________________________________ 222
7.
ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS _____________________________________ 225 7.1.
International news agencies ___________________________________________ 225
7.2.
Archiving __________________________________________________________ 228
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 12/282
7.3.
On-line news services_________________________________________________ 231
7.4.
Image integrity and copyright research__________________________________ 233
7.5.
Sports desk _________________________________________________________ 235
8.
DISCUSSION __________________________________________________ 237 8.1.
Demographics_______________________________________________________ 237
8.2.
Attitudes to the introduction of digital technology _________________________ 238
8.3.
Difference in ethical dilemmas between traditional and new methods _________ 239
8.4.
Perceptions of differences between newspapers ___________________________ 241
8.5.
Codes and regulation _________________________________________________ 243
8.6.
Perceptions of intra-organisational differences ___________________________ 245
8.7.
Photographers’ attitudes to their job as art or profession ___________________ 247
8.8.
Perceptions of readers’ attitudes _______________________________________ 248
8.9.
Acknowledgement of manipulation of images_____________________________ 249
8.10.
Attitudes to digital cameras__________________________________________ 253
8.11.
Industrial concerns_________________________________________________ 254
9.
CONCLUSION__________________________________________________ 257 9.1.
This research _______________________________________________________ 257
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 13/282
9.2.
10.
Future research _____________________________________________________ 266
REFERENCES _________________________________________________ 269
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 14/282
LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1-1 : Comparison of photographer demographics by newspaper .................................................. 103 Table 4.2-1 : Level of concern about implications of technology in percentage ........................................ 104 Table 4.9-1 : When should photographs which manipulate the truth be acknowledged? Responses in percentage........................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 4.9-2 : How should these photographs be acknowledged? Responses in percentage ....................... 134 Table 4.9-3 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (spot news) ....................... 139 Table 4.9-4 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (feature photo).................. 140 Table 4.9-5 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (photo illustration) ........... 141 Table 5.1-1: Comparison of photographer demographics by newspaper ................................................... 152 Table 5.2-1 : Level of concern about implications of technology in percentage ........................................ 154 Table 5.9-1 : When should photographs which manipulate the truth be acknowledged? Responses in percentage........................................................................................................................................... 185 Table 5.9-2 : How should these photographs be acknowledged? Responses in percentage ....................... 186 Table 5.9-3 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (spot news) ....................... 192 Table 5.9-4 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (feature photo).................. 193 Table 5.9-5 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (photo illustration) ........... 194 Table 6.1-1: Comparison of photographer demographics by newspaper ................................................... 212 Table 6.2-1 : Level of concern about implications of technology in percentage ........................................ 213 Table 6.9-1 : When should photographs which manipulate the truth be acknowledged? Responses in percentage........................................................................................................................................... 218 Table 6.9-2 : How should these photographs be acknowledged? Responses in percentage ....................... 219 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 15/282
Table 6.9-3 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (all countries, all photo categories) .......................................................................................................................................... 220
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 16/282
1. INTRODUCTION When an early form of photography was first displayed publicly in Paris by the French painter Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre in 1839, a cry went out that painting was dead (Manchester, 1989: 13-14). Compared to previous methods of visual representation, the new art was praised for its science – for its ability to bear witness to a moment of reality. In essence, this new technology became valued by society as a vehicle for truth. As Manchester notes, viewing the prints was like “viewing nature through a telescope”. Writing of the daguerrotype in his Journals, Ralph Waldo Emerson claimed photography as “the true Republican style of painting. The artist stands aside and lets you paint yourself”. Photography, he went on, was distinguished by its immediacy, its authenticity, and the remarkable fact that its eye sees more than the human eye. The camera showed everything. A cliche was born: “The camera does not lie.” (Manchester, 1989: 14) It is somewhat ironic that 160 years after these first photographs were exhibited, another technology has emerged to undermine what many argue is an established credibility. In newsrooms around the world, digital cameras and computers are transforming images into pixels where they can be manipulated with increasing ease. On one hand, the technology can provide fast, quality images which seem more real than ever before. On the other, it can distort reality so that images appear credible but do not represent what actually took place. In extreme applications, these sophisticated transformations are designed to deceive. While it has always been possible for those wishing to distort the truth to create photographs that “lie”, the time and effort it takes to manipulate images post-camera has been a relatively effective disincentive to wide-scale deception. Even when such photographs were produced, the resulting poor quality meant their lie was often quickly unmasked. The big difference with digital technology is its speed, sophistication and accessibility. At the very least it can be argued that if photojournalism has always had its inherent ethical problems, the new technology has at least accentuated them. And at most, it might be considered that the revolutionary nature of such technology warrants a complete overhaul of previous approaches to photojournalism ethics. Since the digital manipulation technology became generally available in the late 1980s, academics and industry chiefs have debated whether it will threaten the established credibility of news photographs. But in concentrating on this aspect of the debate, critics often ignore a more fundamental question: Does the credibility of news photographs matter and if so, why? To explore these ethical issues, this research will begin by examining the ways by which truth has been evaluated within the vast tradition of scholarship and its subsequent place within the field of journalism ethics. By extension, it will look at how this _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 17/282
understanding of truth has shaped the current debate about photo-imaging in Australia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Finally, this outline of ethical issues at the heart of photo-imaging will be re-examined in the context of several hypotheses on current and future directions for photojournalism. All French-to-English translations, including those provided in Sections 4. and 5. were provided by the author, who has an undergraduate degree in French language and has lived and worked in France. Where possible, additional research material was also gathered from local resources in each location to complete the literature review. A bilingual native French-speaker has verified the accuracy of all excerpts quoted from interviews in French, as well as the French-to-English translations throughout the text.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 18/282
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.
TRUTH
2.1.1. Truth in philosophy In the introductory essay to his book Truth in Philosophy, Barry Allen (1993: 1) hails truth as “the philosopher’s value par excellence” on the grounds that the “path to wisdom passes through the askesis or discipline of truth”. As proof of his assertion, he cites similar praise from respected thinkers throughout the centuries. For example, the classical scholar Plato believed that: “Of all things good, truth holds first place among Gods and Men alike” (Allen, 1993: 18). English professor M.H. Abrams (in Lodge, 1972: 6) maintains that classical scholars save their highest praise for truth. Likewise, Lecky (1911: 58) argues that truth is “the first virtue in the moral type, and no character is regarded with any kind of approbation in which it is wanting”. This general acceptance of truth’s importance in philosophy is carried over into much contemporary scholarship on the subject. Indeed, even those who defend the telling of untruths (such as Sissela Bok in her celebrated book Lying) are adamant that “truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special considerations” (Bok, 1989: 30).
2.1.2. Changing perceptions of truth When it comes to characterising truth, philosophers disagree. In essence, the debate is divided between those (usually traditionalists) who believe that truth is something real, objective and attainable, and those (often contemporary philosophers) who describe it as a more complex, subjective and sometimes completely illusory concept. In her essay Against Interpretation, Susan Sontag (in Lodge, 1972: 653) says that for Plato, truth imitates nature, and the further the object is removed from its origins (through art, for example), the less truthful it becomes. Aristotle saw truth in similar terms, espousing the general belief that truth is contingent on some kind of tangible reality. Allen gives the example of Aristotle’s reasoning: “It is not because we think truly that you are pale, that you are pale ... but because you are pale, we who say this have the truth” (1993: 12). He later adds (1993: 30) that “[n]either Plato nor Aristotle seriously doubts that human beings can have the truth and be reasonably certain of it”. This concept of reality is continued through Christian philosophy from St Augustine to Frances Bacon, and even Heidigger who “never doubts that where there is truth, there are beings which truth uncovers, beings whose being make truth true” (Allen, 1993: 97). The same confidence in the existence of “the whole truth” is the underlying assumption of Bok’s work. For in choosing to define truth by what it is not – lying – she needs to assume first that truth _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 19/282
is attainable, even if she then takes issue with the categorical Augustinian and Kantian positions on truthtelling as the only morally defensible choice for every circumstance (Bok, 1989: 32-72). Allen (1993: 26) credits Voltaire as the first philosopher to feel sceptical about the value of truth to “make us wise and content”. Soon after, Kant rejected the value of “the subjectivity of the subject as its ground or a priori condition of existence” (Allen, 1993: 36). And by the time we reach Nietzsche and Marx, truth has been denounced as a subjective concept, often used more as a tool for attaining power than as an instrument of good (Allen, 1993: 43-54). It is from Marxism that a loose grouping of contemporary philosophers took their cue and began questioning whether “truth” is, in fact, a man-made construction. This philosophic movement now known as “postmodernism” first became popular in France in the 1970s, and has often been described as a function of the increasing “globalisation” of society (Anderson, 1996: 8). One of the most notable pioneers of postmodernism’s assault on traditional perceptions of the existence of truth was Michel Foucault. He argued that it was impossible to reflect on the many meanings of truth without understanding their linguistic forms (the language systems producing them) and how they crossed over into the domain of power (Foucault in Anderson, 1996: 40). Postmodern definitions of truth are necessarily conflicting, but a defender of the movement, Warren Truett Anderson, attempts an explanation: We are all emerging from out of the security of our tribes, traditions, religions and worldviews into a global civilisation that is dazzlingly, overwhelmingly pluralistic. Surrounded by so many truths, we can’t help but revise our concept of truth itself: our beliefs about belief. More and more people become acquainted with the idea that, as philosopher Richard Rorty puts it, truth is made rather than found. This idea itself is not exactly new. It came into the Eastern world with Buddhism about 2,500 years ago, and into the Western world at the same time with Heraclitus. It has been the message of various mystics and philosophers over the centuries. It is like a minor theme in a symphony that is heard at first faintly in the background and eventually swells into dominance. Seeing truth as made, not found – seeing reality as socially constructed – doesn’t mean deciding there is nothing “out there”. It means understanding that all our stories about what’s out there – all our scientific facts, our religious teachings, our society’s beliefs, even our personal perceptions – are the products of a highly creative interaction between human minds and the cosmos. (Anderson, 1996: 8) The same notion – that truth is a construct which results from the interaction between human beings and their environment – can be found in the work of Marshall McLuhan who said that “Truth … is something we make in the encounter with the world that is making us.” (McLuhan and Powers, 1989: xi) For writer Ernest Becker (ironically, perhaps, a Pulitzer Prize winner for non-fiction) the “postmodern condition” on reality is enormously illuminating. Indeed, he says that in dismantling traditional concepts of truth, the postmodern era has, in fact, discovered a much greater truth: “Future historians will probably record it as
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 20/282
one of the great, liberating breakthroughs of all times, and it happened in ours.” (Becker, 1996: 35, emphasis in original) But in recent years, a counter-attack on the postmodernist era’s deconstruction of truth has been gathering momentum. Academic Raimond Gaita (1997: 16) acknowledges the trend as healthy. Nevertheless, he argues, universities are now at risk of losing their faith in truth as a worthy pursuit: “If in Julien Benda’s day it was trahison des clercs to attack the notion of objective truth, it may now be trahison des clercs not to take seriously the scepticism concerning it.” In a column for the Sydney Morning Herald, social commentator on ethics and a member of the School of Social Work at the University of New South Wales Damian Grace (1998: 13) was far more scathing in his attack on postmodern theories of truth and reality construction. He argues that postmodernists live in a confused and irrational world of their own where “[t]ruth is regarded as myth and myth as truth”. As such, truth becomes simply a construct of those with power. His scathing attack is relieved only in his prediction that the movement has run its course: Postmodernism has peaked, and will die with the century. Most people will be too busy getting on with life to notice its passing, but its legacy of relativism, narcissism, debased language and irrationality will continue to keep scholars busy rebuilding their disciplines for many years. (Grace, 1998: 13) Yet Anderson defends the movement against such attacks, criticising the critics for failing to understand the premise behind the postmodern inquiry into truth: No serious postmodern thinker believes that reality is constructed by an effortless whim: It is a complex and in many ways still mysterious process. It involves minds and bodies, cool thoughts and hot passions, personal experiences and the collective history of humanity. It is very closely related to the activities we call play, art, craft, poetry, theater. But – whatever you emphasize – we all come to see that no truths in the world are, so to speak, untouched by human hands. (Anderson, 1996: 8-9) The writings of Ross (1939: 2) might predate such disagreements, but his assertion that the different viewpoints on truth merely represent “the different perspectives in which men have looked at the problems” is perhaps an appropriate conclusion to this particular debate. Ultimately, he says, it will always be impossible to find an absolute definition of truth, because truth is an ideal, and all theories on it represent varying degrees of its distortion.
2.1.3. Applying truth as a social value: Ethics In discussing the role of truth in ethics, a definition of the latter provides a sound (if somewhat predictable) starting point. In his book Introductory Ethics, Fred Feldman describes ethics as “the philosophic study of
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 21/282
morality” (1978: 1). Similarly, Merrill and Barney (1975: viii) refer to theories of “moral philosophy”. In both these texts, the word “moral(s)” is understood to correspond to a general dictionary definition: Of or pertaining to character or disposition; of or pertaining to the distinction between right or wrong, or good and evil, in relations to actions, volitions or character; ethical. (The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1973: 1354). By extension, it is also worth considering Sissela Bok’s preferred definition of ethics (1989: xix) which comes from Epicurus, as quoted by Diogenes Laertius: “Ethics deals with things to be sought and things to be avoided, with ways of life and with the telos [Telos is the chief good, the aim or the end of life]”. But while the interpretations of primary meaning may be consistent, ideas about how ethical or moral behaviour is constituted vary enormously.
For example, on the question of how morality is derived, some
philosophers describe it as innate or God-given, while others are convinced it is socially imposed through learned value systems (Lecky, 1911: 2). According to the British scholar Ross, no matter how philosophers may argue the ontology of ethics, or how good actions are differentiated from bad, the process of deriving moral values remains the same: [T]he time-honoured methods of ethics – as practised by the classical philosophers – is to look at moral consciousness – i.e. the existence of a large body of beliefs and convictions – to the effect that there are certain kinds of things that ought to be done, and certain kinds of things that ought to be brought into existence, as far as we can bring them into existence. (Ross, 1939: 1) With his use of the word “ought”, Ross highlights a fundamental concept in the study of ethics – duty. For duty, or obligation, is inextricably tied to any discussion of moral values. Not only do we have a duty to ourselves to ensure that rights or goods take place, but because we generally live collectively with others, we have a duty towards society as well. Therefore, the relationship between moral values and society is vital to any discussion of ethics, even though individuals are ultimately responsible for making decisions about their own moral values (Merrill and Barney, 1975: 8).
2.2.
TRUTH AND PHOTOJOURNALISM ETHICS
2.2.1. The role of truth in journalism The relationship between truth and duty to the public takes on a particular significance when applied to the field of journalism. One need only go so far as the Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (Journalists) Code of Ethics to see how the two values are bound. Indeed, the preamble to the 1999 version of the code begins with the words: “Respect for truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism” (see Appendix A.3.1.1.). [It should be noted here, however, that the importance of _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 22/282
truth in this code is downgraded from the stronger introduction to the previous 1984 version which defines respect for truth as an overriding principle.] There are similar other examples of truth as an aspirational rather than purist concept in other well-recognised codes, and it is often linked to the right of the public to a trustworthy media product. As such, the term “credibility” is often used to refer to the extent to which the public have faith in the supposed “truth” of the media product (Craig, 1993: 2). According to a United Nations draft proposal for an international code of media ethics, “good faith with the public” must be allied with truth if a high standard of journalism is to be achieved (Jones, 1980: 13). And Brown (1974: 121) also relates the two values when he asserts that “good faith with the public is the foundation of all worthy journalism” and “truth is the ultimate goal”. If the value of truth itself is questioned, it is interesting to examine how truth relates to journalism and, more specifically, to photojournalism. Gilmore and Root (1988: 28) contend that most journalists define their duty to present truth in terms of informing the public in an accurate and objective way. Hurst and White (1994: 25-26) agree, adding that the industry has traditionally seen truth as “verifiable, objective fact”. However, they acknowledge that while facts may be highly valued, “they do not necessarily convey a true picture”. They also argue that we need to look at whether facts alone represent truth: “A news story may be accurate in every factual detail but fundamentally untruthful because it has omitted other, equally accurate, material” (Hurst and White, 1994: 26). However, Tuchman (1978) extends this argument, maintaining that while the search for “hard” facts is central to journalism, the resulting “objectivity” is an illusion which masks attempts by those with power to exert control and protects them against criticisms and admissions of uncertainty. This swing away from a direct equation of fact with reality can be traced to the growing scepticism about truth after the 18th Century (as outlined in Section 2.1.2.). For instance, philosopher Iris Murdoch writes that while facts exist at a basic level (for example if the cat is on the mat, then that is fact), the concept of “fact” as truth is more complex: The moral point is that “facts” are set up as such by human (that is moral) agents. Much of our life is taken up by truth-seeking, imagining, questioning. We relate to facts through truth and truthfulness, and come to recognise that there are different modes and levels of insight and understanding. In many familiar ways various values pervade and colour what we take to be the reality of our world, wherein we constantly evaluate our own values and those of others, and judge and determine forms of consciousness and modes of being. To say all this is not in any way to deny either science, empiricism or common sense. (Murdoch, 1992: 26, emphasis in original) Doubts about verifiable fact are echoed throughout the writings of modern media theorists. According to Goodwin (1987: 11-14), even presenting facts in an objective manner can actively distort truth. Instead, he argues that journalists should “interpret” the facts in order to inform the public as truthfully as possible. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 23/282
Therefore, he advocates “fairness” as a better standard than the mimetic representation favoured by classical scholars. Similarly, Christians, Fackler and Rotzoll (1995: 51) question the equation of fact with truth, arguing that journalists must sometimes actively interpret the reality with which they are presented. And Gilmore and Root (1988: 28) go so far as to assert that a “short deadpan news account can be far less objective than the opinion piece”, provided the latter introduces the writer’s evaluations as fairly, honestly and objectively as possible. Mayer asks whether the concept of objectivity is even valuable at all, particularly after being undermined in the 1960s and 70s fashion for “constructionism”. He concludes with more than a degree of resignation that the “scope for accusations of skew” has now become endless (Mayer, 1994: 17). But just when the Tuchman view of objectivity as myth had come to be broadly accepted by the academic realm, the campaign to save the link between journalism and truth – or rather truths – has been taken up by postmodern theorists. While resisting a postmodernist label, John Hartley’s book Popular Reality: Journalism, Modernity and Popular Culture uses the same language to describe journalism as “the practice of rendering visible the continuous (and necessary) dialogue between truth and communication” (Hartley, 1996: 199). Hartley also follows a postmodern rationale in arguing that journalism puts emphasis on delivering the truth (objectivity) rather than one of the possible descriptions available for truth. Nevertheless, he shies away from denouncing the reality of facts altogether: Journalism is a realism, committed to having its account of the socio-political world agree with referential reality. But simultaneously, like advertising, it is a textualisation of the world into a form which is nonetheless constructed for being matter-of-fact and familiar. (Hartley, 1996: 199) As such, Hartley takes a middle ground approach. He concludes (1996: 201) that journalism is both a realism and a fantasy: a realism because it does refer to something outside itself (the “so-called real”), and a a fantasy because its “semiotic enunciation” and “discursive style” make it seem like “a set of complex textual truths designed to prove that facts talk by themselves”. This theory provides for interesting reflection, but whether media audiences are satisfied by such tolerance for different “truths” is another matter. Indeed, Hartley himself points out (1996: 205) that once truth in itself is disputed, the work of media critics becomes increasingly difficult to justify – and this is hardly helpful when there are so many abuses of truth in journalism.
2.2.2. The role of truth in photojournalism From the discussion in Section 2.2.1., a debate emerges on the question of how closely journalists are able to approach truth. But when commentators speak in general terms about the relationship between journalism and truth, they are usually understood to be referring to the written word. Once in the realm of photojournalism, the debate changes direction. This paradox will be examined first in defining the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 24/282
differences between truth in word journalism and photojournalism (Section 2.2.2.1.); then by looking at what is seen to constitute truth in news photography (Section 2.2.2.2.); and finally by attempting to define the line between veracity and deception (Section 2.2.2.3.).
2.2.2.1.
The difference between words and pictures
Unlike words, pictures, in the minds of most casual readers and viewers, have been immune to re-arrangement and subjective composition. (Foss, 1994: 49) This observation by the digital ethics writer, Kurt Foss, sums up what commentators throughout the literature refer to as public trust in photographs. For while words must have always been open to the abstract processes of the human mind (for a discussion on this, see McDonald in Merrill and Barney, 1975: 71), photographs are seen by the public at large, if not by those who take them, as representing concrete physical phenomena. In his introductory course notes on his Photojournalism Course at California State University, teacher and photographer Paul Lester (1999a: webpage) explores this difference, starting with the Confucian adage: “A picture is worth a thousand words”. He examines a series of famous citations on the power of words versus the power of images. He begins with Confucius’ pronouncement on the power of words and its relationship to society: “He who does not know the force of words cannot know people”, and continues with Aristotle’s pronouncement that: “Thought is impossible without an image”. Another negative view on words, that “All words are prejudices”, is attributed to Frederich Nietzche. It is not until the 20th Century when a famous remark on inherent untruth of the image is unearthed in Franz Kafka’s words: “Nothing can be so deceiving as a photograph”. From Lester himself, a wry comment on how images and the perception of their purity and simplicity has changed over time: A seven-character word (picture, for example) in most word processing programs is a 6K file. One thousand words is about a 11K while 10,000 is about 22K. If Confucius said that a “picture’s worth a thousand (or ten thousand) words,” he sure wasn’t talking about a color photograph on the cover of Newsweek, but a simple 11k line drawing. In today’s Hollywood, a single digital frame for a motion picture requires about 40megs of memory–-that’s equivalent to about 25 million words. Isn’t it interesting to notice how pictures have increased in value over 2,500 years? (Lester, 1999a: webpage) So can pictures inherently lay claim to a greater degree of truth than words? In their books on photography, philosophers Sontag and Barthes both conclude that photography is more real than other “artforms” because it operates in a mechanical way. Barthes (1981: 85-88) describes photography as “a magic, not an art” that attests to “what has been”. Sontag explains how a photograph is “a material vestige of its subject” in that its very formation depends on the relationship between the ephemeral and the permanent: [A photograph is] not only an image (as a painting is an image), an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stencilled off the real, like a footprint or a death mask. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 25/282
(Sontag, 1977: 154) Nevertheless, the basic premise of Sontag and Barthes (that a photograph captures real objects by capturing reflected light rays on film) is repeated often by media commentators to show that cameras record something that actually happened (Craig, 1993: 4). Indeed, their work has a strong influence on more contemporary documentary specialists such as Currie (1997: 4-7) who chooses the same metaphor to make his case for the documentary “trace” of an image as opposed to verbal “testimony”: As with photographs, so with footprints and death masks. These are traces left by things on the world. Anything about the person’s appearance that the footprint or death mask manages to record is intention independent in the way that the photograph is: what is recorded depends on the morphology of the foot or face; not on what someone thinks the morphology of the foot or face is. (Currie, 1997: 4-5) This is despite obligatory acknowledgement (even by Currie) that some level of subjectivity is always involved. As Hall points out (1973: 188): “(T)he choice of this moment of an event as against that, of this person rather than that, of this angle rather than any other, indeed the selection of this photographed incident to represent a whole complex chain of events and meanings, is a highly ideological procedure.” The same general acceptance of the photograph’s essential claim to veracity can be seen in McLuhan’s work. If, as McLuhan famously wrote “the medium is the message” (McLuhan, 1964: 7), then photography is about making a permanent record. He argues that, unlike television, photography has the ability to isolate single moments in time (McLuhan, 1964: 188). Nevertheless, in his discussion of the photograph as a fixed but often uncontrollable commodity, or a “Brothel-Without-Walls”, McLuhan does not ignore the paradoxical relationship between science and truth: [T]o say that “the camera cannot lie” is merely to underlie the multiple deceits that are now practised in its name. Indeed, the world of the movie that was prepared by the photograph has become synonymous with illusion and fantasy, turning society into what Joyce called an “allnights newsery reel,” that substitutes a “reel” world for reality. (McLuhan, 1964: 192193) Indeed, McLuhan seems genuinely vexed by the question of photography’s claim to veracity. On one hand he ventures that photographs are probably a more reliable mechanism for documentation than are words, while on the other he wonders whether they need to be subject to greater scrutiny and human control. In exploring this theme, he turns to the writings of James Joyce, whom he credits with knowing “more about the effects of the photograph on our senses, our language, than anybody else”: [Joyce’s] verdict on the “automatic writing” is that photography was the abnihilization of the etym. He saw the photo as at least a rival, and perhaps a usurper, of the word, whether written or spoken. But if etym (etymology) means the heart and core and moist substance of those beings that we grasp in words, then Joyce may well have meant that the photo was a new _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 26/282
creation from nothing (ab-nihil), or even a reduction of creation to a photographic negative. If there is, indeed, a terrible nihilism in the photo and a substitution of the shadows for substance, then we are surely not the worse for knowing it. The technology of the photo is an extension of our own being and can be withdrawn from circulation like any other technology if we decide it is virulent. But amputation of such extensions of our physical being calls for as much knowledge and skills as are prerequisite to any other physical amputation. (McLuhan, 1964: 192-193) This same dichotomy informs the work of Tagg (1988: 3 ), who examines the photograph from an ideological and sociological perspective. He concludes that Barthes’ proclamation of the photograph’s magic should be treated with scepticism. This is because the photograph – useful as it may be as a means of evidence for some societies – is no phenomenological guarantee: “The photograph is not a magical ‘emanation’ but a material product of a material apparatus set to work in specific contexts, by specific forces, for more or less defined purposes. It requires, therefore, not an alchemy but a history, outside which the existential essence of photography is empty (Tagg, 1988: 3).” Writing in Le Monde Diplomatique (an offshoot publication of the French newspaper), Vu news photography agency director Christian Caujolle (1998: 26) rails against the supposedly untouchable status of photographic truth. He argues that photographic technology has always been inherently imprecise, and that usually the only precise thing about a photograph is the attached text caption. Despite popular sayings about pictures being worth more than words and the pervasion of images in our media, he places the power of words over images as a whole in civil society. This denunciation of photographic truth as myth is not always accompanied by condemnation. For instance, Hartley (1996: 202-203) maintains there is a contract between the publisher and the reader, whereby the reader trusts the publisher to give an approximate and above all entertaining version of reality: Ironically it is the pictorial content of journalism, in both print and screen media, that is said to be the most imperative guarantor of its truth, of its realism, or at least of its reference to something outside of itself. But the idea that pictures can’t lie and must refer to something real is patently absurd, so the ideology of the photographic imperative is in practice a kind of shared tact or trust, a treaty perhaps between the publisher and reader, proposing that readers can rely on what they see. However that trust does not extend to boring readers to death, and so reality has to be selected, framed, composed, processed, edited, cropped, airbrushed, captioned and where possible coloured, to make it look as much as possible like advertising. The commitment to readerships over reality is endemic in all textual systems, as it must be, but in journalism, especially pictorial journalism, this is counted in the most widely available and respected frameworks of critical explanation as a crime against truth. (Hartley, 1996: 202-203)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 27/282
Even if Hartley (1996: 202-203) remains unconvinced of photograph’s claims to truth, he says critics of the media still have to accept that the basic tenet of truth relies on accepting that realism is the relationship between text and reader: [I]n photography truth is in the eye of the beholder. A faked, staged, touched up or altered photograph cannot easily be distinguished from a straight one by the viewer, and so the guarantee of its authenticity comes in the end from a viewer’s belief in it, a belief sustained not as an individual opinion but via literacy in the social ideology of realism. Realism, then, is not so much a textual property as a cultural propaganda campaign designed to persuade readerships (no matter what the evidence) that what they see is so. (Hartley, 1996: 203-4) Nevertheless, a number of commentators on this issue (see also Kerns, 1980: xii) ultimately maintain that the finished product does equate to the truthful representation of fact, because photographs witness the actuality of the event they represent. Foss (1994: 49) remains adamant that this general faith in the veracity of photographic images is widespread and has become a public expectation. Griffin (1992: 96) believes this credibility stems from the public perception that a visual record is intrinsically “purer” than a verbal account could ever be. This observation is supported by a study by Kelly and Nace, which found that while readers rated The New York Times more believable than The National Enquirer, they rated the photographs in the National Enquirer as more believable than was the newspaper in general (Kelly and Nace, 1994: 18). Newton (1998: 4-9) also points to new empirical evidence from Potter, Bolls and Lang, which shows that readers and viewers comprehend visual information more easily than written or spoken information, leading Newton to theorise that visual encoding of published photographs by the reader is “relatively automatic”. Perhaps the last word here should go to Simpson (1993: 21) who puts aside the discussion on the differences between words and pictures to draw an astute analogy between news photographs and direct quotations and set out the consequences of lying about them. Should either be manipulated, “it bleeds over into a distrust of the entire newspaper”.
2.2.2.2.
Truthful art or artful truth?
In 1926, film critic John Grierson famously described documentary as “the creative treatment of reality” (cited in Currie, 1997: 1 and; Tagg, 1988: 8). It should not be surprising, therefore, that the mix between art and truth in photography has been open to debate throughout the medium’s history. Yet according to news historian William Rainbolt, from August 19, 1839 – the day Louis Daguerre demonstrated his process in Paris – photography’s reputation as a realist medium was firmly entrenched in the public consciousness: There was an immediate run on opticians’ shops in Paris, the demand was so great by folks who wanted equipment. By 1847, some 2000 cameras and a million photographic plates were sold annually in Paris alone; in 1853, 10,000 American daguerreotypists produced about three million pictures. (Rainbolt, 1997: email) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 28/282
Tension between the obvious realism of the photographic image and debate about how truthful those images actually are, is no recent phenomenon. Indeed, according to Foss (1994: 49) the only new thing is our expectation of scrupulous honesty instead of artful interpretation of reality. He explains that prior to the development of the half-tone printing process around 1880, news photographs had to be sketched in reverse on blocks of wood before they could be published. During that process, most images underwent “interpretation” by the wood-block artists. Foss quotes photojournalism commentator and historian Phillip Geraci in describing the low regard for veracity in news photographs in that era, where the foes usually looked villainous and the heroes virtuous: Angels often appeared in the skies and the lighting was always perfect, regardless of the weather. If large crowds were called for, large crowds were carved in, whether they had actually been present or not. For decades, the power of the artist to control the shapes of printed images held sway. Not only could pictures lie, they almost always did. (Foss, 1994: 53) Coleman (1998: 77) also documents this period in history which reached its peak around 1870, and concludes that the “fundamental strategy of image production” then used is not so different from today’s digital manipulations. In other words, elements of the photographs would be added or removed without a second thought. But more disturbing was the common practice of accompanying the printed images with the label “from an original photograph” to add an aura of photographic credibility to “what were basically really fictions” (Coleman, 1998: 77-78). In this light, it is perhaps interesting to note a study by Kahan (1964: 53) which found that American magazines of the late 19th Century delayed introducing photographs to their readers precisely because the editors thought hand-engraving was art, but the new-style photographs were not. Nevertheless, the invention of the half-tone printing process did mean that newspapers were now capable of offering images that appeared to be more “real” than ever before (Foss, 1994: 53). In the 1930s, the relationship between photography and documentary journalism was further enriched when the United States government hired photographers to capture on film the effects of the Depression as part of its New Deal (Rosett, 1997: 40). By the 1940s, the development of small, hand-held cameras meant that capturing an “authentic” moment in time was popular as never before (Kahan, 1964: 54). Compared to previous methods, which required time and direction from the photographer, the trademark of the new technology was “images made candidly, often unbeknownst to the subjects, and which purported to show a reality seemingly unaffected by pretence or subjectivity” (Foss, 1994: 49): The resulting photographs were revered for their alleged ability to unveil a greater “truth” about a subject or event than could be revealed with the subject’s expressed co-operation and approval. (Foss, 1994: 49) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 29/282
And so a new kind of journalist was born – the photojournalist. Despite a counter-movement for photography to be recognised as an artform, by the end of the 1960s news photography had become widely accepted as a realist medium. Sontag (1977: 127) contextualises the changes historically. She documents a preference for realist photography in the earliest days of the medium, followed by a movement to see photography as an artform at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century. After this point, she says the value of photography as a tool for realism was reasserted. According to Tagg (1988: 89) these changing perceptions of the photograph’s inherent truthfulness owed something to the developing technology, but were also entirely dependent on the social, cultural and political movements of the time. Coleman (1998: 38) agrees (at least in part) and notes the absence of any real “continuum of understanding” in photography since its invention.
2.2.2.3.
The line between veracity and deception.
Underpinning this discussion from its inception is the overriding view that truth in news photography should be valued over art.
However, in his essay on those he calls the most famous group of
photojournalists in history, the Magnum group, Fred Ritchin argues otherwise: If this were so, Magnum would not exist, for this view leaves out both an understanding of the inherent complexities of photography as an interpretive medium and the possibility of powerful individual differences among photographers. (cited in Manchester, 1989: 54) But are truth and art really opposing values, or can they co-exist? Many commentators agree that photojournalists should be free to practise some degree of “art” without damaging the veracity of their images and credibility with the public. Indeed, the general consensus seems to be that some manipulation is acceptable, provided the photograph does not “lie”. Yet beyond this view, opinions vary on the line between veracity and deception. At what point does a photograph become “untruthful”? Martin says that of all forms of photography, news photographs have a special duty to the public, because they invite the reader to assume they are real: [W]e often ... try to make inferences from photographs to conclusions about how the world is ... and what is very often of interest to us is the world “in a state of nature”, rather than special, private and limited attractions constructed for the purposes of a photograph. (Martin, 1987: 53) Thus Martin (1987: 52) argues that while news photography might be “interpretive” and subjective to some extent, news photographs should have a greater “presence and reality” than film or painting, which tell us more about what the director or artist felt about the event than the actual event itself. Hurst and White concur, adding that news photographs have a responsibility to be more “real” or “truthful” than other media, because they carry a public duty: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 30/282
There is a case for artistic recreations of parts of life in journalism, especially in magazine journalism. However, the news photographer has an obligation to the audience to provide a representation of actual, not imaginary, events. He or she betrays the trust of the audience if the picture is really a mock-up, or represents something other than he or she claims it to be. (Hurst and White, 1994: 183) At the same time, Hurst and White (1994: 183) acknowledge that some manipulations of reality have come to be generally accepted. News photographers have traditionally manipulated lighting, studio settings, external props and people “to achieve a variety of artistic effects that do not accord exactly with the objective view of reality”. There is much disagreement about the extent to which this kind of “staging” should be allowed. In his popular text Pictures on a Page, newspaperman Harold Evans describes how even time and place can represent a form of lying: The camera cannot lie; but it can be an accessory to untruth. Political enemies smile at each other for a hundredth of a second and the next day the newspaper reader absorbs the warmth of their friendship. Bullies can be shown as men of charity; the pompous as folksy; and honest girls as tarts. (Evans, 1987: xv) He says there are many subjective decisions for the photographer to make before taking the photograph, all of which have the potential to distort reality to some extent. A lens is just one example: “[M]ountains are moved with the effort it takes to add a 500 mm lens, a backyard swimming pool instantly enlarged to Olympic standards” (Evans, 1987: xv). Yet Martin (1987: 56-57) contends that a certain amount of minimal manipulation in news photographs is not deceptive. He equates “staging” in news photographs with “directing” in documentary films. He draws his line at the point where a photographer intends to convey an untrue suggestion to his reader, describing such manipulations as “a clear case of lying without any extenuating, justifying circumstances”. Similarly, Hurst and White (1994: 183) say that reality is distorted when props or people are used to fake a scene and the resulting photograph is then used as a true reflection of reality. However, Evans (1987: 23) would seem to take a more laissez-faire approach. While not supporting a complete recreation of time or place (such as re-enactments of emotional upheaval), he believes photographers should be relatively free to direct their photographs. In all, he devotes far more time to encouraging photographers to be creative than to concerns about documenting reality. There are seemingly endless arguments over what constitutes deceptive photographic manipulation. A glimpse at the debate between commentators of the late 1980s is proof of this. For instance, Evans (1987: 277) actively supports painting out “strong detail which mars composition”. Parker (1988: 51) is less supportive of traditional manipulations, but points out that photographs have been “air brushed, cropped, masked, superimposed, reversed, opaqued, and coloured” for decades. He even contends that a print is “almost always” manipulated by the authoring photographer during the darkroom process, even if this kind _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 31/282
of manipulation is simply a matter of under-exposing or over-exposing the film. Yet while Martin (1987: 51) supports Parker’s view that air brushing is not trying to deceive but trying to be “aesthetic”, Reaves (1987: 42) describes the practice as “still controversial”. She says most editors and photographers frown on manipulations such as cutting and pasting, adding that this practice is usually limited to “obvious illustrations”. Even when editing of the photograph is completed, there is still a caption and story to assign meaning to the image. As Evans (1987: xv) wryly remarks: “Words can turn images on their heads: the photograph of a couple locked in embrace may be captioned Love or it may be captioned Rape”. And finally, the reader/viewer must add his, or her, own interpretation to the photograph. Matthews (1993: 55) points out the difficulty of predicting the viewer’s reaction or “what inferences are natural or likely”. Evans (1987: xv-xvi) warns of possible misinterpretation: “When [the viewer’s] emotions are strong, he can see the opposite of what was intended”. But perhaps the most eloquent view on the subject comes from Yves Bonnefoy (1980: no page) in his foreword to a collection of photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson. He writes that: “[A]s soon as we look at an image the object tends to detach itself from the context of the reality in which the artist found it and relocate to another”.
2.2.3. Cross-cultural differences Comparative cross-cultural research on attitudes towards photographic truth is difficult to find, probably because the question “what is truth” is so hard to define. Of the available literature, much is based on cliched generalisation and personal opinion rather than clear argument or concrete comparative data. It is therefore necessary to turn to historical developments in photography in the four countries examined in this study and to compare the analyses given of public and professional attitudes at those times. In exploring some of the more renowned views, several different theories emerge. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that even compatriots differed, often widely, in their views on cross-cultural differences. Sometimes this can be explained by historical change, sometimes by differences in individual philosophies, and sometimes by the formation of sub-cultures within the broader photographic culture of individual countries. In any case, the examples cited here should be considered as possible examples of cultural differences rather than as concrete evidence of opposing philosophies and trends. Whether the photograph was invented by the British or by the French has long been a point of contention among historians and is not a question to be resolved here. What is known, is that various developments between 1812 and 1839 in lithography, the camera obscura, image fixing and reproduction, contributed to the development of the modern photograph. It is also widely acknowledged that the three principle inventors involved were the French physicist Nicéphore Niepce (1765-1833), the French painter and _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 32/282
inventor Jacques Daguerre (1787-1851) and the British scientist William Henry Fox Talbot (1800-1877). Niepce is most often cited as the inventor of the image reproduction part of the photographic process. Fox Talbot and Niepce are credited with the perfection of the image capturing process. These two inventors presented their images to the public (Fox Talbot in a book, Daguerre at an exhibition) in 1839 [Encyclopédie Microsoft ® Encarta ®, 1997: no page; Larousse, 1934: (2) 620 and (5) 79]. But even at the time, the processes for capturing and developing the image were different. The French Daguerréotype was used largely for capturing portrait shots, while Fox Talbot’s Calotype was used for reproducing landscape images. With the birth of these two photographic processes, the photograph’s claim to truth seemed to be accepted universally in France and the United Kingdom. For example, it is said that when a French painter first saw the daguerrotype on display in Paris in 1839, his exclamation “From this day on, painting is dead” became a public mantra (Mitchell, 1992: 1). The following year in his article “The Daguerrotype”, England’s Edgar Allan Poe was equally convinced of the photograph’s claim to truth: If we examine a work of ordinary art, by means of a powerful microscope, all traces of resemblance to nature will disappear – but the closest scrutiny of the photogenic drawing discloses only a more absolute truth, a more perfect identity of aspect with the thing represented. The variations of shade, and the gradations of both linear and aerial perspective, are those of truth itself in the supremeness of its perfection. (cited in Mitchell, 1992: 5) Yet it is possible to distinguish some cross-cultural differences in attitudes toward photographic veracity, even in these early years. Tagg is one of the few researchers to have traced the photographic traditions through cross-cultural differences, and his analysis is an interesting one. For example, he explains (1988: 42-53) that for both political and historical reasons, the development of photography in Britain was more limited than in France. This is due to the decision of the French Government to buy the rights to the technology in an effort to encourage the proliferation of portraiture photography among artists, as opposed to the British Government’s more wary attitude to the technology for popular use. Tagg concludes that the relationship between art and photography was always strongest in France, largely because photographic portraiture services were widespread and usually offered by artists. By contrast, in Britain, it was used more by scientists and only financially supported by the British Government when its usefulness in gathering police evidence became known. Tagg quotes an early French photographer, writer and caricaturist Gaspard Félix Tournachn, who opened a studio in Paris in 1853, to explain the strong links existing between art and photography from the beginning: The theory of photography can be learnt in an hour and the elements of practising it in a day ... What cannot be learnt is the sense of light, an artistic feeling for the effects of varying _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 33/282
luminosity and combinations of it, the application of this or that effect to the features, which confront the artist in you. What can be learnt even less is the moral grasp of the subject – that instant understanding which puts you in touch with the model, helps you to sum up, guides you to his habits, his ideas and his character and enables you to produce not an indifferent reproduction, a matter of routine or accident such as any laboratory assistant could achieve, but a really convincing sympathetic likeness, an intimate portrait. (cited in Tagg, 1988: 53) The historical development of landscape photography rather than populist portraiture, as well as the private patents which existed on photographic inventions, meant that photography in Britain tended to be used for more scientific purposes, most specifically as a tool for collecting evidence for the public benefit (Tagg, 1988: 43-53). The links between French photography and art were developed further in the early 20th Century, as Paris became the centre of new artistic movements which transformed realist photography into art. For example, the development of the new philosophies of Dada and Surrealism in France in the aftermath of World War 1 signaled a crisis of faith in traditional moral and intellectual values, including those associated with photography. In short, these philosophies advocated the deconstruction of the accepted realisms of the past while at the same time choosing to express themselves through realist mediums. Thus, the assumption that truth could be captured in any form of visual representation – be it photography, painting or otherwise – was both celebrated and denounced as a myth. Indeed the Belgian painter René Magritte, who liked to combine realism with fantasy, was famed for paintings such as The Betrayal of Images: This is Not a Pipe that appeared realist at first, but were given a bizarre character through impossible juxtapositions of scale. A number of art historians now recognise this moment as the signification of the end of an age-old relationship between subject matter and image (“Ceci n’est pas une pipe”, 1998: 25). Yet even within these movements there was dissent on attitudes to truth. For example, the photographer Man Ray (an American living in Paris) was famous for declaring “La photographie n’est pas l’art” or “Photography is not art” (Ray, 1937). Man Ray also insisted that the most memorable photographs in history would be news photographs (“Man Ray”, 1998: 37). Arriving in Paris in 1921, Man Ray initially took work as a newspaper photographer to help support himself. Yet by arguing that photography was not art, he is seen by some as asserting his real ambition to paint and by others to be defending photography’s scientific and mechanical qualities (“Man Ray, la photographie a l’envers”, 1998). Man Ray’s “documentary” or “commercial” work found a home in the press of his time, which quickly confirmed his desire to move on to other things; for, according to him, “photography is not art”: in other words, an artist will only lower himself by duplicating the real. (“Man Ray, la photographie à l’envers”, 1998) [See Appendix A.5.1.] Man Ray later rebelled against what he saw as a documentary straitjacket by painting elements into his photographs and playing with techniques such as solarisation until they became art (Ray, 1998: 3). He was also particularly interested in the very indeterminate nature of photography to explore the real. In other _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 34/282
words he did not see reality in classical terms, but chose to portray unusual aspects of his subjects – such as half their heads – even in his documentary work. (“Man Ray, la photographie à l’envers”, 1998). Other French photojournalists have delighted in mixing reality with falsehood. In 1962, French photographer Pierre Boulat published a photograph in Life magazine of General Charles de Gaulle at the funeral of former French president Réné Coty. De Gaulle was mounting a flight of stairs and his hand was stretched back regally offering his coat to a bevy of presidential lackeys who all reached out to clutch at it. The photograph is one of the most historic news images in France, but few are aware that in the original photo De Gaulle was accompanied by other dignitaries, and that all those hands were for more than one coat. The caption, which read: “Greatness cannot be shared” was almost certainly ironic on behalf of the editors, Boulat himself, or whoever else might have removed the others originally present (“Pierre Boulat” exhibition, 1998). In 1998, the program of a French photographic exhibition proudly proclaimed Henri Cartier-Bresson as one of the first photojournalists to state that photographs could not claim an inherent truth: In this way photographers learned that their camera, far from being the tool for realism which it seemed to be, was at the service of their creativity. This relativity of photographic “proof” founded the wave of avant-garde research in the 20th Century. (“Fictions Intimes”, 1998: 8-9) [See Appendix A.5.2.] If France led the merger between photography and art at a time when the British were more interested in photography as an evidentiary force, the United States spearheaded the development of documentary photojournalism. With its socially reformist New Deal program, the United States under Franklin Roosevelt made documentary photography an integral part of its platform, relying heavily on the photograph’s reputation for veracity: By mobilising documentary practices across a whole series of New Deal agencies, Roosevelt’s administration did more than assemble propaganda for its policies. It deployed a rhetoric with larger claims than this: with claims to retrieve the status of Truth in discourse, a status threatened by crisis but whose renegotiation was essential if social relations of meaning were to be sustained and national and social identities resecured, while demand for reform was contained within the limits of monopoly capitalist relations. (Tagg, 1988: 8-9) The emphasis on photography in the United States as a primarily truthful medium with a social duty was further reinforced by the emergence of New Journalism movement in the 1960s. This movement placed a new emphasis on social duty (Newton, 1998: 4-5). It was followed by the Watergate reports which appeared in The Washington Post in 1972 and 1973 (for an explanation of the effect of this investigation on American journalism ethics generally, see Altschull, 1995: 362). Newton (1998: 4) describes an assumption in American photojournalism that the photojournalist “sees” accurately, fairly, and objectively, and that the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 35/282
photographer has the right and responsibility to produce pictures for the public. As such, American photojournalists must shoot what is in front of the lens, without setting up, or intervening in, the photograph in any way. She goes on to argue that any manipulation of this kind would result in a photograph which was “untrue”. This belief that truth is a worthwhile, and even attainable, aim is reiterated throughout the American literature on journalism ethics. That this value is often traced back to that the First Amendment in the Constitution presupposes a public right to know the truth, along with a corollary duty for the media to supply it. However, it would be remiss to leave any discussion of truth in American photojournalism without mention of the use of photographs in the so-called “supermarket tabloid” industry. Although tabloids are not a part of the mainstream media in the United States as they are, for example, in the United Kingdom, the American tabloids were among the earliest newspapers to experiment with photographic manipulation. Bird (1992: 21-22) notes that altering images for graphic effect was common practice in these newspapers from the late 19th Century to the present day. She describes how in the 1920s one now-extinct newspaper, the Graphic, had even used a special machine to help illustrate its more salacious stories – a development which she claims set a precedent for the fabricated photographs and retouched: The Graphic developed the use of the “composograph” for the Kip Rhinelander divorce in 1926, when Rhinelander’s wife had stripped to the waist in the courtroom. The paper staged a courtroom scene using Graphic reporters and the back view of another young woman, later superimposing the heads of the court participants on those of the reporters, providing “an almost invisible note at the bottom of the page” (Bessie, 1938). While the device had been used in the old New York Graphic in the 1870s, it had always been plainly marked. The New Graphic used the technique, along with staged photographs, indiscriminately. Use of the composograph reached ludicrous heights that eventually killed it. “The Graphic once even had one of the King of England earnestly scrubbing his back with a brush in the privacy of his royal bath-room” (Spivak, 1942: 379, as cited in Bird, 1992: 21-22) Yet, in his research on the mainstream American press, Bridger (1995: 6) found the pursuit of objectivity in photojournalism to be a “healthy trend”. He is also convinced that the quality of American photojournalism is improving and believes proportion of manipulated or set-up photographs in the United States daily press continues to decline. This trend, notes Griffin, does not appear to be taking on in Australia: The Australian Press Council, perhaps reflecting Australian photographic conventions is a little more tolerant when it comes to the topic of subject manipulation. The Council seems more aware of the grey area that inhibits any exact demarcation between what might be construed as the relatively innocuous “posing” of a subject on one hand, and the more egregious “setting-up” on the other. And while American commentators make high moral pronouncements forbidding posing and other forms of manipulation for “hard” news photography, Australian photographers take a much more pragmatic – or perhaps subtle – position in distinguishing between posing and outright manipulation. (Griffin, 1998: 303)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 36/282
In exploring why this trend has not occurred in Australia, Bridger (1995: 6) attributes the difference to the rise in the number of ethical debates on this issue in the United States, as well as a cultural preference for puritan values: “Ethical issues raised and discussed during the 1980’s have caused photojournalists across the country to adopt an almost puritan sense of correctness in their daily image capture.” Evans’ advice to British photographers presents a stark contrast to American values, in that he supports the photographer’s freedom to set-up, or as he describes it “direct”, their images and does not see this control as a threat to photographic veracity (Evans, 1987: 23). In this light, it is perhaps interesting to consider the delay in use of the photograph for verification purposes in Britain compared with either France or the United States. Tagg (1988: 7-16) notes that although the British police had been using photography as a means of collecting evidence since the 1860s, “the value of such records continued to be questioned” in British institutions generally, while across the channel French police took to photography with enthusiasm (Tagg, 1988: 7). He notes (1988: 8-9) that by the 1930s, the view about the documentary photograph’s value as evidence “remained oppositional in Britain” (Tagg, 1988: 8). Tagg accounts for these differences by pointing to the French government’s enthusiasm for the daguerrotype in the 19th Century (including its purchase of the patent as a national resource), as compared with the more restrained attitude of the British government towards use of the photograph in institutions (Tagg, 1988: 6-7; 47-52). Chalaby (1996: 303-326) argues that factually-based journalism is an Anglo-American invention of the 19th Century, and that French journalism is rooted in a more literary style. Despite some convergence of the two forms in recent decades, he claims that French journalism is more opinion-based in character with less emphasis on objectivity. He maintains that even today a career in journalism in France is considered a stepping stone to an artistic or literary career (Chalaby, 1996: 310). Of course, these cross-cultural trends are grossly generalised and make no allowances for sub-cultures and cross-pollination of ideas between nations. Certainly, there are many contradictory examples in the literature. Yet Krauss (1990: 15) points out that even apparent contractions are sometimes not so inconsistent after all. For example, she describes the French media’s use of photography as a sociological gauge (reminiscent of the documentary traditions of the New Deal era in the United States) while still treating the image as art: In 1983 French television launched Une minute pour une image … True to its title the show lasted just one minute, during which time a single photograph was projected on to the screen and a voice-over commentary spoken [by a range of respondents] ... This technique was a continuation ... of a certain tradition in France of understanding photography through the methods of sociology, and insisting that this was the only coherent way of considering it. This tradition finds its most lucid presentation in the work of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who twenty years ago published his study Un art moyen. This title uses the notion of moyen, _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 37/282
or middle, to invoke the aesthetic dimension of middling or fair as a stage between good and bad, and to mean midway between high art and popular culture ... (Krauss, 1990: 15) For Squiers (1990: 9), the debate over whether photography is a science or an art has become an international one over the past century, and by the 1970s there was a general recognition that photography could be both things. However, she does note that this premise was not always accepted equally across cultures, observing that the “photography as art” movement was influenced mostly by the French, but also in more recent decades by the British, and that the United States was the last to “capitulate”.
2.3.
PHOTOJOURNALISM ETHICS AND TRAINING
2.3.1. The role of the photojournalist: artist, craftsperson or professional? So far this examination of photojournalism ethics has concentrated largely on the photographic object – the image itself. However, any foray into the realm of photojournalism ethics is also dependent on developing an understanding of those responsible for capturing images. Newton gives us a basic job description for today’s average photojournalist from an audience perspective: When people discuss photojournalism, they are often referring rather generally to still photographs in newspapers, magazines, and the internet, as well as to television news, which relies primarily on video but often uses still photographs in broadcasts…Newspaper photojournalism increasingly includes on-line publication as well. Genres include spot news, subject matter that is immediate and significant; general news, information on a wide range of topics and individuals; features, which highlight individuals or activities via a variety of styles; illustration, viewed as conceptual imagery that can be fictitious; and sports news, which encompasses all four categories but focuses on sports. (Newton, 1998: 4) But who are news photographers? What place do they hold in history and what is their role in the modern world? Most importantly, how do they see their professional duties and responsibilities as they go about their work? Do they constitute a profession at all, or are they more of an ad hoc grouping with no core ethical standards? Three decades ago, English photographer A.E. Loosley (1970: 10) provided a comic account of the difference between the ordinary press photographer and the professional photojournalist. In his book The Business of Photojournalism, he tells an “apocryphal tale” involving a local paper photographer on an assignment to photograph the swearing-in of the new Mayor at the town hall: [The photographer] arrived just in time to see the Mayor-elect trip on the steps and break a leg, much to the consternation of the berobed aldermen and officials in attendance. “ ... And so, you see,” the photographer later told his editor “that is why I couldn’t take any pictures.” _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 38/282
(Loosley, 1970: 10) Loosely’s moral is, of course, that the “professional” is able to combine journalistic judgment with the required technical camera skills, whereas a press photographer is one who only takes good photographs according to the instructions of others (1970: 13). This folk definition might be entertaining, but the question of whether press photographers are professionals in the traditional sense of the word is infinitely more problematic. The complexities stem not only in categorising the occupation and its functions, but also in establishing the appropriate parameters for discussion. The first step in answering this question is to establish a definition of professionalism by distilling meaning from the endless list of classifications and connotations informing the debate. In this way, it is possible to come up with a platform of criteria for judging professionalism and apply these criteria to journalism in general and press photography in particular. While commentators on the subject generally agree that journalism is a profession or in the process of becoming one (see Henningham, 1990: 153 and Schultz, 1994: 4-5), the available literature on professionalism lacks reference to photographers. Indeed, in the first and only national survey of Australian press photographers, Griffin (1994: 64-65) notes that previous research has been almost exclusively directed towards word journalists and editors. Thus, in tracing the professional development of photographers, it has been useful to consider them as a sub group under the umbrella of journalism. This assumption rides on the evidence that, in Australia at least, both are part of the same union, ascribe to the same code of ethics, and are often referred to as being part of the same occupation. However, in measuring news photography against other areas of journalism, distinguishing features have been highlighted. Ultimately, these differences beg re-examination of the issue of whether photographers should be considered as journalists at all. But this is a matter of further research, and will only be alluded to here.
2.3.2. Professional development in journalism In formulating criteria for evaluating professionalism, scholars turn to sociology. In this way, Henningham (1990) has distilled five benchmarks or core criteria by which to judge professionalism: service to the community, specialised knowledge, autonomy, professional organisations and professional codes. Similarly, Wilhoit and Weaver (1996: 127) base their criterion on the original definitions in Johnstone’s 1971 study on journalists and define professionalism as: valuing public service, autonomy, and freedom from supervision; leaning towards altruism in ranking economic rewards as less important than public service; memberships in professional associations; and unified attitudes towards roles, ethics and values. But possibly the most integrated explanation of traditional criteria for judging whether or not an occupation is “professional” comes from Osiel: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 39/282
There exists an agreed-upon body of knowledge, informed by theory and indispensable to practice. It can only be acquired by university education. Government licensing of practitioners is required to protect the public from those who do not possess that knowledge. Such licensing simultaneously allows the profession to set standards of permissible practice and, on that basis, to control entry into the field. The practitioner enjoys considerable autonomy from the bureaucratic hierarchy. He is allowed personal discretion in the application of his skills. The mutual supervision of his colleagues ensures against incompetence and misconduct, To this end, codes of professional ethics, and professional associations to enforce them, are regarded as essential. The regulatory control of the state over professional activity is minimal, and the cutthroat competition of the marketplace is restricted. These features of social organisation have been thought to define a profession. (Osiel, 1986: 164) Henningham (1990: 129) lists the “archetypal professions” as medicine, the law, religious ministry and, possibly university teaching. But he writes that in the last century, “many more occupations have taken educational standards and have established self-governing bodies – for example, dentistry, engineering, architecture, veterinary surgery, pharmacy and social work”. This global push towards professionalisation of occupations has caused sociologists to re-evaluate their definitions of what the term really means. Indeed, Osiel (1986: 163) notes that since the 1960s, the prevailing view of professionalism is that it represents “little more than status-seeking and self-aggrandizement”. Reed (1991: 42) concurs, arguing that the traditional criteria of specialist skills and service to the community have become subordinate to measures of power and control: Sociological studies of the professions have, for the most part, moved away from the taxonomic “trait” ... and functionalist arguments concerning the transmission of rational values and technical knowledge ... to questions of power, authority, ideology and the means by which professions, and, most significantly, dominant groups within professions, achieve a monopoly over the provision of a service and maintain and legitimate their internal control and privileged status. (Reed, 1991: 42) So where does this leave journalism? One often quoted view that journalism is a profession which defies comparison comes from a former Australian Attorney-General and High Court judge Isaac Isaacs in 1917: “Journalism is really a profession ‘sui generis’. I cannot measure it by what is paid for totally different work.” (cited in Lloyd, 1995: 121). On this note, it is interesting that in a 1963 edition of Daedalus, Kimball asked of American journalism: ‘is it art, craft, or profession?’ and found that the essential requirements of professionalism – autonomy and specialist knowledge – were lacking (Daniel, 1990: 106). Bowman (1988: 209) suggests that while journalists might like to be professionals, they have never quite made the grade. Meanwhile, others have eschewed professional status for journalists. Henningham (1990: 209) notes that journalists have often rejected the term “profession” in favour of descriptions such as “craft, trade, art, business and job”. For example, Daniel describes journalists as artists rather than “professionals” in the traditional sense, giving a rationale for doing so: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 40/282
Journalists learn a lot about everything, but it is what everyone can know and understand. Essentially their art lies in communicating and the creativity of the artist carries no great prestige in Australia. We may love and acclaim great artists, great actors, great sportspeople and great communicators, but we do not accord them great status in our occupational hierarchy. (Daniel, 1990: 104) And in another camp again, there are those who see the “art” and “professional” characteristics of journalism as linked. In her research on the professionalism of journalists at The Age, Reed (1991: 45) argues that: “The professional mystique of journalism rests on its practitioners’ sense of art or craft”. Similarly, Glasser (1992: 131-132) suggests that the journalist’s “art” should be the basis on which the level of professionalism is judged. Notwithstanding the debate over whether journalism should be a profession, an art, or a professionalised art, media commentators generally agree that the occupation is undergoing a process of professionalisation (Henningham, 1990: 153; Schultz, 1994: 4-5). Yet the degree to which this change has been accomplished varies according to international borders and the criteria employed by the researcher. In the United States, scholars found that, compared with more established professions, the professional culture of journalism remained quite weak (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996: 127: 143; McQuail,1994: 197-198). Despite the widespread view that journalism fails the traditional criteria, many commentators still choose to define the occupation in professional terms. Weaver and Wilhoit(1996: 127) describe the American journalist as an aspiring professional, but despair for the future: In 1971, the landmark Johnstone study concluded that journalism was replete with profound contradictions, but it met the abstract criteria of a profession. In 1982-1983, our study also found contradictions, but we described journalists at that time as educated, altruistic, and principled. Yet they were deeply divided on many questions of journalistic practice. All those things were still true in 1992. Overall, however, the institutional forms of professionalism eluded the field much more in 1992 than a decade earlier. A professional “mood” remained in 1992, but the power of its expression rested almost exclusively within individual newsrooms. (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996: 172) French media theorist Bertrand (1997: 42-62) agrees that journalists are not professionals according to traditional criteria, and although French journalists are among the most highly educated in Europe (see comparative data in this Section), their education is in a range of areas and training is rarely journalism specific. In addition, he says they lack the ethical grounding and media accountability systems. For although an independent French media commission has been established, this body does not have the resources to ensure accountability and publishers have consistently refused to endorse codes of ethics, some going so far as to accuse efforts to formulate codes as being tantamount to attempts to establish totalitarian media control.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 41/282
In his assessment of professionalism in Australian journalism, Henningham (1990: 153) found that the occupation was in a “somewhat ambiguous position”. He echoes the findings of Australian academic Henry Mayer’s 1960s research in establishing that specialised knowledge and autonomy were the two essential criteria of professionalism journalists lacked (1990: 131). He notes (1990: 153) that American journalists can lay more claim to being professionals that their Australian colleagues, but concludes that a case could be argued for or against existing professional status in Australia. In his comparative survey (1996: 206218), Henningham (1996: 209) found that Australian journalists were similar to their American colleagues in many of their claims to professionalism, but were much less likely to have a university degree: 30 percent compared with 82 percent. Whether education levels and formal training in ethics had any positive bearing on photojournalism ethics was not tested in this study. Indeed, Henningham’s results (1996: 215) even showed slightly negative relationships between levels of education and ethics (although this study did not test whether journalists had been specifically educated in journalism ethics). In France, Bertrand (1997: 42-82) estimates that 69 percent of French word journalists had university degrees, while Delano’s research into British word journalists’ education standards in the mid-1990s found that 73.6 percent of newspaper journalists (and 82.2 percent of journalists in all media) had university degrees (Delano, 2001: email). It should be noted, however, that the rate of British journalists with university degrees had more than doubled since the early 1990s, and that the rapid rate of change means that caution should be exercised in comparing these education figures cross-culturally. Some commentators argue that professionalisation is a necessary and inevitable process at a time when the industry is beset by fears that concentration of ownership will threaten core values such as freedom of the press (Dennis in Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996: xv; Schultz, 1994: 39). However, Schultz (1994: 36) sums up the mainstream academic view when she notes that one of the greatest catalysts to professionalisation is the desire of journalists to attain higher status in society. Her view is supported by Henningham (1990: 129) who argues that many journalists already assume they are professionals. Schultz (1994: 36) contemplates whether it is important, even, for journalists to measure up to the traditional benchmarks for professionalism, as long as their “self-definition” is professional: In an age when many occupational groups describe themselves as professional, journalists confidently assert that they too are professionals (Henningham, 1996), not practitioners of a craft as they once comfortably believed. The idea that journalists are members of a trade has long since been jettisoned. Although journalists may not fit into the carefully developed sociological definitions of what it takes to be a professional, it may well be that journalism in this regard, as in others, resists categorisation. Their self-definition is professional and that is the crucial distinction. (Schultz, 1994: 36).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 42/282
2.3.3. Professional development in photojournalism If the debate over whether journalists are professionals is problematic, there is even greater scope for confusion when the same arguments are applied to press photographers. Given that no direct comparative research was found relating professionalism in journalism to photojournalism (although Griffin’s research has identified some correlations), Henningham’s five criteria have been used as the basic structure for evaluating professionalism in photojournalism in this discussion. While some of the criteria overlap (as will be shown by an analysis of the service ideal), these criteria have become standard measures in the debate according to the definitions cited above. Thus, the criteria will be approached in the following order: service, specialised knowledge, autonomy, professional associations and codes of ethics. Henningham (1990: 132) defined service in terms of the professional practitioner’s “altruistic desire to fulfil a social need”. Following from the conclusions of scholars such as Reed, there is doubt over whether the service ideal is still a relevant measure in a society where professionalism is seen as a path to wealth and status. Reed also points out (1991: 46) that provision of service in journalism is often directed towards serving proprietors rather than the client readership. Indeed, Henningham himself (1990: 132) casts doubt over whether the service ideal can be defined in tangible terms. However, he concludes that: “[I]t would be difficult to maintain that journalism does not perform a service – and a unique one – to society”. If Henningham’s definitions of the service ideal are applied to press photographers, it must be concluded that press photographers serve values such as “freedom of the press” and “the public right-to-know” in the same way as word journalists. A French documentary on the world’s best press photographers (“The force of evidence.”, 1989) provides ample support for this view. Narrator François Porcile speaks of a photographer’s “duty to portray the truth” and refers to “all those photographers who were prepared to die in pursuing that duty”. In defining the criterion of specialised knowledge, Henningham (1990: 133-141) says this category might well be the most important distinction of professionalism and the principal “stumbling block” for journalists. All writers on professionalism argue the importance of a special form of knowledge, and generally maintain that the possession of specialised knowledge and related skills results from long training, typically at a university, where the tenets of a wide body of theory are mastered. (Henningham, 1990: 133) In assessing how Australian press photographers meet these criteria, Griffin (1994: 142) compared their formal education levels with that of American press photographers and Australian word journalists. He found that only 5.2 percent of photographers in Australia had university degrees, compared with 42 percent of photojournalists in the United States and 35 percent of Australian word journalists. He concluded (1994: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 43/282
168) that Australian photographers still regarded on-the-job training following high school as the “preferred training alternative”. It appears then that preferred training for Australian press photographers is similar to those practised in Britain. Keene (1993: 218) notes that most British photographers are required to have passed senior high school before being offered a job at a newspaper, but only a small percentage have university training: “There are press photographers these days with university degrees, but they are the exception” (Keene, 1993: 218). There were no statistics located in the literature about the level of photographer university or specialised training in France or Britain, although assumptions might be based on the overall levels of training for word journalists in these countries (See Section 2.3.2.). McQuail (1994: 197) points out a major difficulty in providing specialised training for journalists, commenting on the “continued uncertainty about what is actually the central professional skill of the journalist”. This concern is shared by Griffin (1994: 309) who notes disagreement among photographers about whether theoretical knowledge acquired at university was relevant to their day-to-day work. However, these findings do not find support in Reaves’ study on American newpaper photo editors (1995b: 709-715), where the researcher found that university studies in photojournalism did contribute significantly to professionalisation, even if traditional training based on analogue photo systems was not always relevant to the current digital era. Henningham (1990), and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) are united in the view that journalists failed to meet the criteria of autonomy. Indeed, in their 1992 survey, Weaver and Wilhoit found (1996: 118) that levels of autonomy had fallen significantly since their previous 1982 survey. Even Reed, in her analysis of autonomy at The Age newspaper (which boasts a charter of independence for its journalists) pronounces it “fragile”. Henningham (1990: 146) defines autonomy as “a profession’s control of its own activities”. He concludes that as a group journalists would have difficulty in maintaining they are autonomous, although many “enjoy a considerable amount of autonomy in their work” (Henningham, 1990: 146). Dunn (1988: vi) points out that a press photographer often has less control over the pictures he takes than a journalist over the stories he or she might write. He suggests that the trend to professionalisation might assist press photographers to gain greater control over their photos and other parts of the journalistic process: “In the true sense of the word I suppose the photojournalist should be capable of seeing the job through from start to finish”. In analysing the criteria of professional organisations, Henningham (1990: 149) asserts that such bodies are essential in ensuring control over the entry and training profession, unifying members, promoting interests and upholding ethical standards. However, he argues (1990: 149-150) that professional associations for journalists have not been particularly successful in fulfilling this criteria. He goes so far as to describe the trade union base of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) as a disadvantage in Australian journalists’ efforts to secure professional status, pointing out that this association’s interest in professional _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 44/282
activities is not as strong as that of American journalists’ professional associations (for a discussion of this, see Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996: 128). But if Henningham has doubts about the direction of the MEAA, Griffin’s research reveals an even greater disquiet among the ranks of photographers who feel underrepresented and neglected by their union. His survey found that although 97 percent of Australian press photographers were members of the MEAA, 52.4 percent felt “some dissatisfaction” with their level of representation (1994: 118-121). Griffin argues that the union has historically favoured its word journalist members over its photographers. He cites the example that photographers did not achieve wage parity with journalists until 1981, after 50 years of trying. He notes that the median wage for a photographer is still lower than that of a word journalist. And while the union has always described its journalists as “professionals”, when the MEAA’s precursor, the Australian Journalists’ Union (AJA), was first formed in 1911, photographers were classed as “artists”. He sums up his view that: “There is a historical perception that photographers received less attention from the AJA hierarchy and less sympathy for the problems peculiar to their calling” (Griffin, 1994: 173). According to the MEAA, it has 574 photographer members – or about 60 percent of the photojournalists Australia-wide, and photographers make up only five percent of members in the Journalists’ section (Waters, 1999: personal interview). The establishment of a professional association in 1994 for Australian photographers – the Australian Photojournalists’ Association – should also be noted. Its founder Earle Bridger (1999, personal interview) estimates that of a total 900 Australian photojournalists, about 300 are members. This association has been modelled on National Press Photographer’s Association in the United States, which was formed 1946 in an attempt to reverse low opinion poll ratings of photojournalists’ ethics. The formation of the NPPA is widely viewed as the turning point for American photojournalists. Today it includes television camera people, as well as multimedia workers. However, while it is the largest professional body for photographers in the United States, with 8,000 members, this represents only 10 percent of the total freelance and full-time workforce (Wilson, 1999, email). In Britain, there is no national photojournalists association but there are photographer members of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), and this organisation also concerns itself with photographic ethics and other professional issues. In France, there is an Association Nouvelle des Journalistes-Reporters, Photographes et Cinéastes (L’ANJRPC), founded in 1962 by a group of well-known photojournalists including Henri Cartier-Bresson, Roger Pic and Robert Doisneu. With just over 2000 members, it is the major union and professional association for French photojournalists (ANJRP, 2001: webpage). It could well be argued that the final criteria – Codes of Ethics – should be a sub-set of the service ideal. Certainly, Schultz (1994: 37) points out that such codes were developed to support the “group for others” aspect of professionalism. As such, she argues, they give “concrete expression” to the service ideal. She sums up the values emphasised in the AJA code (developed in 1944 and revised in 1984 and 1999) as _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 45/282
objectivity, audience responsiveness and political independence. Indeed, in Tuchman’s landmark study of the newsroom, she labels objectivity (or the constructs of objectivity) as the cornerstone of all professional criteria (Tuchman, 1972: 660-679). In recent years many new codes have been developed, both in Australia and overseas. Laitila (1995: 527) found that there were more than 30 national codes of ethics for journalism in force in Europe. She argues (1995: 541-543) that this is far too many, that the codes differ vastly from one another, and that what Europe needs is a consolidated code for all professional journalists. In Australia, there are two national codes of ethics for print journalism – the standard MEAA code and another set of principles developed by the Press Council of Australia. However, in recent years, individual newspaper companies have decided to develop their own codes. Traditionally, there has been scant reference to photographers in these codes. However, a revision of the MEAA’s code of ethics contains particular references to specific ethical problems faced by press photographers (MEAA, 1999), and the new Australian photojournalists association has put forward its own code. In the proliferation of in-house codes developed over the past few years, there is much reference to professional practice for news photographers. Many of these references pertain to the appropriate role for new photo-imaging technology in the newsroom. However, it should be noted that even within Australia, the core principles contained in these codes and policies vary considerably. As for photojournalism-specific codes, these have been a relatively recent phenomenon led by the United States, and are beginning to emerge in some Australian and European newspapers and professional organisations as well. From the American perspective, Newton (1998: 5) explains that there are two theories for the scant attention traditionally devoted to photographic codes. The first is that photographs have historically been viewed as less important than words in newspapers, mere accompaniment or illustration for the words, and therefore did not warrant their own specific code. The second (somewhat contradictory) explanation is that codes were irrelevant to news photography because the mechanical process was performed by a “neutral” camera whose objectivity could be taken for granted. In spite of the fact that photographs have been overtly manipulated almost since the invention of photography, little attention was paid to overt manipulation by visual journalists – much less to covert manipulation – until the development of literature in photojournalism ethics over the last 15 to 20 years. Codes of ethics for photojournalists now insist that no news photograph should be staged, posed, set up or recreated. But the codes are upheld differently, by different media. (Newton, 1998: 5) Similarly, Reaves’ studies (1993 and 1995a and 1995b) of digital imaging ethics in various organisations found the application of and adherence of these codes varied considerably. Nevertheless, a recent study by the American Study of Newspaper editors (Steele and Black, 1999: webpage) of a random sample of 33 domestic codes of ethics found that not only were these codes increasing, but they were also taking far _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 46/282
more interest in new technologies, notably photo-imaging ethics: “Interestingly, the issue of manipulation and alteration of photos is included in about half of these 33 codes. One would not have found this matter addressed in most newspaper codes a decade ago.” (Steele and Black, 1999: webpage) However, the authors note that another important technology-based ethical issue – sourcing words and images from the internet – was addressed only in one of these codes. As for whether these codes were effective in promoting ethical behaviour, Steele and Black found that they served two primary purposes: public relations and education. They concluded that codes were not the panacea for all ethical problems, but were a useful tool in promoting ethical behaviour before, rather than after, these decisions came into public view (Steele and Black, 1999: webpage).
2.3.4. Cross-cultural differences From the outset, it is clear that interpretations of what it means to be a “professional” photographer vary dramatically. The terms used to describe the job, along with the prestige attached to them, are indications in themselves of cultural differences. As Henningham pointed out in the definition of “professional” cited previously, the word is often used to distinguish those who are paid for their work from those who are not. Dunn (1988: vi) and Time-Life editors (1972: 7) make the same distinction when they loosely describe all photographers employed by newspapers as “professionals”, as opposed to “amateurs” who contribute photographs free-of-charge. However, the term is also used freely to distinguish between photographers who practise journalistic skills and those with largely technical skills. This is one area where cultural distinctions make for interesting comparisons, especially in considering distinctions between the professional photojournalist, and the press photographer-technician. According to Lester (1995: 1), the term “photojournalism” began gaining currency in the United States in the 1980s, before which time these workers were known as newspaper photographers. Griffin (1994: 2-3) describes the term “photojournalist” as the most favoured description in the United States in the 1990s, and attributes its use to the relatively advanced status of media occupations there. However, he notes that “press photographer” is the preferred occupational description in Australia and Great Britain, where the photographers tend to be “less professionally-orientated”. This distinction is supported in the available literature. For example, American researchers Rhode and McCall make ample reference to the journalistic responsibilities of photojournalists, arguing the practitioner should be competent in all areas of the field. Thus, they argue that a photojournalist must necessarily have higher professional status in society than a press photographer: [A photojournalist is] one who reports and interprets the news and features, and even editorializes primarily by means of the camera – a photographer and journalist at the same time. The term, photojournalist, implies a considerable degree of technical proficiency with the camera, coupled with a sincere, thoughtful and guided effort to communicate. It implies _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 47/282
knowledge on the part of the practitioner that extends far beyond the field of photography itself. (Rhode and McCall, 1961: 7) It is also important to note that some British media commentators appear to use the two terms interchangeably. Keene goes so far as to dismiss the entire semantic debate as pure nonsense: Some people maintain there is a difference between a press photographer and a photojournalist: that the former provides “snaps” or “smudges” for newspapers, and the latter carefully researches and constructs images with an accompanying story for serious newspapers and magazines. Others, and this book, feel that there is no difference – one is just a posh name for the other – and use the names interchangeably. (Keene, 1993: ix) The British photographer and media commentator Dunn (1988: vi) jokingly offers the definition of a photojournalist as an “articulate press photographer”. But he ultimately concurs with Keene’s view that there is no real difference between the two terms. He argues that professionalism is essentially about being good at your job and understanding its requirements: True professionalism ... requires much more than reliability and competence behind the camera. The factors which can make the difference between the highest levels of photojournalism and the mediocre are: the photographer’s news sense; his ability to think fast and make decisions on the move when necessary; his demeanour, his skill at handling people and getting them to co-operate in order to get the pictures he wants. As a professional, the photographer is capable of switching on all these skills and attributes every time he turns out on a job, no matter what thoughts he may have about the particular job he is asked to do. (Dunn, 1988: 14) In his 1994 thesis on Australian press photographers, Griffin debates the merits of both terms and ultimately chooses “press photographer”. In doing so, he argues that a non-professional categorisation is most appropriate for describing Australian photographers because they lag behind their American colleagues in their pursuit of professional status (see Section 2.2.3.). University of Stockholm researcher Becker (1991: 382) mirrors her American colleagues in describing European press photographers as “photojournalists” rather than press photographers. In doing so, she emphasises the occupation’s journalistic responsibilities over its technical functions, defining it as “a branch of the profession of journalism” or “those journalists who report the news through the medium of photography”.
In France, the preference of the term “photojournaliste” (photojournalist) instead of
“photographe” (photographer) may represent a correlation with American values, although no research related directly to this issue has been located. However, Lewis (1996: 36-41) says there are many general differences between the French and AngloSaxon journalistic cultures, and her descriptions suggest a greater correlation with American style professional values. She characterises French journalists as identifying with the professional values _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 48/282
associated with “quality” journalism, as opposed to the more scandal-oriented British press. However, she also points out that the elitist nature of journalism work in France has traditionally led to the criticism that French journalists are too close to other social elites, such as politicians, and that journalists subsequently neglect their public duty. This criticism was born out in a national French survey by media magazine Télérama (“Sondage: les Français et les médias.”, 2001: 11) which found that 59 percent of the French public thought their journalists are not independent (or resistant) to pressure from political parties and those in power.
Yet compared with their British counterparts, French metropolitan newspapers are more
expensive and draw their readership from a small sector of the community – the educated and higher social classes (Lewis, 1996: 39). Chalaby (1996: 314) rejects this notion of quality journalism, arguing that in many ways the French media industry has always followed behind developments in the Anglo-American models, especially in the nurturing of factual, objective news reporting. Further, he says that unlike their American and British colleagues, French journalists do not belong to a profession of their own because their literary ambitions lead them to regard journalism as a temporary occupation. As a whole, he says the French media has a history of endemic corruption and an absence of a public service ideal. These accusations have gone even to the heart of the French national news agency, Agence France Presse. In one article, Libération journalist Olivier Costemalle (2000: webpage) wrote that the requirement by the agency’s 1949 statute for a government-appointed president with the right to make decisions on content had turned a public institution into a semi-public one. As such, Costemalle argues that the agency is not only failing its public, but is also losing ground to other world press agencies seen as more independent and easily accessible on the internet. Where the professional ethics relating to images in France is concerned, Le Monde media critic Alain Rollat laments that there is not more open discussion: It is rare for media professionals to do their soul-searching in public. In general, each individual prefers to sort it out within the professional group, particularly when ethical problems are involved. (Rollat, 1998: Médias) [See Appendix A.5.3.] Bertrand agrees with the criticism, noting that the entire French media has long had a reputation of being insular, too elitist and close to the social establishment. Indeed, in the interwar period of the 20th Century, he says the French press had the reputation of being one of the most corrupt in Europe (Bertrand, 1997: 30). And while it may be now fashionable to talk about media ethics, there has been no accompanying change in media practice. Indeed, he comments that: In France, “talking” about ethics has been fashionable since 1991, but seldom does anyone consider “doing” anything. Very regrettably, journalists who write books about ethics push aside at the start any means to get the rules enforced. For many years everywhere, most newspeople ignore or dismiss any M*A*S [Media Accountability Systems] by claiming that it is a threat on press freedom, on human rights, on democracy. A well-known French _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 49/282
columnist went so far as to state that “Any ethical supervision would be totalitarian”. Others get furious at the mere thought of a code of conduct … (Bertrand, 1997: 84) [See Appendix A.5.4.] This makes for stark comparison with Bridger’s comment (1999: personal interview) that American photojournalism educators have now made ethics the cornerstone of their programs, and would suggest that French photojournalists – while seeing themselves as more professional than their British and possibly Australian counterparts – are still reluctant to tolerate public scrutiny. On the basis of the criteria outlined above (See Section 2.3.3.), it is evident that photojournalists and press photographers alike are lagging behind word journalists in achieving professional status according to the traditional benchmarks such as education. However, it is also apparent that photojournalists in the United States (and possibly France and Continental Europe generally), are more “professionally-oriented” than those in Australia and Britain (Griffin, 1994: 101). While Griffin’s research found American newspaper photographers fitted the criteria to be classified as professionals, his own study (1994: 168) found that Australian press photographers were not. Despite some reservations about the “professionally-oriented rhetoric” (1994: 9) detectable among American press photographers”, Griffin contends that the professional attitudes and values of American photographers provide them with an advantage over their Australian colleagues in attaining higher educational standards and greater control over their work (1994: 65). The drawbacks aside, he suggests (1994: 310) that Australian photographers are seeing themselves in a “more professional light” than ever before. He also points to a growing “maturity” in the attitudes of Australian photographers in broadening their attitudes toward education and training, ethics and other areas, and in their support for professional groups (Griffin, 1994: 309).
2.3.5. The impact of new technology on professional values On whether digital technology will ultimately be a positive or negative force on the impetus for press photographers to professionalise (See Section 2.4.), commentators are divided. Becker (1991: 381) claims press photographers are on the cusp of a new era with the potential to downgrade journalists’ autonomy and status to the point where they lose control of their images to production staff. As such, “control becomes an ethical issue, needed to preserve photojournalism’s status and to safeguard the credibility of the photograph as a document of reality” (Becker, 1991: 381). Nevertheless, Becker believes that journalists are already professionals and that the hurdles posed by new technology will be overcome (1991: 382-383). While acknowledging that the technology has compromised the photograph’s claim to truth, she sees the era of technological change as a chance for photographers to educate themselves about professionalism and advance their cause: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 50/282
Although the camera is no longer the journalist’s guiding metaphor, the news form continues to be shaped by professional attitudes that closely correspond to assumptions about photography’s ability to “tell the truth” in unbiased, accurate accounts of world events. (Becker, 1991: 282) The editors of Time-Life International are equally optimistic (1972: 16). They argue that press photographers have traditionally used advances in technology (such as the hand-held camera) to their advantage, adapting to the challenges and advancing their claim to professional status along the way (the proliferation of new “professional” codes on digital manipulation provides a good example of this point). One American study which has supported these views is Newton’s research at 15 American and one Australian newspaper, which found the new digital technology had only increased the perceptions of photojournalists as professionals: “[O]n the whole I observed a positive trend: photographers are more likely to be considered visual reporters, whose points of view, story ideas, and contributions to overall coverage and ultimate editing/production of a story with visuals are considered invaluable.” (Newton, 1998: 7) However, she also notes that the view of photographers as professionals was directly linked to perception by the highest echelon of editors. In other words, if an executive editor or managing editor respected the role of photojournalism, the picture editor was given more authority and the photo department fared better in terms of budget and space – both in the newsroom and in the publication. She also remarked on the increasing mobility of photojournalists to other areas of management in the newspaper on the basis that talented photojournalists could relate to both words and pictures, not just words (Newton, 1998: 7). While acknowledging photographers’ former success in meeting new challenges, Griffin is wary of the potential threat that the latest technology poses to autonomy and specialised knowledge. At worst, if digital cameras (for further information see Section 2.4.) become the conventional medium, he argues that photographers might end up requiring fewer technical skills than before, or find themselves without a job. At best, they may emerge from the “visual revolution” with new claims to professionalism: Identification with the revolution could further enhance the image, and bargaining power, of photographers as the possessors of specialist technical skills. But the temptation to overemphasise the technical will need to be resisted. If not, photographers might well see themselves out on a limb, stereotyped as technicians and treated and paid accordingly. There is also the possibility that the new technology will require fewer technical skills, in that any moderately competent person (including a word journalist) could record multiple electronic images from which a single image could be selected by an editor for the front page. (Griffin, 1994: 301) Becker (1991: 395) suggests that press photographers should now set about acquiring new journalistic responsibilities outside the darkroom and learn to devote more time to the journalistic process in its entirety. However, those who are tempted to see professionalism as the solution to every new dilemma should take note of this warning against the perceived benefits of status and “bourgeois careerism”: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 51/282
With universities and colleges acting as gatekeepers, professionalism invariably creates defensive elites that protect their own interests and aspire to elevation within the elite – elevation that is often measured in self-esteem rather than financial reward, at the expense of wider human sympathy and varied communal relationships. (Paroissien, 1982: 10) After all, how true would journalism’s view of the world be if journalists were drawn only from the ranks of the university educated – especially if tertiary opportunities become less universal. In such a world, journalism would open itself to the same criticism of elitism as the more established professions.
2.4.
DIGITAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS
2.4.1. The technology This section will examine the delivery system for digital photography by first giving a brief overview of the technical mechanism for analogue photography (Section 2.4.1.1.); then outlining developments in digital photography according to the time-line for their appearance in the newsroom (Sections 2.4.1.2. and 2.4.1.3.). Following on from this outline, Section 2.4.2. looks at the differences between digital and traditional systems, Section 2.4.3. examines the impact of the new technology on perceptions of truth, Section 2.4.4. asks whether this transition represents a positive or a negative trend, and finally, Section 2.4.5. looks at whether there is any evidence of cross-cultural differences in the technology changeover.
2.4.1.1.
Analogue
When it comes to understanding the ethical questions that may distinguish analogue and digital photography systems, an outline of the basic technical differences between the two is an obvious starting point. McLuhan (1964: 190-191) traces back the roots of photography to the camera obscura (a dark room with a pinhole which was capable of reproducing the outside world on its walls through the stream of sunlight) in the Roman era. He then follows its progression through the 19th Century, when the invention of new processes enabled natural objects to be delineated by exposure, intensified by a lens and fixed by chemicals. The basic technology for creating an analogue photograph has remained unchanged, as is evidenced in Tagg’s explanation of the modern analogue process: Reflected light is gathered by a static monocular lens of particular construction, set at a particular distance from the objects in its field of view. The projected images of these objects is focused, cropped and distorted by the flat, rectangular plate of the camera which owes its structure not to the model of the eye, but to a particular theoretical conception of the problems of representing space in two dimensions. Upon this plane, the … play of light is then fixed as a granular, chemical discolouration on a translucent support which, by a comparable method, may be made to yield a positive paper print. (Tagg, 1988: 3) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 52/282
The basic technique might not have changed, but the technology has undergone some improvements. For example, the original French daguerrotype of the early 19th Century was formed by developing the latent image on metal plate and required a process of stippling or pitting the photographed object with small dots on silver. As each daguerrotype was a direct positive with its own plate, the process meant that the image could not be easily duplicated (Tagg, 1988: 41; McLuhan, 1964: 191). Around the same time as the French made their photographic discoveries, the Englishman William Henry Fox Talbot was working on his own photographic technique – the calotype or talbotype process – which is now recognised as the origin of photographic prints. Fox Talbot experimented with his process throughout the 1830s, and although its initial impact did not match that of the French daguerrotype – due in part to its poorer quality and longer exposure time – its influence on the refined analogue photograph was enormous. In the final form of this process, the image was formed by the exposure of sensitised paper in the camera, which was subsequently developed by chemical treatment which fixed and recopied the image to produce a positive from the negative. It also enabled easy reproduction and made out-of-doors photography possible (Tagg, 1988: 44). New inventions followed, and the technology became increasingly affordable for a wider public, as well as increasingly accepted for use by government institutions for verification and evidence. In 1854, Disdéri patented the carte-de-visite photographs in France after discovering it was possible to develop paper prints from glass negatives. He also developed a new camera with several lenses and a moving plate holder which meant productivity could be increased eight-fold – laying the basis for a mass production system (Tagg, 1988: 48). In 1885, both the daguerrotype and calotype processes were overhauled with the introduction of a new technique – the collodion or wet-plate process – which was a negative-positive technique like the calotype, but required a much shorter exposure for its finely-grained glass plates (Tagg, 1988: 47). The introduction of the half-tone printing technique by the New York Daily Graphic in 1880 eventually led to the boom of the picture tabloids. Although some photographs had been used in newspapers before this date, the new development meant full image reproduction was now possible and that the involved process of artists producing engravings on metal-plate by re-sketching the original photograph could be replaced. However, the use of photographs did not necessarily mean the images were more “truthful”, and Bridger notes that all five silent films depicting photographers between 1915 and 1920 portrayed them as inherently unethical creatures (Bridger, 1997: 4). British newspapers started using photographs in the early 1900s, led principally by the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror. However, since the 1960s, pictures have become more central to all types of newspapers. Major trends towards tabloids, sections, and increasing competition all encouraged greater use of pictures. The availability of colour for news pictures only added to their increasing importance. Quality or broadsheet newspapers were also dramatically affected. In 1965 the Times carried only news stories and _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 53/282
classified advertisements on its front page. But by 1995 it often carried “pictures of fashion models or entertainment stars in colour “above the fold” to attract the casual purchaser (Tunstall, 1996: 204-205)
2.4.1.2.
Digital photo-imaging systems
In the production industry generally, digitised photo-imaging is referred to by many names: digital retouching, electronic retouching, computer imaging, and electronic colour imaging or ECI, to name a few. Some trace the technology back as far as the advent of drum scanners, a system whereby the original image was wrapped around a transparent cylinder which was then spun into the path of a bright light. The signal from the light sensitive photo multiplier tube that received the light beam was electronically processed and used to expose the separation film. This film was then attached to another cylinder spinning on the other end of the same drive shaft inside the scanner (Vallaeys, 1998: 1-2). The modern version of this technology was pioneered in 1980 by a leading pre-press automation company called Scitex (Ong, 1994: 46). The new process took the signal from the photo multiplier tube and stored it in a computer where the image could be manipulated before being output on to separation film (Vallaeys, 1998: 2). At close to USD 1 million per set-up, the technology was prohibitively expensive and the first major publication to adopt the system was the slick American newspaper USA Today, launched by Gannett in 1983 (Ong, 1994: 46). However, by the early 1980s, several newspapers in the United States had invested in electronic pagination systems and had started to digitise photographs for full-page assembly and output. The wire services were quick to adopt electronic picture desks at this time, but they did not become common in daily newspapers until 1990. The same year, the Associated Press (AP) announced that it would make a digital darkroom system the standard receiver for Photostream, its new high-speed digital photographic transmission system. By early 1992, AP Leaf Picture Desks had been installed at nearly all of the 1000 AP photo clients (various sources cited in Russial and Wanta, 1998: 593). As for photo-imaging technology, Reaves reported (1987: 41) that “only a handful” of newspapers in the United States had acquired it by 1987. A few years later, Foss (1994: 49) noted that by the end of 1991, many daily newspapers in that country had converted to digital delivery production systems. Russial and Wanta (1998: 594) note that the acquisition of relatively inexpensive off-the-shelf hardware and software (such as a Macintosh computer and Photoshop) developed in a parallel way to the electronic reception of image files on Leaf desks. Many of those images were then passed to pagination systems or to desktop computers loaded with page design software such as Quark Xpress. Russial and Wanta’s national survey of major daily newspapers in the United States, published in 1998, found that only five of the 225 newspapers surveyed were not using digital processes. By contrast, 78.7 percent were 100 percent digital, and 94.7 percent used digital imaging for at least 90 percent of their images (Russial and Wanta, 1998: 599).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 54/282
In Australia, the trend has been slower. But according to MEAA Industrial officer Sylvia Martinez (personal interview, 1998), all daily newspapers and most suburban and regional publications in Australia are now using the technology. While no comparative research on the take-up of the technology in Europe has been located, commentators refer to the rapid take up of the industry in the United Kingdom in the mid 1990s, with all major daily newspapers now using the digital delivery systems for news photography. The image-heavy French news magazine industry was quick to invest in the technology in the first half of the 1990s, while it took the French newspaper industry until the last few years of the Millennium to “go digital”. This, however, has probably more to do with the historical preference for words over photographs in French newspapers which has endured longer than in the United States or the United Kingdom. For all countries, the transition has been made increasingly palatable through the price reductions of the equipment itself. As Matthews (1993: 16) reported, by the early 1990s good results were available for around USD 3000 – and this amount could be recouped within a few years due to labor cost savings in the production area. A number of companies have developed competing systems and the basic ingredients are a desktop computer, CD-ROM machine and off-the shelf imaging software. Despite the range in products, the process by which they operate is essentially the same. Laser technology is used to scan continuous tone photographs into a computer. There, the image is encoded digitally and converted into a finite grid of minute cells (known as pixels), so that each cell can be stored in the computer’s memory as mobile, numerical data (Mitchell, 1992: 5). Then, by using appropriate software, it is possible to make changes by altering anywhere from one to millions of pixels. Ritchin explains the process further: Retouching devices that simulate conventional tools – e.g., an eraser or a brush – are available, as well as devices that permit the use of newer techniques, such as copying a colour from one section of an image onto another area. It is possible to “paint” the background, or any other part of the image, as if one were painting a simulated surface. (Ritchin, 1993: 2-3). In addition, colours can be made brighter or changed altogether, shapes can be lengthened or shortened. Images can be deleted or combined so that it appears that two events occurred simultaneously (Reaves, 1987: 41-42).
2.4.1.3.
Digital cameras and other tools
On the shooting end of the photographic process, the advent of the digital camera has been both praised for its efficiency and criticised for creating new threats to photographic veracity. However, apart from ethical concerns, commentators (see Russial and Wanta, 1998: 594) have remarked on the difficulty of finding academic literature which examines the technical revolution occurring in newsrooms. Russial and Wanta _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 55/282
(1998: 594) trace the progression of digital and still video cameras, noting their first appearance at trade shows in the late 1980s. From there, wire services and newspapers began to experiment with digital camera technology, although cost and quality considerations restricted their use to coverage of high-profile news events and sports events (where the image could be quickly transmitted without chemical processing to meet late deadlines). A digital camera, designed for photojournalists, the AP/Kodak NC2000, was introduced in 1994, but its five-figure price tag kept it out of the hands of most news photographers. By early 1996, further development and increasing acceptance of digital cameras prompted Editor & Publisher’s technology editor, George Garneau, to write that “digital photography is on its way” (Russial and Wanta, 1998: 594). Despite the absence of academic literature on the rate of increased use of digital cameras in newsrooms, commentators note that this delivery mechanism is increasing in popularity, but that more systematic data are needed to verify how rapidly the change is taking place (Ryan, 1997: 29; Seiler, 1998: 24; Keowen, 1998: 61). Newton can offer no precise statistics on the take-up rate of digital cameras. Yet she does point out that their use was an “unusual occurrence” when she began her research in United States newsrooms in 1994, but that by the final year of the study (1997) they had become relatively common. She attempts an explanation of the initial reluctance of newspapers to invest in the new cameras: Reasons cited for lack of universal acceptance of digital cameras for day-to-day use included expense (which still hovers around $15,000 plus lenses and accessories), technical limitations and weight. One photographer who had packed her gear for covering [Bill Clinton’s second] inauguration day weighed her pack: 80 pounds of computer, camera, lenses, and other gear. Another photographer moaned that the new technologies were turning photojournalists into “pack horses”: “How can we make good pictures when we have to worry about all this stuff?” (One older photographer noted, “You should have been there in the 50s.”) Still another refused to travel with anything except his film gear. On the whole, however, most of those interviewed said they believed it was only a matter of time before digital cameras become standard. (Newton, 1998: 7) Trade literature shows there are three main competitors on the digital camera market, all traditional analogue camera providers – Canon, Nikon and Kodak. Until recently almost all reviews of the cameras were accompanied by warnings that resolution (or image clarity), exposure and portability made the digital camera inferior to the quality of the analogue. On the other hand, the camera was praised for its abilities in certain circumstances (such as its speed in delivering photographs close to deadline). However, in more recent reviews, industry critics applaud the quality of images from a new generation of digital cameras, which they credit with “excellent colour and exposure calibration, excellent camera to camera consistency, increasing quality with color and lighting, better compatibility with a variety of computer programs, image tagging and recording”. While the technical critics still acknowledge that analogue cameras have some
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 56/282
advantages, they have predicted a high changeover to digital cameras within the next few years (see Galbraith, 1999: webpage). While there is considerable debate over how much convergence will eventually take place between photographic and video technology (Lester, 1998), one possibility has been earmarked for future development: kinetic photography/video cameras, known as QuickTime VR Object (QTVR) movies with the ability to instantly turn moving images into still photographs. Writing in the British Journal of Photography, Simon Cooper marvels at the interactive possibilities to come: Playback can be achieved either directly on a computer (Mac or PC with QuickTime), from CD or via the internet by anyone having a browser with QuickTime Plug-in and the VR component (windows) … QTVR is an emerging medium and offers great creative potential to use photography in a new and different way. Whilst currently occupying a somewhat specialist market it is an area of activity set to develop and evolve. (Cooper, 1998: 17) However, Gladney and Ehrlich (1996: 496-508) warn of the danger that technological convergence with video and other technologies will lead to lower ethical standards for photojournalism. In assessing responses to digital imaging processing and enhancement dilemmas among television news directors and newspaper photo directors, they found the former tended towards less strict ethical standards in the application of the technology.
2.4.2. Differences between traditional and digital systems If traditional methods of image manipulation are a hazy ethical shade, then the advent of computerised technology has further blurred the line between the true and the false. Most analysis over the past decade has focussed on digital imaging systems – firstly because these systems represented the first major step in the changeover to digital technology, and secondly because the potential for manipulation is more obvious than with other digital tools such as digital cameras. Some commentators have decried photo-imaging as inherently evil – enemies of truth. Meanwhile others calmly assert that they are merely a variation on a long history of photographic retouching tools. For instance, Mitchell cites New York Times art critic Andy Grundberg’s fear that the technology has changed the veracity of photography forever: In the future readers of newspapers and magazines will probably view news pictures more as illustrations than as reportage, since they will be aware that they can no longer distinguish between a genuine image and one that has been manipulated. Even if news photographers and editors resist the temptations of electronic manipulation, as they are likely to do, the credibility of all reproduced images will be diminished by a climate of reduced expectations. In short, photographs will not seem as real as they once did. (Mitchell, 1992: 17) Alternatively, Matthews (1993: 13) argues that there is nothing really new in today’s technology. He says we only have to turn the clock back half a century to see how certain Communist regimes plied the same _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 57/282
techniques: “Political figures who fell from favour, such as Leon Trotsky in Russia and Alexander Dubcek in Czechoslovakia ... disappeared from photographs”. More recent examples of photographic manipulation for political purposes include the Soviet Union’s erasure of cosmonaut trainee Grigory Nelyubov from all space shots in 1961 after he argued with police. And in 1981, when the Soviet Union wanted to downplay the military’s role in their space program, they elimated Soviet missile chief Kirill S Moskalenko, who originally appeared in a photograph between cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin and rocket expert Sergei Korolev during their first launch of man into space (Life magazine report quoted in Ameral, 1995: webpage). Additional examples of Communist or former Communist block country manipulation were shown at the “Kompromat” [A Russian word meaning scandal or deception] exhibition in Moscow, which showed how dangerously easy modern technology has made the manipulation of photographs, and how popular this manipulation had become in newspapers (Khalip, 1997: Reuters wire story). Examples of how the new technology is used in Russia include news photographs on the war in Chechnya. In January 1995, New York Times' Moscow correspondent Alessandra Stanely reported that, in an edition of Russia’s biggest selling newspaper, Moskovsky Komsomolets, editors had superimposed a photograph of grinning Defence Minister Pavel Grachev over another of dead Russian soldiers laid out on the snow. The image was accompanied by the headline “The most talentless commander in Russia”. The manipulated image made it look as though the General's right foot was treading on the corpse (“The most talentless commander in Russia”, 1995: 10). Another article about the Chechen war (“Russians ‘tortured’ Chechens to death.”, 2001: 9) comments that the credibility of photographs of the war are increasingly contested. Such methods have not been limited to the left extreme of the political spectrum. Ironically, it was the famous anti-Communist, Joseph McCarthy who (as part of a vendetta against the United States army in the 1950s) had a photograph altered to show a high-ranking army official in a private discussion with the head of the American Communist Party (Smith, 1996: webpage). And Knightly (1998: 4-6), in his investigation of one of the most famous documentary photographs ever taken, Robert Capa’s “Moment of Death”, alleges that the picture is a fake, although by false captioning rather than darkroom manipulation. The photograph appeared in Life magazine on July 12, 1937 with the caption: “Robert Capa's camera catches a Spanish soldier the instant he is dropped by a bullet through the head in front of Cordoba.” (Knightley, 1998:5). [His] photograph has become the most reprinted image of the Spanish Civil War. Many consider it the best war photograph ever taken. It has had enormous influence on war photographers all over the world – many of whom have spent the past 60 years trying to emulate Capa's feat. There is, however, a problem. The famous photographh is almost certainly a fake: Capa posed it. (Knightley, 1998:5-6) Well-known examples of digital techology manipulations have been described in Appendix A.4., with accompanying photographs. Due to the large number of these examples now available, it has been _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 58/282
impossible to list them all. For example, the Daily Mirror’s famous “fake kiss” between Princess Diana and Dodi El Fayed on a speed boat in 1997 has not been included due to reasons of space. Nor does the infamous manipulation of OJ Simpson’s skin colour in news magazines Time and Newsweek in 1994 appear (for a description of these scandals, see Newsnight, 1998). Another more recent example of British footballers refusing to let their images be used by newspapers due to the frequency of manipulations also makes fascinating reading (Midgley, 1998: 43). However, it is hoped that the examples listed in Appendix A.4. go some way in illustrating the range and depth of manipulation techniques, as well as in providing some of the key references in the debate. Before moving to an in-depth analysis of the ethical dilemmas involved in digital photography systems, a brief description of the basic differences between the old and new retouching processes (in so far as they relate to ethical concerns) is warranted. The most often cited distinction is the speed and ease with which the changes can be accomplished. This is due to the claim that electronic photo retouching is relatively fast and does not require a darkroom or great technical skill. But although the vast majority of commentators laud the efficiency gains and describe traditional manipulation processes as time-consuming and cumbersome (Reaves, 1993: 132), a small minority has voiced concern over these claims. Some photographers, for example, are nostalgic for the simpler technologies of the past which, they argue, required more emphasis on photographic skill. By contrast, the modern newspaper photographer must spend hours sending photographs back to the office via a laptop computer, often after spending extra time working to retouch the photographs on screen (Harris, 1998: 13). And Ong (1994: 41), while generally endorsing the efficiency of digital systems, points out that the equipment can become a time waster rather than a time saver if complex manipulations are attempted. The second major difference between the old and new systems is sophistication. Manipulations that were once relatively obvious – such as cut-and-paste montages – can now appear “seamless”. Griffin (1992: 9293) describes the finished product as cleaner “without the tell-tale optical and chemical manipulations previously required for photographic retouching and rearranging”. There is some disagreement about how perfect the finished product might be. For example, Mitchell (1995: 112) believes it is possible to detect even polished manipulations if the reader/viewer knows what to look for. However, he readily acknowledges that the new technology vastly improves upon the “clear physical evidence” of manipulation in traditional photomontage. Simpson describes a world of few limits: “[W]ith the click of a computer mouse, a photograph or negative can be changed and manipulated so comprehensively that the lines between falsehood and reality disappear (Simpson, 1993: 19).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 59/282
From the above discussion, a division unfolds. On one side, there are those who assert that the new technology does not raise new ethical concerns, but simply accentuates pre-existing difficulties. Griffin defines this group as “pragmatists”, largely made up of photographers themselves and picture editors: The pragmatists ... contend that the new technology is fundamentally (and simply) a tool for speeding up the delivery of photographs, thereby saving time and money. Ethical issues surrounding photographic manipulation remain essentially the same in relation to the new technology as they were to the old ... (Griffin, 1992: 93) Indeed, among the ranks of the working photographer, ethical concerns about digital technology seem to centre on a preference for the intrinsic “integrity” associated with analogue photography, rather than any real fear that photographers are being tempted to manipulate their images. For example, chief staff photographer of the Independent newspaper Brian Harris (1998: 12) was more nostalgic about the lack of “thinking” time with the new systems than he was concerned about about the potential for manipulation, saying the new technology made him feel like a “compliant passenger pigeon”. However, there is a larger camp of concerned experts who believe that the new era not only accentuates existing ethical problems, but also heralds new threats. They contend that the capabilities of the new technology will shake assumptions our assumptions that “seeing is believing” and therefore, the camera can never be trusted again to tell the whole truth. Simpson (1993: 20) maintains that while manipulation has been practised in the past using traditional techniques, the news photograph was still regarded as essentially truthful. Manipulation was possible, but it was usually cumbersome. Today, the speed and sophistication of the new equipment provides constant temptation to “improve” on existing images to the extent that reality becomes distorted. Reaves elaborates: Deadlines, problems with layouts, and the sheer ease with which photos can now be altered are strong pressures for making ethical mistakes with digital editing. While there have always been ways of manipulating B & W photographs with scissors, airbrushing, and multiple prints, these manipulations have never been built into the production systems of newspapers. Before the advent of digital photo editing, a skilled printer had to make deliberate choices for manipulation, and it took time. Now anyone in any department of a newspaper could decide on changes in photographic images by simply having access to the computer system. (Reaves, 1987: 47) Mitchell (1992: 4-5) is adamant that the moral issues raised hark back to inherent ethical problems with photo-imaging systems. Indeed, he says the problem starts before human beings are given the opportunity to manipulate, beginning at the very moment an analog photograph is converted into pixels. It is at this point that the photograph immediately becomes more approximate and further from the “true image” than any photographic blueprint. Thus, while a digital image may look just like a photograph when it is published, the actual difference is profound: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 60/282
The difference between analog (continuous) and digital (discrete) representations is crucial here ... In [digital] images, unlike photographs, fine details and smooth curves, are approximated to the grid, and continuous tonal gradients are broken up into discrete steps. (Mitchell, 1992: 4-5) Mitchell (1992: 6) illustrates his point about the accuracy of the digital image by saying that while a photograph can be enlarged to reveal more detail (albeit fuzzy and grainy), once translated into pixels, the image has a fixed amount of information and enlargement will not reveal anything new. These are the substantial differences in the technology which have led Mitchell to dub the digital era as the “postphotographic era”. Matthews (1993: 14) and Ritchin (1993: 2) also attest to the essential distinctions between traditional enhancement techniques and photo-imaging. They point out that whereas a photograph relies on a negative for ultimate verification, the new technology is more removed from the original imprint of reality on film. Matthews (1993: 14) asks whether negatives will soon become completely obsolete if the use of digital video still cameras increases, and muses on the associated ethical problems. For Griffin (1992: 96), the essential dilemma is whether the credibility of digital photographs can ever be ensured once they have been “digitised and pixelated”, given that such an image “has no necessary relationship to a hard-copy original and hence no necessary relationship to reality”.
2.4.3. Impact of the new technology on perceptions of photographic truth This difference in the mechanics between the old technology and the new leads us to the heart of the ethical debate. As the capabilities of the photo-imaging equipment become increasingly apparent, uneasy observers have posed some fundamental questions: Is the new technology closer to art than reality? If this is so, does photography risk losing some of its established credibility with the public? And, in turn, does the industry fail in its duty to provide the public with truthful and accurate information? Informing this discussion are the moral arguments outlined in Sections 2.1. and 2.2., Truth within society at large and journalism in particular has been generally defined as a fundamentally “good” value. Even those who maintain that absolute truth can never be achieved do not dispute that it encapsulates an ethical ideal. In photojournalism, the camera’s mechanical properties have historically placed the medium closer to truth than other attempts at representing reality – at least in the eyes of the public. And in spite of the academic arguments to the contrary, newspaper readers still believe that photographs offer “proof positive” of a real event (Foss, 1994: 49). The famous work Camera Lucida by philosopher Roland Barthes is often cited to prove that the real value of a photograph is that it “attests to what has been” and performs a _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 61/282
valuable function in recording history. Here, he argues that, from a phenomenological viewpoint, “in the photograph, the power of authentification exceeds the power of representation”. This is because a photograph possesses an “evidentiary force” and “its testimony bears not on the object but on time” (Barthes, 1981: 88-89). Mills takes up this theme, adding a rather interesting argument that even when photographs are acknowledged to have been manipulated, they still damage the reputation of photography as a credible medium: One of my concerns about the tendency to create and manipulate images, even when they don’t claim authenticity, is that from the perspective of history we are muddying the documentary record. Even where we understand there is humour and irony, future generations will not see context, only the image for what it is. (Mills, 1994a: 14) Yet Craig (1993: 1) is more accepting of the changing role of news photography as documentary. He believes it is almost inevitable that “our understandings of time and space are becoming more elastic”. Rather than recording history, he says the mass media “seem to be intrinsically involved in its creation”. This argument aside, Griffin (1992: 96) maintains that it is public trust in the veracity of a news photograph which gives the medium its credibility. In turn, the photograph has a duty to fulfil the public expectation that it be a “pure, natural and spontaneous reflection or record of a person or event; that it depicts as accurately and objectively as is technically possible the truth or reality of that person or event”. By contrast, if a photograph is enhanced to the point where reality becomes distorted, public trust is betrayed. And if deception becomes perceived as commonplace, the credibility of the photograph will diminish. Craig (1993: 4) also emphasises the photograph’s documentary role and the “moral authority which derives from the nexus between the representation and the real”. When this relationship between public trust and photographic truth is broken, he maintains, “the credibility of the news will be shattered”. This is something that Reaves (1987: 41) raises as a distinct possibility. She refers to a “paradigm shift” in which the conventional view of the press photograph as an objective and realistic record will be challenged by “its redefinition as a manipulable artifice with no necessary relationship to verifiable truth”. In discussing the documentary value of the photograph, many commentators draw the analogy between the new technology and art. Matthews (1993: 14) writes that “[i]nstead of being a frozen moment in time, a digitised moment becomes as flexible as an artist’s canvas”. Griffin (1992: 96) also notes the potential for photo-imaging technology to move photography closer to art and further from a traditional definition of truth. A decade before photo-imaging technology was introduced, author and philosopher Susan Sontag (1977: 86) highlighted the essential ethical dilemma at stake: “The consequences of lying have to be more central for photography than they can ever be for painting, because photographs make a claim to be true that paintings can never make.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 62/282
According to Ritchin (cited in Manchester, 1989: 44) any defence of digital-imaging technology as an artistic device is unlikely to win widespread public support in the long-term. Rather, the reader/viewer will feel deprived of “an automatic sense that the photograph is a transcription of the basic visual facts framed within its rectangle”. A former president of the United States’ National Press Photographers Assocation and digital image ethics commentator, John Long, maintains that no matter how artistic photographs become in the digital age, the “greatness” of documentary photographs will always lie in their content rather than their technological form. As such, he argues that photographic veracity must be jealously guarded. He sums up his position in no uncertain terms: “Their power is in their truth. No one has the right to distort this truth” (cited in Traver, 1994: 6).
2.4.4. A positive or negative trend? From the above discussion, it is clear that the weight of academic opinion (particularly that written in the earliest years of the technology) swings behind the view that the photo-imaging technology raises the potential for ethical abuses in news photography to new heights. Some of these commentators are pessimistic about the trend, others believe it opens a “Pandora’s Box” of existing problems (Griffin, 1992: 97). Many theorists raise questions about photography’s traditional claim to objectivity and realism. Craig (1993: 3) sums up the new scepticism: “It has been ... well canvassed that photography and the understandings of its powers of representation, arose and were formed in particular historical, institutional and economic contexts.” Yet despite the arguments which problematise photographic truth, Craig – like Barthes, Sontag, Ritchin, Griffin, Reaves and others – returns to praise the documentary function of news pictures. Ultimately, he says, they fulfil a public need for “relatively untrammelled” representations of reality (Craig, 1993: 4). Thus the majority of commentators eschew the attacks on truth by postmodern theorists and align themselves instead with St Augustine’s view that: “When regard for truth has been broken down or even slightly weakened, all things will remain doubtful” (cited in Bok, 1989: xv). Throughout the literature on photo-imaging, public trust in news photographs is portrayed as strong but diminishing. With the transition from analog to digital technology comes a general concern that if images of reality are to be broken up into units, codified and pixilated, the credibility the medium has previously enjoyed will suffer. Yet optimists like Griffin (1992: 97-98) contend that the technology will ultimately have a positive effect in its “potential to liberate us from traditional and monolithic concepts of photography as truth and encourage us to an awareness of the diversity of styles, approaches and applications of different ‘genres’ of photography.” Another positive that has been somewhat neglected by commentators is the potential for the photo-imaging debate to highlight traditional ethical abuses in photography, from staging to darkroom manipulations to assigned captions. The fact that specific clauses _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 63/282
on deceptive manipulations have recently been included in journalism codes is evidence that photojournalism is now being awarded greater attention in this area than ever before (see Appendix A.3.). These views have found support in Newton’s recent study of 15 American and one Australian newspaper from 1994 to 1997 which found more positive than negative effects from the introduction of digital technology in photojournalism. Photojournalists and other staff interviewed listed the major disadvantages of the technology as archival problems (see Section 2.6.2.) and the expense of keeping up with new models of digital cameras and other equipment (see Section 2.4.1.3.). But these were outweighed by the advantages of higher ethical standards, better internal communication between photographers and other staff and production gains in speed and efficiency (Newton, 1998: 6-9). Yet another positive (albeit an unorthodox and even postmodern) view comes from a group who see digital-imaging as a giant leap forward for the photograph’s documentary tradition. It is not a popular view, and would not find support in the writings of Sontag and Barthes with regard to the mechanical authenticity of the photograph, but it is interesting nevertheless. Essentially, what these commentators contend is that, providing the technology is used responsibly, pixilated images can reveal more truths than they obscure: [W]ords have gained much of their strength through speculation, negation, hypothesizing and metaphor ... In the first century and a half of their existence, photographic images, on the other hand, have been held back by their inability to speak of what will be and what won’t be; their inability to present something as if it were something else. “Pictures,” the theorist Sol Worth wrote dismissively in 1975, “cannot depict conditionals, counter-factuals, negatives or past future tenses.” Well now they can. (Stephens, 1997: 146-147) Issues of truth aside, photography commentator A.D. Coleman comments that while photographers should be allowed to choose their tools, those who reject computerised techniques without due consideration are “in the same league as the ‘mouldy figs’ of jazz criticism and performance in the 1940s, who refused to recognise the importance of such innovators as Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie, instead insisting on listening to or playing nothing but Dixiland and swing” (Coleman, 1998: 147). He points out that the great British architectural photographer Frederick Evans stopped photographing when the commercial production of platinum paper was discontinued early in this century because he couldn’t – or didn’t care to – actualise his “way of seeing” in silver. The price he and others like him paid for this was to end up “in the dustbin of history” (Coleman, 1998: 146-147). According to Coleman, such heroism is misplaced when the new technology represents an evolution rather than a revolution. And just as colour supplanted black and white, the paper print supplanted the daguerrotype and electronic darkrooms replaced traditional ones, eventually three-dimensional imaging (holography) would supplant two-dimensional images as well (Coleman, 1998: 79-80).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 64/282
2.4.5. Cross-cultural differences Cross-cultural differences have been evident right from the early development of photographic technology. Yet to characterise the French as enthusiastic about new technology and the British as cautious and insular would be to over-simplify and ignore the impact of the digital age in these two cultures (See Section 2.2.3.). Indeed, when it comes to digital age ethics, initial evidence seems to point to an almost inverse relationship between the technology and its acceptance. The slow rate of uptake for new technology in the newspaper industry in France today may be in part explained by the difficult financial circumstances in which many newspapers now find themselves. As Occhiminuti and Auscitzky point out (1998: 34-39), despite having the third largest media industry in Europe, its cash-strapped newspapers find it difficult to compete with the global media empires of some of its competitors. Chalaby (1996: 318-323) also argues that the greater government control traditionally exercised on the French media has also resulted in slower growth and profitability when compared with its Anglo-American counterparts. As such, France has always followed rather than led industrial developments in the industry. This was also demonstrated in France’s slow take up of digital photography systems in the late 1990s (in the United States, most newspapers began converting to digital systems in the mid to late 1980s, and in Britain and Australia the transition commenced in the early to mid-1990s). In his effects inventory of new technology, T. Cooper (1998: 72) notes that important differences can emerge in the implentation of new technologies depending on the countries, tribes and neighbourhoods where they are introduced. However, when it comes to analysing cultural differences in the way digital imaging technology is used, there is an absence of directly related research. A selection of case studies of scandals which have erupted following digital manipulation of photographs have been detailed in the Appendix A.4. to this research, but at no time does the related comment question whether manipulation is influenced by cultural factors. In the case of some countries, there seemed to be a more positive attitude to the technology than in others. For example, in the late 1990s in the United States there was a shift in attitude – from focussing on digital tools as a danger to seeing them as a positive ethical force (see, for example: Newton, 1998: 6; Lester, 1999a: webpage; and Coleman, 1998). However, this change in mood may be just as much a result of changing ethical values on visual truth, as it is a comment on the ability of a culture to use the technology to the advantage of photojournalistic ethics. In France, where the technology is relatively recent, there has been little academic debate on the issue and media journalists have tended to view the technology with distrust. For example, the very labels which denote a digital image for public identification – “trucage” (trickery) and “fausse photo” (fake photo) – are terms with inherently derogatory connotations. In an article in Marianne, the French magazine specialising in media criticism, deceptive digital imaging practices were condemned. The author lamented that heavy _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 65/282
manipulation had become popular on the covers of most French and American magazines, whether they dealt with news or not (“Comment on manipule les images”, 1997: webpage). The following year, after a public scandal had erupted over the deceptive manipulation of a photograph of Princess Caroline of Monaco in Paris Match, Marianne declared that such manipulations were no longer confined to the front cover: Certainly, photomontages and photo-manipulations are everywhere in the pages of the written press and in the audio-visual media. But they are usually accompanied by some kind of code which enables the reader or the listener not to be deceived; the reader is therefore himself a conscious accomplice, capable of understanding the manipulation and distinguishing it from reality. (“Paris March: le choc des fausses photos”, 1998: webpage) [See Appendix A.5.5.] On the whole, this tolerance for photographic images presented as illustrations is more accepted in the French media. For example, the daily newspaper Libération runs a photographic illustration, caricature or drawing on its front page almost every day and is rarely accompanied by “trucage”, the implication being that its audience understands the illustrative medium of its images (Bertrand, 1998: personal interview). But while the United States might be approaching agreement on a general standard of practice for digital photography tools in the news media, French media critics (Guerrin, 1998: 1; Dassonville, 1998: 36) note broad disagreement about acceptable practices. In the United Kingdom, the newspaper industry generally and the tabloids in particular have delighted in using digital imaging tools. Sometimes these images are accompanied by some form of direct labelling. However, the reader must be relied upon to understand that the use of the conditional mood in the caption means that the event did not actually take place. Instead it is presented as a prediction of the future or a redramatisation of the past. Sometimes there is no acknowledgement at all. The National Union of Journalists is concerned about the issue (“NUJ policy on photomanipulation, 1996: NUJ webpage; Holderness, 1997: webpage) but has acknowledged resistance to any means of regulating the use of the technology. In light of the broad use of the digital manipulation techniques in Britain, perhaps it is not surprising that the idea of regulating its use has gained its strongest support. In 1996, British Labour Party MP Andrew Bennett put forward a Bill aimed at preventing picture manipulation through a statutory code of practice for the media industry. In his first formal reading of the bill on March 30, he said the British public was being misled, in that they still believed pictures far more than they believed the written word, and had the right to know that many media images were not accurate representations of events. He said he had written to national newspaper editors and television companies and “almost all acknowledged there was a problem”. In his address to the House of Commons he remarked ironically that most editors claimed they “would not dream of adapting or distorting a picture but were keen to point out just how some of their rivals were
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 66/282
doing this” (Mason, 1996: no page). The NUJ united with publishers in opposing regulation of this sort, and the Bill was eventually dropped (Moger, 1998: personal interview). In France, at the 31st Conference of the Francophone Press in August 1999, the President’s special advisor on audiovisual matters Hervé Bourges gave an opening address on the topic and New Media. He pledged the French Government to surveillance of the effect of new technology on media ethics, citing as his reason the necessity of a healthy media in a democracy. Among his concerns were the accuracy of information posted on the internet, and urged journalists to beware of the “effet de réel” of the internet by vigilantly confirming and checking their sources. He also commended international news agencies in their conscientious supply of “raw” new facts and images, but warned them against linking this information to other web sites or digital resources for which they could not be held responsible. Ultimately, he says policing the dangers of the new medias can not be accomplished through self-regulation and free market forces, and that there is a democratic interest in looking at other options. He suggests that it might be appropriate for UNESCO or some other multi-lateral organisation to take on such a role (Bourges, 1999: webpage).
2.5.
RESPONSES TO THE DILEMMAS
2.5.1. Professional responses From the moment that digital imaging technology came on to the market and the first scandals hit, it seems photojournalists, their professional organisations, their employers and other media professionals have been attempting to define its role through codes of ethics and professional practice policies. The plethora of codes, clauses in general codes and newsroom policies which have resulted (Bridger, 1996: 6) are too numerous to list individually here, but it is useful to examine a few of the more well-known ones before going on to analyse their effectiveness. Many of the codes refer to truthful representation as a cornerstone of journalistic and photojournalistic practice. Indeed, the very first clause of the 1999 revised version of the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance Journalists’ Code of Ethics (see Appendix A.3.1.1.) requires journalists to “[R]eport and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness, and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant, available facts, or give distorting emphasis” (MEAA, 1999). Writing five years before the new code was approved, Mills (1994a: 13) cautioned that photographers and editors who use photo-imaging deliberately to distort images were blatantly breaching a very similar principle of the 1984 code by jeopardising their credibility with the public. The 1999 version of the Australian code reiterates the photojournalist’s duty to the public and commitment to truth in greater detail than the previous code. In its _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 67/282
earlier Issues Paper (1993: 5), the MEAA committee responsible for the code’s review outlined its ethical concern about the new technology in no uncertain terms: “Computer technology now permits sophisticated manipulation of photographic images. The camera can lie.” As a result, the fifth clause of the new code now reads: “Pictures and sound should be true and accurate. Any manipulation to mislead should be disclosed.” Other Australian newspaper and media organisation codes related to this research are listed in Appendix A.3. As this research was ending in August 2001, The Sydney Morning Herald was also in the process of developing a company-wide code of ethics applying to all Fairfax newspapers, although references in the draft code to digital manipulation were being kept minimal, with only one sentence stipulatng that: “Herald journalists will present pictures and sound that are true and accurate. They will disclose manipulation that could mislead.” (draft code cited in Burton, 2001: email). This is slightly less forceful than the photographic policy adopted by the National Press Photographers Association in the United States in 1991 (see Appendix A.3.4.1.), which reads: 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 ... Altering the editorial content of a photograph, in any degree, is a breach of the ethical standards recognized by the NPPA. (NPPA code cited in Foss, 1994: 52) Bridger (1995: 8) notes that the reinforcing of ethical codes was just one of the responses from professional associations, educators and publishers to maintain photojournalistic credibility by highlighting the difference between illustrative photographs and record photographs. Another was to clearly tag images according to their categories, and Bridger says many publications are complying. Editors and picture editors threatened photographers with dismissal for “creating news” either by “setting up” a photograph or by unwarranted use of computer manipulation. University courses in photojournalism strengthened their emphasis on ethics. And newspaper management “realized that a loss of credibility would mean loss of sales and have increased their efforts to maintain photographic honesty with their readers”. Ultimately, Bridger said he believes it is this concerted effort which has resulted in greater use of record photography and less reliance on illustrative photography. Eiler (1995: 4) points out that a clause on visual truth had always been present in the NPPA’s code of ethics, but that the 1991 reinforcement was a clear wish to take the challenge of the new technology head on. The result, he maintains, is an ever-increasing commitment to documentary photojournalism. However, Bridger has criticised the NPPA code on digital imaging ethics, like most of the others, as lacking sufficient detail to provide the photographer with a usable set of directions (1996: 6). He points out that only two of the code’s eight principles deal with ethical issues Apart from the self praise, promotion, solidarity, and broad codes of common decency one would expect from any citizen, the code simply proposes that photojournalists should not lie (through their photographs) and should produce photographs that “report truthfully, honestly and objectively”. I…argue that by the very nature of the medium, photography can and does _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 68/282
lie and that the meaning of a photograph is totally subjective; hence a far more detailed and specific code is required (Bridger, 1996: 6) He says an effective code must not only address all these issues, but must be adhered to by those who make decisions. And this might be all rather difficult unless the current “unwritten” codes for photojournalists and their managers start matching the ones which are published to please the public (Bridger, 1996: 7). Lester (1999b: webpage, and 1999c: 64) also calls for the NPPA code to be revised and strengthened with new clauses on dealing with grief and privacy as well as a clause forbidding the use of computer techniques to alter the meaning of a photograph. In addition, he recommends clauses relating to editors’ responsibilities and obligations in this regard, as well as a NPPA committee for the ethics of photojournalism with educational responsibilities and powers to enforce the code through sanctions. The other nationally recognised code of ethics for journalists in the United States is the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code. It includes one clause relating to digital manipulation of images: Although photographic enhancement for purely reproduction purposes is a traditional and accepted practice, any more extensive photographic manipulations, whether rendered digitally or by hand, must be identified as such and should not alter the content or meaning of the moments they depict. (cited in Foss, 1994: 53) The world’s biggest news agency, the American Based Associated Press does not have a specific code on photo-imaging ethics, but some core issues are taken up in the agency’s official manual for photographers. The manual was published at the beginning of the introduction of the technology in the United States in 1989. The author, AP photojournalist and editor Brian Horton, said digital picture desks would mean significant industrial changes in the news culture as a whole – not just for photographers who would lose control of some aspects of their work, but also for picture desk and newsroom editors who would have to assume new visual responsibilities (1989: 137-138). From an ethical standpoint, manipulations which were always possible would become much easier. He said some newspapers were dealing with this by simply saying “we don’t do it”. Others were issuing codes. He concluded that image ethics would probably be determined by exposing and shaming those newspapers or photographers who went too far with retouching techniques or who actively set out to deceive. Horton’s greatest fear in this area is that it will be increasingly difficult to detect manipulations, and that seamless images can be created with no sign that tampering ever took place and no negative to prove the original event (Horton, 1989: 139). Yet his prognosis on the technological challenges is ultimately optimistic: the ethical issues would be discussed and debated at AP and in other newsrooms, while the positive aspects of the technology (the clean and rapid handling) would revolutionise the industry in the same way as the invention of the 35mm camera and help newspapers to better compete with television (Horton, 1989: 140).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 69/282
In Britain, the national union body for journalists and press photographers, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) administers a general code of ethics (see Appendix A.3.2.1). But while its clauses ask that journalists strive to “eliminate distortion”, strive to ensure “fair and accurate” reporting, and obtain photographs by “straightforward means”, there is no specific reference to the dangers of digital technology. On October 3, 1996, the NUJ’s Annual Delegate Meeting passed a policy on photomanipulation to the effect that all its publications would adopt a special “not a camera” symbol placed “discreetly but clearly within the image area” when running digital images. It urged members of its organisation to do the same, and produced a sticker to encourage labelling. The NUJ also pledged to campaign “in collaboration with appropriate organisations for the adoption of a world-wide convention for the marking of photographs which have been digitally manipulated (“NUJ policy on photomanipulation”, 1996). In the interim, an NUJ working group advocated using US Department of Defense guidelines as an interim means for judging how far a photograph can be retouched before it oversteps the line to become a manipulation (Holderness, 1997: webpage). However, by August 2001, no convention has been agreed, and debate published on the NUJ website has indicated a resistance to codified standards, particularly from picture editors who reasoned that readers would be intelligent enough to discern the difference between a “true” photograph and a doctored one. The NUJ itself opposes any legislation on the issue, and is still attempting to produce a voluntary code whereby manipulated images would be indicated with a “not a camera” symbol, and photographers would have discretion to use a real photo symbol to indicate photographs which were genuine. By June 2001, the marking technique had only been adopted by its own freelance photographers association (National Union of Journalists, 2001: webpage). However, the revised 1998 version of the NUJ Code of Conduct (see Appendix A.3.2.1.) does include the following clause, applicable to all NUJ journalists and others who agree to abide by it: No journalist shall knowingly cause or allow the publication or broadcast of a photograph that has been manipulated unless the photograph is clearly labelled as such. Manipulation does not include normal dodging, burning, colour balancing, spotting, contrast adjustment, cropping and obvious masking for legal or safety reasons. (NUJ, 1998: webpage) In France, the Association Nouvelle des Journalistes-Reporters, Photographes et Cineastes (ANJRPC) is the main union/professional body governing photojournalists. However, the association has not produced a code of ethics to govern use of the new technology, and cites the French “Charte des devoirs professionnels des journalistes français” and the European “Déclaration des devoirs et des droits”. The ANJRPC is affiliated to the largest French journalists union and professional association, the Syndicat national des journalistes (SNJ),which was established at the end of the World War I in 1918 by a group of Parisian writers, and which claims to be the main influence on setting media standards in France. Although it was originally formed as a professional association, by the end of its inaugural year it had obtained the hardwon right to legal status as a union. Under French statutory law, this gave the organisation much greater _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 70/282
levels of power, not only in bargaining for better conditions, but also in representation on official government bodies (SNJ, 1998: webpage). The SNJ adopted the “Charte des devoirs professionnels des journalistes français” as its code of ethics in 1918. Since then, it has been revised only once, in 1938 (SNJ, 1998: webpage). Included in its principles relating to truth and accuracy is the maxim that to lie, alter documents or deform facts constitutes the gravest professional misconduct. In 1971, the SNJ also endorsed the International Federation of Journalists Code of Ethics for Journalists (which it maintains is modelled on the French code). The international code calls on journalists to respect truth and the right of the public to understand the truth, publish only information where the origins can be established, or otherwise include a note warning the public of possible doubt (SNJ, 1998: webpage). In recent years, many newspapers around the globe have adopted in-house image-manipulation policies in attempts to enhance credibility. Again, the focus is on limiting manipulations that might deceive the public. However, these policies vary enormously and tend to be somewhat vague. Some newspaper editors prohibit manipulation altogether, while others allow a certain degree of “enhancement” providing it does not alter the essential elements of the photograph (Foss, 1994: 49-51). In Australia, policies also vary. For example, Herald and Weekly Times policy (now replaced by the News Limited policy for all papers: see Appendix A.3.1.3.) encourages staff to produce photographs that are a “true and accurate representation”. However, it accepts “reasonable touch-ups to improve picture reproduction quality” and deleting parts of a photograph “to avoid causing offence”. This policy contrasts with that of The Age’s which is provides slightly stronger language and a provision for labelling a photograph as manipulated (see Appendix A.3.1.4.). Other examples of in-house newspaper policies on retouching and manipulation of photographs can be found in Appendix A.3. While such policies emphasise the importance of maintaining public trust in the credibility of their product, they differ on exactly what constitutes a true and accurate photograph. Griffin (1992: 95) says the issue of “where to draw the line” between legitimate enhancement and distortion is inevitably problematic. Or as Parker (1988: 56) puts it: “How far do you stretch the ethical boundaries before you overstep the mark to manipulation?” According to a survey of American newsrooms by Reaves (1993: 150-153), most photographers and editors agree that small changes to remove imperfections in photographs are acceptable, as long as they do not deceive the reader. Yet those interviewed found it difficult to agree on any basic standards. Simpson (1993: 21) maintains that the type of article also made a difference, with some editors and photographers proposing that extensive manipulation was acceptable for feature articles because they amounted to artistic “illustrations”, whereas hard news stories demanded more accurate representation. On this point, Griffin (1992: 96) says there still needs to be much debate. He asks whether the new technology will lead to codified demarcation between the two styles whereby: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 71/282
[N]ews photographs are essentially hard or spot news, which means that they are not set up or choreographed or conceptualised and as such can and should be distinguished from those photographs that are, namely feature or illustrative photographs; and that whereas the latter kind of photograph can be planned, altered or even manipulated (although the degree of acceptable manipulation is debated), the news photograph, if it is to remain within the boundaries and conventions of legitimate news-gathering practices, must remain inviolate from any attempts to tinker with its essential veracity. (Griffin, 1992: 96) Despite the emergence of a plethora of new codes and in-house policies on the use of the new technology, some commentators believe that defining hard-and-fast rules for image manipulation is fraught with difficulties (Simpson, 1993: 21). Some like Coleman (1998: 78) have called for legislation to govern the use of the new technology in news images in the US and an industry wide standard to be set. As early as 1987 he proposed that: [M]aybe the time has come for the ASMP [American Society of Media Photographers] to consider proposing some kind of legislation that might require, underneath photographic illustrations – as distinct from photographs – something that says, “Not from a single negative,” or “Not from an original photograph,” or “From original photographs by X, Y and Z.” … Because the question becomes, how are we then to treat those images made with this technology, through these strategies, that are presented to us as informational – not simply as illustrational, but as informational? How then are we to deal with the information level of images that have the appearance of photographic credibility? I think there’s going to be a major cultural problem. We’ve got a century and a half invested in the idea of the photograph having some kind of authentic transactional relationship to what’s depicted. (Coleman, 1998: 78) Newton also calls for consensus, suggesting the redesign of photojournalism routines and the open acknowledgement of the subjective nature of visual truth, while still striving to produce “reasonably accurate visual images”. For example: 1. providing caption information which cites the subjective role of photojournalism in reporting news; 2. regularly using more than one image to communicate a story; noting when a particularly compelling image is not representative of a person, story or event; 3. publishing newspapers ethical standards, particularly in relation to digital imaging tightening and constantly rethinking codes of ethics and; 4. rethinking the nature of the kinds of photographs that win top awards in terms of the “kinds of realities” they present (Newton, 1998: 9). However, unlike Coleman, she says that ultimately we have to risk “letting the rope go further” on the myth of photojournalistic objectivity, even as we strive to produce “passionately concerned and reasonably accurate accounts of what is happening in our world”. Parker (1988: 69) makes the pertinent observation _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 72/282
that if the experts in the field are so divided on how to define ethical abuses, how can we hope for an explicit industry-wide standard to be devised?
2.5.2. Public responses In the literature on digital photography, there are many references to what commentators believe public expectations of veracity in photojournalism to be, but a rather surprising lack of specific research to back up their assertions. Indeed, American photojournalist and photojournalism educator Paul Lester (1998: seminar) suggests that this is the next major area for research in this field. The basis for the assertions about these public expectations can be almost invariably traced back to the birth of the photographic process, and the links between its “science” and its claim to veracity. Tagg goes so far as to link the development of photographic processes in France and Britain with the development of modern democratic processes, including the public right to access objective truth: The experimental initiatives which resulted in the invention of photography itself were situated at the point of convergence of a variety of scientific disciplines, involving optics, the chemistry of light-sensitive salts, the design of lenses, and the precision of engineering instruments ... The incentive to develop the existing scientific and technical knowledge as a means of fixing the image of the camera obscura came, however, from the unprecedented demand for images among the newly dominant middle classes, at a stage of economic growth in Britain and France when organised industry was displacing traditional patterns of manufacture and laying the basis for a new social order. In 1839, when Daguerre made public his photographic process, what he stressed was its potential accessibility to a wide public and its automatic nature – two factors which were seen as inseparable from the imagined objectivity of the technique. (Tagg, 1988: 40-41). According to Tagg, the ideological conception of the photograph as a direct and natural cast of reality was present in the public consciousness. Interestingly enough, he notes that the very claim to reality itself provoked outrage from one German newspaper which denounced the Daguerrotype process as sacrilegious (for an explanation of this incident see Tagg, 1988: 41). Newton remarks that the ethical dilemmas with digital technology represent a return to more realistic public beliefs about visual truth. She refers to a comment by the historian William M. Ivins’ 1953 text Prints and Visual Communication where he remarks that “[T]he nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true and it wound up believing that what it saw in a photograph was true – from the finish of a horse race to the nebulae in the sky”. She then adjusts the quote to read: “The twentieth century began by believing that what it saw a photograph of was true and wound up by knowing, at least on a cognitive level, that many things that seemed to be visually true were not” (Newton, 1998: 4). In Newton’s own research, she explores the status of photojournalism in the era of visual scepticism and concludes that,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 73/282
despite the historic public respect for the credibility of newspaper photographs, there has been a “decline in public belief in visual truth” (Newton, 1998: 4). Throughout the literature on photojournalism ethics there are countless references to what the various commentators think the public is thinking. One of the more illuminating ones comes from Coleman (1998: 136), who describes the public delight in manipulating their own amateur photographs via their own computer or specific photography services when unhappy with the image: So much for all our agonizing debates over the ethics of electronic image alteration in photojournalism, our ponderous ruminations about whether the editors at National Geographic should have moved those damned pyramids closer together. Vox pop had spoken, and its answer was: Go for it. (Coleman, 1998: 136) To date, it appears there have been only two studies dealing specifically with post-digital trust in news photographs. The first was carried out by Kelly and Nace in the United States in 1994 and examines whether believability of newspaper photographs is dependent on newspaper type (testing images from the New York Times and the National Enquirer) and/or knowledge of digital manipulation techniques. On the first half of the proposition, they found their results reinforced those of a 1986 Gallop survey, which showed that “prestigious” newspapers (like the New York Times) were more believable than tabloid papers like the National Enquirer. However, they also found that exposure to a video demonstration of manipulation techniques did not significantly affect subjects’ believability of a particular paper’s pictures. This study would seem to indicate that audiences believe that the technology in itself is not a major factor in unethical use of news photographs and that pictorial ethics are more influenced by the individual ethical stance of the newspaper. It should be noted, however; that the study did not test whether audiences had become more sceptical about the ability of photographs to portray reality since digital technology was introduced. The second study appeared in the third quarter of 2001 after this research had been submitted for examination. Huang (2001, 148-182) published an article based on his doctoral thesis which set out to measure what readers thought of the appropriateness of digitally altering images, and how it would affect public trust in digital images used in documentary contexts. Using a methodology based on Reaves’ survey (1995b: 706-715) using photo categories to distinguish image type and degrees of manipulation, Huang asked readers whether they found the images acceptable in their documentary context and why. The findings were mixed, in that the hypotheses constructed were unable to be supported by the demographic questions he asked: one third of respondents could not distinguish between categories, and while 58 percent could distinguish been news and photo illustrations, only 36 percent could distinguish between feature and photo illustrations (Huang, 2001: 155). However this confusion, in itself, showed that many readers were unable to distinguish images that appeared in a documentary context from those appearing in a more _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 74/282
satirical or artistic context. However, almost all respondents expected the media to alert them to whether an digitally-altered image had been used (through the use of a symbol , sign or photo caption) and valued professional notions of truthfulness (Huang, 2001: 179). While the overall approval rate for altering images (defined typically by adding or subtracting elements) was 50 percent, those who were most accepting of the alteration were those who were most aware of digital imaging techniques (Huang, 2001: 174-175). As a complement to these studies, there is also documentation in news articles of public reaction to a variety of examples where news organisations stand accused of abusing the technology. Indeed, the use of so-called unethical manipulations through digital imaging has increasingly become a media issue in its own right over recent years, which might well be linked to a lack of public faith in the veracity of images. Examples of such public outcry is referred to in the accompanying discussion of examples of prominent digital manipulations (see Appendices A.4.). Apart from the political responses detailed in Section 2.4.5., the extent to which knowledge of digital manipulation techniques is reaching the public is also evidenced by the emergence of the issues in popular culture. For example, the film Paparazzi, released on April 29, 1998 in France devotes its opening scenes to images of a “paparazzo” digitally altering his photograph for the cover of a French news magazine. Ameral (1998) also refers to the growing awareness of digital imaging techniques in public debate and literature, citing the dialogue from Michael Crichton’s novel Rising Sun as her example, and pointing out increasing reluctance of courts around the world to accept photographs or video footage as evidence.
2.6.
CHALLENGES FOR PHOTOJOURNALISM ETHICS
2.6.1. Archiving Of the scarce literature which does exist on issues related to archiving in digital systems, almost all concentrates on storage and organisation rather than ethical problems concerning proof and the demise of the negative. Russial and Wanta (1998: 594) refer to the increasing complexity of systems and the need for the newspapers in their study to equip themselves with greater knowledge: “The shift to all-digital handling of photos at many papers raised questions about storage and indexing of image files, and by 1994, a growing list of vendors offered digital archiving hardware and software.” Newton, in her study of 16 local and national newspapers, found the archiving problems were considered the biggest negative effect of the new technology, but again, her results showed that editors were more concerned with the technical storage aspects than issues of ethics and proof, although the two are inevitably intermingled: As one photo editor noted, we used to be able to count on going back to original negatives _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 75/282
and contact sheets or slides to compare the differences between prints and originals, to compare one frame within the context of an entire shoot, to pull up the shot deemed unimportant at the time of the edit but valuable in present context. As we move increasingly towards digitized images, the tendency is towards archiving “THE” shot digitally and dumping the rest. Though some newspapers keep careful digital and film archives, others are losing track of the original “film record”. If that film record is color negative, we can expect fading to occur within five years. If the record is digital, we do not always have the management systems to preserve an entire shoot in perpetuity, as we did in the past with black-and-white film. (Newton, 1998: 7) And yet, as A.D. Coleman maintains, few media managers could argue against the benefits or value of digital archiving. He points out (1998: 157) that then Microsoft Corporation chief Bill Gates showed the world how valuable archives had become when his Corbis Corporation acquired the USD 16 million Bettman archive in 1995, by which time it had become clear that image archives were “essential commoditites in the nascent electronic culture with its insatiable desire for images”. He argues (1998: 157158) that digital methods of storing images are not only more practical, but more democratic, in that they overcome considerable deficits in traditional image storing systems such as the fragility of negatives and paper prints which mean that “getting usable copies of selected images into the hands of users rapidly and at minimal cost is an ongoing logistical challenge”. By contrast, digital storage permits the simultaneous organisation of images in numerous ways. In addition, once annotated, imagery can be retrieved instantly by subject, by region, by chronology, and other search fields (Coleman, 1998: 158-159). From this base, Coleman maps out the emergence of whole new industries which furnish image services, such as the creation of international standards, protocol and legislation in areas such as copyright. But ultimately, it will be difficult to uphold ethical standards and the place of the image as a historic proof. For as he points out (1998: 87), the fact that photographs can be so easily altered will mean that forged archival material will also begin to proliferate. His final words on the issue of digital archiving ethics are severe: visual history is being counterfeited and historians of photography represent the last line of defence. On the cost of the technology, it is interesting to note that while the software and hardware for digital archiving, particularly in the early 1990s, could cost newspaper companies in excess of USD 1 million, new developments in the technology mean that an individual photographer now has access to professional software for digital cameras and computers which retails at USD 25 and which gives capacity to archive a series of images (Galbraith, 1998: webpage). In addition, the cost of archiving equipment must be measured against the considerable savings newspapers make over time on film and chemicals (for examples, see Fallesen, 1998: 26).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 76/282
2.6.2. Training of the photojournalist The preliminary research for this project indicated that Australian photographers may be unaware, not only of the core ethical dilemmas involved in the new technology, but also of its impact on their credibility with the public and their future prospects in the news media industry. Interviews conducted at the Age newspaper in 1995 showed that one photographer had a somewhat different understanding to that of his supervisor about what constituted photographic deception. Whereas the photographer believed it might be acceptable to manipulate without acknowledgement a photograph which wasn’t a “hard news photograph”, the editor disagreed (Morison, 1995). Despite this, the editor said that hard-and-fast rules on or a detailed code of practice on digital imaging ethics would have been impractical for various reasons: [W]e didn’t think it was necessary. The option has always been there for people to doctor photographs and images of all kinds and we thought that, because so much was going to be in their hands, it was going to be an educative process and it was important that we continued to trust them in this as in all things, because their future depends on it as much as the credibility of the paper. (Morison, 1995: personal interview) As a postscript to those interviews, it is perhaps interesting to note that the same photographer referred to here has since run into controversy with his digital imaging “artwork”, including an expose on the ABC’s Media Watch (1996b) program (see Appendix A.4.1.4.). As a result, one of the questions to be investigated in the hypotheses which follow is whether there might be a difference in attitudes to digital manipulation between those with a background in photography and non-photographers. This hypothesis finds some support in research carried out in the United States which shows that non-photographers tend to be more conservative in what they define as acceptable limits on manipulation (Reaves, 1993: 131). Previous Australian research also indicates that photographers and picture editors are less concerned generally by the implications of the technology, preferring to see any ethical dilemmas as an extension of pre-existing difficulties (Griffin, 1992: 93). An iconoclastic stance may find support among some postmodern theorists who argue against preserving traditional models of “truth”. However, as Section 2.5.2. shows, it would appear to run counter to public expectations of news photography. The question remains then of whether training for photographers is in keeping with the broader community’s expectation of their role and responsibilities. To date, the evidence would seem to indicate that it is not. In his research on Australian news photographers, Griffin (1994: 101) found that their levels of formal training in journalism placed them behind their word counterparts in the move towards professionalisation. For not only did photographers tend to receive their training on the job rather than through universities, but even their own union/professional body (the MEAA) had historically categorised them as “artists” while referring to journalists as “professional” (Griffin, 1994: 173).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 77/282
Coleman (1998: 31) says there is little doubt that the change in technology for photography will be accompanied by “increasingly complex methods of thought manipulation” and that photographers are in greater need of training than ever before. Paradoxically perhaps, he also advocates (1998: 137) training for digital-era photographers in analogue technology as well. For, he claims, digital is a derivative of analogue, and therefore there is a “direct evolutionary link”: “We didn’t get to electronic imaging from painting; we got there from the lens-based media – still photography, video and film” (Coleman, 1998: 137). It is interesting, therefore, to consider a recent survey (Russial and Wanta, 1998: 593-605) which found that many journalism education programs continue to focus on chemical darkroom skills, while employers are far more interested in the digital skills of potential employees. The study also found that new technical skills (such as the use of digital cameras and the web) are growing in importance, as are skills that reflect convergence of photographic jobs with others within the newsroom, such as design and graphics. However, perhaps surprisingly, the authors say the key skill that reflects cross-media convergence – video – is relatively unimportant now and only slightly more important for the future. Russial and Wanta (1998: 603) urge photojournalism schools to “join the revolution” and put more emphasis on digital technology and less on traditional processing. Based on editors’ predictions of the skills they will require in five years time, Russial and Wanta also suggest (1998: 599-600) that journalism schools place greater emphasis on a “wider constellation” of digital skills such as training in digital cameras and in using digital archives, as well as in Photoshop use and scanning. In addition, they predict the trend towards cross-training will continue, with at least some photographers being expected to take on roles in word journalism, graphics and design. Interestingly enough, their survey showed that editors did not believe video skills would be an important job pre-requisite within the next five years. Russial and Wanta venture an explanation: It may be that photo editors as a group are dubious about the likelihood of a near-term solution to the bandwidth problems that inhibit the delivery of video on the web. It may also be the case that photo editors at U.S. dailies do not believe that media convergence is occurring as quickly as some observers within both the industry and academia suggest. (Russial and Wanta, 1998: 602) However, the balance of skills needed is defined in the future, Lester is adamant that the new training challenges for photojournalists must be approached positively, seeing technological change and convergence with other mediums (such as video) and skills (such as word journalism) as an opportunity, especially as the demand grows for video in on-line newspapers. It will be standing room only in photojournalism classes when we teach our students the fundamentals of visual communication – how to sense, select, and perceive a visual message – and how to work a camera, a computer, and the software, how to use database research methods, how to create informational graphics, how to combine words with your stories, and how to make layouts and designs for print and interactive multimedia. That’s when students who never thought of themselves as visual reporters will sign up for your classes because they know that we will best teach them how to be prepared for what lies ahead. (Lester, 1995: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 78/282
panel discussion)
2.6.3. The impact of industrial concerns In the early 1990s, at the beginning of the introduction of photo-imaging and associated technologies, a typical daily metropolitan newspaper picture desk would be staffed by four journalists (plus secretaries) in addition to about 20 staff photographers. The desk would also employ freelancers on a virtually full-time basis, plus other photographers varying from two or three days a week to two or three pictures a year. It would rely heavily on news agency pictures – once delivered by “an army of messengers”, increasingly delivered electronically. In this setting, hundreds of images would pass across the desk each day, offered up by staff photographers, stringers, freelancers and agencies, as well as newspapers’ own picture library. In addition, there might be a “picture grabbing” facility for capturing still images from television. (Tunstall, 1996: 205-206) Yet as the take up of digital technologies increases, commentators are increasingly noting industrial changes in the newsroom which they hold responsible for changes not only in the physical lay-out of the photo desk in the newsroom, but also in the professional culture. As a writer for the American industry journal News Photographer noted: “There is hardly a photo department or newsroom that has not been thrown into chaos by the digitalization of the photographic reception, transmission and reproduction process” (Moss, 1994: 10). Foremost among these changes is fear of staff cuts and loss of professional journalistic skills. For Russial and Wanta (1998: 596), the new technology had had major advantages for newspapers, but could decrease photographers’ control over their images online, lead to a greater convergence of jobs (either with word journalism or technical areas). In the worst-case scenario, photographer staffs of traditional newsrooms could see themselves replaced by completely different staffs with computer skills as newspapers move online. Similarly, in an earlier study focussing on both the introduction of electronic pagination systems (1995: 42-56) as well as digital imaging, Russial’s findings are equally mixed. He concludes that while there was a general acceptance of the benefits of the new technologies among staff since the introduction of computer systems, photographers were not necessarily positive about the future: Since the mid-1970s, daily newspapers have greeted computer systems with a mixture of fanfare and fear. Editors and managers today both embrace and fear pagination and digital imaging systems much as their predecessors embraced and feared the VDTs that displaced typewriters and Linotype operators. (Russial, 1995: 42) By contrast, Russial found (1995: 42) that these technologies were particularly popular with management, who cited the advantages of great cost savings including reducing wages while increasing or maintaining page output, not to mention the widespread view that the technology had potential for weakening _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 79/282
production unions. By contrast, the disadvantages of the new technologies were significant. Although photographers working on some large metropolitan daily newspapers might find they were freed up from darkroom tasks to spend more time shooting and planning photographs, the majority of editors and photojournalists reported that pagination and digital imaging had created a new time burden because they were now carrying out tasks once considered as production work: Most handled imaging functions – scanning, scaling, cropping, image-adjustment, colour correction and colour separation – in the newsroom using photo department or graphics personnel. Photo editors explained that digital imaging was done by editorial department personnel because it required many of the skills photographers and photo editors employed in traditional darkroom work. Interviews with photo editors indicated that some of the imaging functions, such as scanning, were taking time away from traditional photo tasks, such as shooting and planning coverage. (Russial, 1995: 44) Given the acceptance of the technology among editors was “virtually unassailable”, Russial advocates (1995: 52) the rather controversial remedy to the de-skilling of photographers and editors of employing more production staff to carry out these new technical pagination and digital imaging roles, and says the experience of one American newspaper employing this strategy showed the cost could be much lower and employee satisfaction higher. An earlier study by Reaves in 1990 looked at United States (picture) editors’ tolerance for digital retouching/manipulation techniques (see Reaves, 1993: 131-153; Reaves, 1995a: 4-7; Appendix A.2). By using a questionnaire accompanied by 15 specific examples, Reaves asked whether it was possible to predict when a newspaper editor would allow the digital manipulation of photographs. Could certain attitudes influence the routines of how newspaper photographs are edited on the computer? In the design of her survey, Reaves used theoretical models from semiotics that visual researchers have discussed in critical studies, but have not explicitly applied to an empirical method: Semiotic theory helps to explain why computer technology is sharpening pre-existing attitudes among editors toward photojournalism that are creating ethical dilemmas with digital photography. This study also uses categorisation theory to explain why newspaper editors will seldom allow the digital manipulation of photographs they perceive to be news photos, but will allow extensive digital manipulation of photographs they perceive to be illustrations. These two categories, or genres, of photography create an implicit continuum with news at one end, relatively untouched by further alterations beyond cropping and reproduction standards. At the opposite end of the continuum are illustration photos, saturated by creative, imaginative alterations based on the needs of the editor/client/artist. (Reaves, 1995b: 706) The results of the study indicated that there is a conceptual framework that can predict when print photography is most vulnerable to digital manipulation. While editors appeared reluctant to alter spot-news or “natural sign events” in any way, they were much more tolerant of altering feature photos and photo_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 80/282
illustrations. The findings of Reaves’ study therefore suggest there is “a continuum between feature and illustration photos which will create entry points for newspaper editors to increase the digital alterations of newspaper photographs” (Reaves, 1995b: 707). In her study of photographers at 16 sites over three years, Newton (1998: 6) found a mixed reaction to attitudes about the future. While some photographers believed the newspaper industry’s demand for images would change little, others feared losing their jobs. Meanwhile, most editors cited the need to streamline photo staffs, but said cuts would be generally in line with streamlining efforts AS on-line versions and CD ROM and videotape technologies were adopted. In some cases, on-line publications used more still photography than the print versions and were a welcome outlet for photographers. In other cases, photographers felt on-line publication was not as respected as print and they were concerned about its lack of permanence … In spite of predictions that photojournalism will become moving video, the consensus was that there would always be a need for still photographs. Some pointed to the perception that we remember in still-image form. Others noted that CNN often uses multiple stills in newscasts rather than video. A few said they believed still photographers were better shooters than videographers. Whether wishful thinking or future fact, still photography was affirmed as unique in its appeal and communication, as well as necessary and well used. (Newton, 1998: 6) Another more recent study of American news organisations now publishing on-line as well as in hardcopy gave a positive view of these changes, reporting optimistic attitudes among photo editors and web directors as newspapers embraced the new technology (Zavoina and Reichert, 2000: 143-151). In all, the discussion surrounding the long-term future of news photographers in the digital age remains ambivalent. Some commentators believe that it will liberate photographers from the tedious chores of the darkroom and allow time for greater creativity and involvement in editorial decisions (Griffin, 1992: 94). On the other hand, it has been argued (Foss, 1994: 95) that photographers will become further removed from newsrooms, covering more and more assignments until they become “walking tripods”. Furthermore, if electronic still video cameras were to be introduced on a large scale, some commentators predict that reporters could take over the rudimentary task of gathering images (Ong, 1994: 41 and Foss, 1994: 45). In an interview in 1997, photographer and Victorian president of the MEAA Pat O’Donnell said he was very concerned about the impending threat: “In the worst-case scenario there won’t need to be any ethical considerations for photographers because they’ll cease to exist.” O’Donnell was also somewhat critical of the MEAA’s enterprise bargaining strategy of tying training in new technology to pay rises, arguing that this tactic might even provide publishers with the ammunition to dispense with photographers in favour of word journalists wielding video still cameras: “I would like to know what the publisher’s future plans are for photographers – at the moment it looks like they are effectively looking at de-skilling them or reducing the demand for them” (O’Donnell, 1997). Like Becker (1991: 395) and Griffin (1994: 65), O’Donnell _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 81/282
believes that photographers need to safeguard their future by arming themselves with ethical and technical training. In this way, photographers may just stand a chance against the ethical dilemmas which continue to dog them in the digital era. And in providing a product with a guarantee of professionalism and integrity, O’Donnell says, photographers face what is for them a greater challenge – their own preservation.
2.6.4. Forces for Change This section maps out three aspects of the debate on digital photography which might have a positive effect on photojournalism ethics: evidence, copyright, and the advent of multimedia. That two of these centre on legal arguments is somewhat ironic. For although moral rights and responsibilities are inevitably central to the legal debate, it could be concluded that the drive for professional standards is coming from the courts rather than the news media itself – something which does little to uphold the media industry’s claim to selfregulation and professionalism (see Sections 2.3.2. and 2.3.3.).
2.6.4.1.
Evidence
In an essay written in 1978, the renowned photography writer AD Coleman implores (1998: 42): “Isn’t it time to stop believing in photographs?”, arguing that distrust in photographs as evidence was long overdue. He notes that in law courts and other legal domains, as well as by cultural consensus, the photographic image enjoys the status of evidence – both supportive and prima facie. This reputation was unwarranted when “convincing yet spurious photographic “proof” can be manufactured relatively inexpensively and without recourse to unusual equipment or materials” (Coleman, 1998: 5). Tagg also argues that photographs cannot claim to be evidence, but not because the scene in front of the camera was not there. Rather, he sees the idea of the photograph as evidence as a social construct. He looks to Foucault’s work on social change and meaning, coupling the photograph’s claims to evidence with social and semiotic processes. Thus he argues that what Barthes calls “evidential force” is in fact a complex historical outcome and is exercised by photographs only “within certain institutional practices and within particular historical relations” (Tagg, 1988: 4). The problem is historical, not existential … the coupling of evidence and photography in the second half of the nineteenth century was bound up with the emergence of new institutions and new practices of observation and record-keeping: that is, those new techniques of representation and regulation which were so central to the restructuring of the local and national state in industrialised societies at the time and to the development of a network of disciplinary institutions – the police, prisons, asylums, hospitals, departments of public health, schools, and even the modern factory system itself. The new techniques of surveillance and record ... enabled ... a new strategy of governance. (Tagg, 1988: 4- 5)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 82/282
There is no shortage of debate among writers and philosophers about the photograph’s claim to represent evidence. Walter Benjamin’s renowned essay “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” put forward the view that the reproduction and distribution of photographs through the mass media had given the public greater access to truth, thereby helping to animate democracy (Benjamin, 1973). Yet others claim that this same process undermines the integrity and credibility of the image, and that the more an image is reproduced (first through the camera and then through other technologies), the more this image “is reduced to a pretext and all meaning is extrinsic to it” (Tester, 1995: 473). Lawyers, on the other hand, are far more concerned with the pragmatics of evidence. In her essay on the legal implications of digital imaging and possible solutions, Ameral (1995: webpage) explores the applicability of photographic evidence in the American legal system and finds that the development of the technology is having a profound effect: In the past, photographs were considered to be unabashedly true, since even older forms of manipulation are often easily detectable. Because of this, photographs have always enjoyed leniency in being used as evidence in a courtroom. There are only two guidelines that a photograph must meet to be submitted as evidence: it must be relevant to the case at hand, and it must be authentic. As photographic manipulation becomes more prevalent, this latter guideline may be more difficult to enforce.
Yet despite the ease of manipulation, she argues that photographs are still too valuable as proof to be completely eliminated from the courtroom, and cases such as the Rodney King trial have depended almost solely on photographic evidence. Therefore, the answer lies in proving authenticity and making the standards for authentication more stringent. She explains (1995: webpage) that there are currently two ways that photographs are proved to be authentic. The first is the silent witness theory, where the photograph exists as a “silent witness,” and is taken as absolute proof that the images are in fact, real. However, the potential for electronic manipulation means that even the existence of a negative does not prove authenticity. The second means of authentication is called the pictorial testimony theory, where a witness – not necessarily the photographer – testifies that the photograph does indeed depict the actual scene or setting in question. Ameral argues that this seems the more reliable legal argument in the digital age, and the choice of witness could then be restricted to the photographer. However, this argument would rely heavily on the reputation of journalism ethics guidelines.
Another important emerging legal implication of the photograph’s claim as evidence poses a secondary, but increasingly important legal concern. Ameral (1995, webpage) was the only commentator in the review of _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 83/282
available literature who identified the new onus on newspapers to prove their images had not been altered in direct prosecutions. She says digital imaging technology can be used (either intentionally or unintentionally) to depict people in what American law terms as “false light”, which can in turn result in the tort of invasion of privacy: In this instance, and in most instances of electronic manipulation, false light seems to be the perfect claim for damages. Manipulation of photographs could easily present people in a way unbecoming to them. And, unlike the defamation branch of privacy invasion – where injury to reputation must occur – false light claims compensate individuals for personal trauma, regardless of whether reputations are injured or not. The only other element necessary for a false light claim is actual malice – where the image is knowingly manipulated or there is reckless disregard for its truth. (Ameral, 1995: webpage) In her suggested legal “solutions”, Ameral argues that one possible protection against potentially misleading electronically-altered images is to require them to be conspicuously labelled as such. Not only would this protect the media from false light claims, it would restore the public’s faith in the photographic image. She notes that many newspapers have already adopted guidelines to inform readers of digital alterations. Other publications, such as the New York Times and the Asbury Park Press have forbidden tampering with photographs, while the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press news service have adopted informal guidelines (Ameral, 1995: webpage).
2.6.4.2.
Copyright
When it comes to the images and their copyright, the adage of a picture being worth a thousand words takes on new currency. Indeed, one of the world’s most renowned photo agencies, Magnum, was founded in 1947 as a means of protecting and collecting copyright of its founding photographers: Capa, CartierBresson, Roegers and Seymour (Caccia, 1998: 109). Ironically, perhaps, this same historical concern for legal protections for the ownership of images may well provide some solution to the ethical issues discussed here, even if these solutions run second to commercial interests. Ameral (1995: webpage) believes that photographers may find refuge in copyright law, particularly in applying case law relating to music (songs which would be “sampled” and then used as part of a larger piece, or as the basis of a new creation). However, she notes that the law is still relatively untested, and recent amendments to trademark law in the United States has decreased rather than increased protection: Not only does the Landham Act [the United States principal trademark law] no longer protect photographers from their work being used or sampled in a manner they did not intend, copyright laws often do not protect them from out-and-out stealing. With the availability of computer manipulation, original works may be changed and published without the original author’s knowledge or credit. Because photographs may be changed beyond recognition, infringement of copyright is difficult to detect. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 84/282
She notes that certain legal academics have provided other solutions to address such infringements (such as the creation of a compensation fund for affected photographers financed by photo-agencies and other outlets who sell the photograph multiple times), but this would do little for the problem of image integrity and manipulation of news photographers. In these cases, the only people eligible to prosecute would be those depicted in the photographs, and not the photographers themselves. T. Cooper (1998: 78) sees few immediate solutions, pointing out that Copyright and patent abuse have become the 1990s nightmare: “Both laws and ethics vary from country to country, medium to medium, and subculture to subculture, and those who implement policies and legislation cannot keep up with the brushfire technologies”. If broad copyright law currently provides few protections for images, this has not stopped those with largescale commercial interests from pursuing the problem differently. As Marvel points out (1998: 3), since the mid-1990s, there has been a surge of research in the area of how digital images might be protected with their own internal copyright. This work is related to the science of steganography (best known to general audiences as “encoding”, and used extensively last century during the First and Second World War to send secret electronic messages by means of covert communications). As Ettinger defines it (1998: 1), steganography is “the study of methods of concealing data in the noise of another data set”. For protection of images, the primary applications of this science include digital watermarking, or a “secret ink” for marking digital data (Ettinger, 1998: 1-2). Another means of protection is cryptography or cryptology, explained by Ettinger as having emerged “from a collection of ad hoc techniques into a sophisticated discipline utilizing ideas from many areas of mathematics and contributing to the development of mathematics”. However, Ettinger makes a distinction between steganography (or digital watermarking as it is called in image protection science), and protection of images through encryption: The goal of a secure cryptographic method is to prevent an inceptor from gaining any information about the plaintext from the intercepted cyphertext. The goal of a secure steganographic method is to prevent an observant intermediary from even obtaining knowledge of the mere presence of the secret data. (Ettinger, 1998: 2) However, according to Zöllner et al (1998: 1-2), cryptology (or invisible watermarking) is a form of steganography, and both technologies are more appropriate for images and audio data, because the secret encryption is not embedded directly in text, but relies on a shared code between sender and recipient to unlock the file. The other copyright alternative for marking digital images is a relatively recent technique called “digital fingerprinting” (Lach et al, 1998: 1). This technology operates on programmable hardware (in the case of photojournalism, on the digital camera itself) and leaves a permanent identification code (for example on the photograph) which is difficult to detect and remove because it is an integral part of the design. However, between watermarks and fingerprints, Petitcolas et al (1998: 15) contend that while the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 85/282
former has been seen as more secure than the latter because it relies on a second code, both technologies are vulnerable to attack by those who seek to decode the messages, and steal or transform the content.
2.6.4.3.
Multimedia and the new rules
With the number of technological and cultural changes occurring in the media in general and photography in particular, Lester (1995: panel discussion) has pronounced the term “photojournalist” an outdated way of describing the profession. In its stead, he suggests a new term: “visual reporters”, noting that the new era will not only be about working with a variety of visual media but also about new roles: “[W]ords and pictures become further merged, the role of a writer, photographer, infographics creator, researcher, and graphic designer will become merged into a single title – the visual reporter.” These roles might not all involve working with the latest technological computer and video tools. Rather, Lester argues that the emergence from the darkroom might even mean a return to interesting traditional roles: “There are indications that this shift in technology, because it increases the visibility of visual reporters in the newsroom, will lead to photographers giving assignments to writers.” Thus Lester maintains that as the dominance of image-based media increases, so will the influence of visual journalism: Journalists must not only know how to gather information and write stories and cutlines, but they must also have the confidence to work with pictures and layouts. Consequently, every journalism graduate must know the fundamentals of visual communication – how to sense, select, and perceive a visual message – and how to work a camera, a computer, and the software, how to use database research methods, how to create informational graphics, how to combine words with your stories, and how to make layouts and designs for print and interactive media. (Lester, 1999a: webpage) Altschull (1995: 360) quotes an official of the Radio and Television News Directors Association, president David Bartlett, who says that current methods of news dissemination and reporting may vanish in the first two decades of the new Millennium. He says the shift from analogue to digital technology would soon make obsolete the traditional methods of central news-gathering, such as newspapers and television stations. While this will not mean the end of newspapers, it will mean that they may change their form completely and require new ways of working. But do these new roles for photojournalists demand new ethical frameworks? Lester (1995: panel discussion) is not convinced, arguing photographers have dealt with changing technology since the first forms of photogaphy were invented, and that the latest stage represents yet another evolution rather than a revolution. Ultimately, he argues, a visual journalist with strong ethical training will be equipped to overcome the temptations of the new technology in the same way as was the photojournalist of old. Similarly, Hurst and White (1994: 189) and Reaves (1987: 46) conclude that the ultimate onus is on people, not machines, to determine ethics. This is by no means a new idea. In his book, Sleepers Wake, Barry Jones _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 86/282
(1982: 238) argues that we must assert our right to choose the place of technology according to our values. And Tillich (1968: 125) cites the philosopher Nietzsche to warn against the nihilism of technical culture and promote moral values. But it is Coleman who expresses this concept best: I don’t believe that technologies solve problems. Humans solve problems. Technologies are only problem-solving tools, tools that can generate problems as well. There are dozens of new technologies at the disposal of communicators today. How is it that our arguments over documentary photography and photojournalism are still centered around magazines, books and gallery exhibits? (Coleman, 1998: 73) Not all agree with this view. William J. Mitchell described the late 20th Century as the beginning of the “post-photographic era”, and other postmodern theorists (Griffin. 1992: 98) also reinforce the view that ethical difficulties are inherent in the design of photo-imaging systems. This idea is not a revolutionary one. Marshall McLuhan, hailed as the precursor of postmodern culture (McQuail, 1994: 117), famously wrote that the “medium is the message”, and argued that tools were not just tools, they also made certain things possible, certain things easier, and in doing so, they shaped the way people thought about its task (McLuhan, 1964). Christians (1998: 67) also reinforces the power of new technological tools in the new Millennium. Citing the work of French thinker Jacques Ellul, he argues that the magnitude of the changes we are now facing have reversed the natural order to the extent where the tools define the kind of media content delivered: Unlike previous eras in which tools are constrained within a larger complex of social values, the pervasiveness and sophistication of modern techniques reorganizes society to conform to their demand for efficiency … Seeing no other source of security, we tend to become slaves to technical productivity. Moral purpose is sacrificed to technological excellence. (Christians, 1998: 67) As a result, Christians (1998: 68-69) calls for a new kind of media ethics to match the power and complexity of the new technological tools – an ethics where the framework is sociological, and the orientation is not through professional codes of ethics, individual autonomy and utility: In working on an ethics of new media technologies, we do not have the luxury of dealing with the internet, digital communications, computer storage systems, satellite transmission, and so forth in isolation. We need, instead, sophisticated social ethics to match the power of our instrumental era. Modern technology has introduced such novel scales and consequences that the framework of traditional ethics no longer addresses them. Given the explosive and largely unknown effects of technological innovation, for example, consequentialist ethics on the whole are irrelevant. Moreover, the incredible development of technology in the professions is radically transforming their structure and practice. Our models of professional responsibility built on informed consent, whistle blowing, contract duties, and rights do not speak to the conditions of a global communications order. (Christians, 1998: 68)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 87/282
The alternative, he says is ethical theory that requires legislation, public policy, and public ownership to implement it, and which puts social justice above profit (Christians, 1998: 70). The French philosopher Bourges (1998: 58-9) is similarly fearful of the new tools, and calls for those cultures which are not dominant in the use of these tools to be particularly vigilant. He urges a battle with cultural as well as ethical tools: “Face aux tentations de repli, prenons garde à ne pas y renoncer, au moment òu elles nous sont les plus nécessaires pour nous définerent nous imposer dans le monde de demain” (Bourges, 1998: 59). [Translation: “In the face of temptation, be careful not to renounce cultural values, for these and these alone will enable us to define ourselves and impose ourselves on the world of tomorrow.”] Simpson (1993: 21-22), Mitchell (1995: 12) and Griffin (1992: 96) all maintain that more vigilant audiences will be a natural result of more educated societies in which newspaper readers will become increasingly sceptical about whether what they see is real. According to Simpson, the public will gradually learn to look for clues to help decide whether an image is real or not, for example “internal consistency, documentable provenance and consistency with existing beliefs” (Mitchell, 1995: 112). But perhaps the last word should go to Newton (1998: 9), who argues that despite the lack of confidence in “absolute, objective TRUTH”, it is the day when society gives up on the goal of “understanding, recording, interpreting, and discussing” images that the real ethical battle will be lost.
2.7.
HYPOTHESES
From this review of the available relevant literature, hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been formulated for testing. All have arisen from gaps in the available literature on the debate on digital images and manipulation, and lead to into an area of research which appears to have attracted scant research in journalism, and even rarer investigation in photojournalism: a cultural comparison of ethical values and standards. The first hypothesis (Interprofessional) is in two parts. Part 1a draws on literature in Section 2.3 which points to a gap in training levels between journalists and photojournalists, while part 1b draws more specifically on Sections 2.3.2., 2.3.3. and 2.4. to ask whether inter-organisational differences lead to different ethical values in this area:
1.
Interprofessional 1a. That photographers are exposed to less formal training in ethics than their word journalist colleagues. 1b. That those in editorial management often have a different understanding of photo-imaging ethics compared with the photographers they direct.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 88/282
The second set of hypotheses turns to cross-demographic analysis, interrogating the assumption that there is a common link between quality newspapers and standards of truth in photojournalism (see Section 2.3.4. and Chapter 3). For this, it has been necessary to concentrate on the larger sample of Australian newspapers where newspapers fell more typically into traditional notions of “quality” and “popular” press, and where ownership also generally divided into these categories. From here, the issue of whether “quality” newspapers were less likely to abuse the new digital possibilities could also be investigated:
2.
Cross-demographic: Fairfax vs News/Quality vs Popular Press 2a. That News Ltd has been more pro-active than Fairfax in providing staff with ethical guidelines to deal with the new technology. 2b. That so-called “quality” newspapers are more likely to use (and abuse) photo-imaging technology. Differences between them are due to industrial agreements giving every photographer access to training, scanning and greater control of the image; also, these “quality” photographers have more time to spend perfecting their images.
The third hypothesis was the result of an examination of truth and related cross-cultural analysis in all sections of the literature review. The choice of the following null hypothesis seemed the logical choice absent any strong evidence that particular cultures were more open than others to abusing values of truth and public trust in photojournalism:
3.
Cross-cultural: Australia/United States/United Kingdom/France That understandings of truth in photojournalism are universal and not subject to cultural differences.
Finally, the fourth hypothesis looks draws heavily on the review of literature in Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 to ask whether the digital era represents a revolution, or just an evolution, in ways of thinking about photographic veracity:
4.
Developmental challenges That developments in photographic technologies have increased the problematic relationship between news photography and truth.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 89/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 90/282
3. METHOD A review of the literature on digital imaging unearths a solid foundation for theoretical discussion of the impact of the technology on photographic ethics and industrial change. However, few of these investigations have attempted a more direct measure of how these developments have affected press photography from the perspective of photographers and editors. Of the empirical studies that have been carried out, most elect to employ quantitative rather than qualitative methodologies, with surveys clearly emerging as the most popular mode of data collection. Much of this research has taken place in the United States, although in his more general study of Australian press photographers, Australian academic Grahame Griffin touched on ethical and industrial issues associated with the technology. While the advantages of survey research – particularly with regard to its parsimony and scientific approach – have been well documented (see Comstock and McCombs, 1981: 144-165), these quantitative approaches have attracted criticism from the growing number of media studies theorists who reject the “objectivity paradigm” and turn instead towards the more subjective models of qualitative research (McQuail, 1994: 47). This struggle to find an appropriate research method is reflected in Griffin’s study of Australian press photographers. In his 1994 PhD thesis, Griffin (1994: 4) sets out to redress the paucity of Australian research into press photographers by attempting a wide-ranging survey: A major objective of this thesis was to fill the gap caused by the absence of any systematic investigation into the roles, responsibilities, attitudes and values of contemporary Australian press photographers. In short, I wanted to ask Australian press photographers the kinds of questions that have been put to their American counterparts. I wanted to find out if the Australians are facing similar conditions, problems, pressures, prospects and challenges, and if so, how they are responding to them. This was accomplished by means of a wide-ranging survey questionnaire delivered to photographers at metropolitan and regional daily newspapers. Where possible, more open-ended face-to-face interviews with photographers and editors were also conducted. To complement the questionnaire and interviews and to allow some insights into organisational arrangements, including editorial decision-making procedures and photographer-editor relationships, a participant-observation (with emphasis on observation) program was undertaken at two newspapers, the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin and the Brisbane Courier – Mail. (Griffin, 1994: 5) Griffin justifies his use of the written survey mode in this way: In order to gain broadly based information about Australian press photographers as a distinct group within the media industry, it was decided to employ the traditional empiricist methodology of the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire has its limitations, particularly as a means of ‘measuring’ the subtleties of human attitudes, beliefs and values. Nor is it the only means of obtaining information: open-ended interviews and ethnographically oriented ‘participation-observation’ techniques provide an alternative, or as in the case of this thesis, supplementary methods of data collection and evaluation. Nevertheless, the survey has invaluable uses: it provides basic, ‘objective’ data about a population from which valid _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 91/282
conclusions can be drawn about that population; it indicates the tendencies in the more ‘subjective’ areas of attitudes and values; and in many cases it provides the opportunity to compare and contrast data with those acquired from similar surveys conducted at other times and other places. (Griffin, 1994: 73) He also acknowledges (1994:74) his reliance on previous American surveys of press photographers to provide a basis for his own, explaining that: “Most of these questions have been used in the present survey for an obvious reason: they allow comparisons to be made between Australian and American press photographers.” (1994: 74) However, Griffin later describes the difficulties involved in his chosen method, owning that the process of distributing and collecting the surveys had become “haphazard and erratic” and that he was in danger of “losing control” of the research. He contrasts his own experience and relatively poor, if still respectable, overall response rate of 46.54 percent with the generally higher rates achieved in American studies (Griffin, 1994: 77). In all Griffin attributes his difficulties to a number of factors: the wide geographical scope of his survey, the mistrust and suspicion which is sometimes present between academics and journalists in Australia, and the inherent problems of quantitative research methods (Griffin, 1994: 83). In an even more damning analysis of these difficulties, Griffin (1995: 2) condemns the survey mode as being “not particularly productive in delivering anything but basic demographic information” and says that there are more revealing and satisfying ways of conducting research into journalists and their work. He calls (1995: 3) for quantifiable data to be supplemented with a more qualitative and interpretative research regime “based not only on an ethnographic or ‘participant observation’ approach (which is not unknown in journalism research) but also on a willingness to grapple with such notions as discourse, identity, subjectivity, ambiguity, undecidability and other postmodernist jargon as they apply to the whole range of both written, oral and visual texts produced by and on behalf of journalists”. Griffin continues by citing Alvesson’s survey of qualitative research methodologies which argues that while the data collectors may believe their conclusions to be based on scientifically or objectively obtained data, the interpreters would contend that such data are dependent on the “researcher’s ideological, political, ethical and moral views and opinions as well as on the textual, narrative style used to characterise the research process” (Alvesson in Griffin, 1994: 4). According to Alvesson, at least the interpreters acknowledge the more subjective nature of their inquiries, social ideological and cultural factors, and do not try to pretend these have been cancelled out by a scientific method. Drawing from such theories, Griffin even makes the interesting (if not altogether convincing) argument that the changing role of photography itself demands new modes of analysis. For just as academic research has adopted a variety of discourses, photographers, “as an interpretive occupational community” have “adopted, adapted and transversed a number of discourses”. In short, while quantitative research has some advantages, the “postmodern” condition of news photography _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 92/282
demands more than mere surveying: Although the quantifiable data derived from the survey questionnaire had its uses, I can’t help but feel, in hindsight, that a greater concentration on the qualitative style side of my research would have provided more insight into the working world of the press photographer. (Griffin, 1994: 6) Griffin’s ideological objection does not in itself provide an adequate basis for dismissing the survey as the primary research method for a study of this nature. However, the widespread concern about the limitations of quantitative research, in conjunction with the practical difficulties associated with survey distribution and collection and my own experiences with photographers in newsrooms having little time or patience for written inquiries of any kind, provided the incentive to minimise the role of the survey in this research and seek out alternative methods. In her study of American and some Australian photojournalists’ views on visual truth, Julianne Newton (1998: 5) also chose to eschew traditional quantitative approaches in favour of qualitative and ethnographic methods. Like Griffin, her prime justification in this preference was the unreliability of quantitative data, as well as its lack of depth: One, we often say one thing and do another. That is not to say that photojournalism professionals are duplicitous, but rather that what we think and intend to do vary from our actual behaviour. Participant observation, along with interviews and photography, gave me appropriate methods for collecting information about both perceptions and behaviors. (Newton, 1998: 5) After some discussion with other academics in the field and photographers themselves, it was decided that the most effective and illuminating method for gathering in-depth information from media workers was through individual interviews with open-ended questions. By this means, the interviewees could be asked direct questions about the various hypotheses to be investigated in this research, while allowing them the freedom to contribute additional information that might then provide unexpected insights and new directions for inquiry. As in Newton’s research, the mechanism of tape-recording and note-taking was used to record data, and photographic examples and other evidence (such as ethics handbooks) were collected along the way. In order to encourage the free flow of information and avoid the pitfalls of responses predicated on the assumptions of an interviewer’s questions, the possibility of the more qualitatively-orientated discussion groups or a participant-observation approach was investigated. However, this option was eventually dismissed on both practical and theoretical grounds after considering the nature of news photography itself. As photographers usually spend more time working in the field than gathered together in newsrooms, drawing a group together for such a discussion would be invariably problematic. The alternative – a reliance on photographers to meet with a researcher outside working hours – would be at best hazardous and at worst disastrous. In addition, there was the fear that photographers would be reluctant to discuss _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 93/282
ethical concerns with colleagues present, that one member of the group might dominate at the expense of others, and that the ‘macho’ element present in the press photography culture might inhibit the expression of ethical sensitivities. The rejection of this approach finds additional support in the results of the study, where photographers reveal that ethical concerns do not play a large part in day-to-day discussions among photographers anyway, so any attempt to recreate this atmosphere for a more genuine consideration of this issue would be misplaced. To satisfy the study’s objective of interrogating the four hypotheses outlined (particularly those relating to inter-professional and cross-demographic issues), it was necessary to divide the interviewees into three basic organisational categories: management, middle management, and daily practising photographer. The first level referred to the top-rung decision-maker in the organisation (the editor or another executive with similar authority over editorial content). The second “middle management” level was occupied by the person/s with direct responsibility for the operations of the photographic department in newsrooms as well as some policy decisions (the pictorial manager or pictorial editor). The third rung was composed of photographers. This category was problematic in that some photographers also took on administrative or low-level managerial responsibilities as well as their image-gathering duties. In the end it was decided define this group as those who identified themselves as photographers as their everyday job description and who had little or no control over policy issues or editorial content. In the majority of newsrooms selected for the study, interviews were carried out with one person at each of the first and second managerial levels (occasionally in the second level two people were interviewed where both had considerable middle management duties) and six photographers. Only in cases where the top-rung decision maker at the newspaper had no policy or content control over the photography department (as in the two French newspapers) or where that person/s was not willing to be part of the study (such as was the case at the Daily Mirror in the UK) were these interviewees excluded. The order to allow for the higher number of photographers as opposed to managers, as well as to measure potential differences in the interpretation of executive direction and formal policies, a sample of six photographers were interviewed in each newsroom. The selection of this sample was random, in that it depended on which photographers were available and in the newsroom during the time the study was carried out. Their cooperation, hospitality and patience was an invaluable aid to this research. While the inquiry into the impact of digital technology on news photography was intended to be as openended as possible, a questionnaire was drawn up to guide the discussion and to provide a basis for a discussion of each hypothesis (see Appendix A.1). The interviews were prefaced with several questions designed to gather demographic information about the interviewees and to allow for the inter-professional and cross-demographic analysis demanded by the hypotheses. These questions were taken directly from John Henningham’s survey (1996: 206-218) of Australian journalists. The questionnaire was then piloted _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 94/282
on two photographers (one of whom was also a teacher of photojournalism), and adjusted accordingly. The fifth question was changed from an inquiry into whether digital technology was a “negative” development to a “positive or negative” development, so as to remain value neutral. Another question: “What are the greatest ethical dilemmas associated with digital imaging technology” was also altered to take account of those who might view the ethical considerations of both the traditional and the new technologies as identical. After the first set of interviews were undertaken at the Age and Herald Sun newspapers in Melbourne, it also became clear that two other issues were emerging which would have an important bearing on the discussion in this study and which should be incorporated directly into the open-ended questionnaire. The first related to the potential ethical and industrial concerns over the use of digital television images in newspapers. The second concerned plans by News Limited to outsource their photography departments in some or all of their Australian newspapers, raising industrial issues as well as new dilemmas about the security of original images. Questions dealing with both these issues were incorporated into following interviews. Shortly after the commencement of the international study, a new issue arose which had not come to prominence in the Australian study: concerns over digital archiving methods. This concern was particularly prevalent in newsrooms in the United States and the United Kingdom where digital cameras were being introduced in increasing numbers. The difference in the levels of concern on this front between Australian and overseas photographers can perhaps be explained by the release of a new high-resolution generation in the digital camera market of 1999 (after the Australian study had been completed) which was widely viewed as a signal for newsrooms to begin the transition to digital cameras in earnest. Thus, many of the photographers interviewed in the United Kingdom, France and the United States were by this stage more familiar with concerns surrounding digital camera archiving than those in Australia.
As a result, a specific question relating to archiving issues was added to the
questionnaire for the international English and French versions of the oral interview (see Appendix A.1) to maximise discussion on this issue as it emerged. In addition to gathering information from the open-ended questionnaire, interviewees were also asked to fill out a small written survey based on Reaves’ 1990 study of United States (picture) editors’ tolerance for digital retouching/manipulation techniques (see Section 2.6.3 and Appendix A.2). Reaves’ study has been a valuable base for this research, not only because it attempts to measure attitudes to the use of technology in a quantitative way (through definitions of picture categories and through approval ratings for manipulation techniques), but also because it succeeds in defining some of the key issues for investigation, such as photographers’ attitudes towards hard news and feature photographs. Of course, Reaves’ method can be criticised for all the reasons cited by Griffin above. But if Reaves’ approach is fallible, then it must be acknowledged that my own version of her survey is far more limited. Although I adopted the three categories of photo, I chose to use only nine of the 15 manipulations defined by Reaves. Furthermore, _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 95/282
instead of a five-point Likert scale indicating a range of responses to the various digital imaging techniques (which were accompanied by specific before/after examples), I opted for the bare description of the manipulation practice accompanied by the question Reaves uses in her summary table: “Is it generally OK to…” to be answered positively or negatively by the respondent. This modification was necessary in order to take account of the limited time interviewees could make available for the entire interview. Therefore, it must be stressed that the survey used in this research was intended more as a quantitative barometer of the interviewee’s views which could later be compared or contrasted to the more detailed verbal responses in the interview. Whenever possible, the interview and survey research were accompanied by observation of the study participants as they went about their work. This measure was intended to act as a further safeguard against traditional concerns in such research that what respondents say, and what they do, are often different things. Although it is impossible for any researcher to claim an invisible presence in the newsroom, the visitation period – between three to five days – often made it possible to observe photographers and other staff involved in photographic delivery in a relatively natural environment. It was hoped that this combined, three-pronged approach to gathering data would eliminate some of the problems involved in more traditional methodologies. Finally, but by no means least importantly, the choice of newsrooms in Australia and overseas required careful consideration. For the Australian study, the research focused on six high circulation metropolitan daily newspapers. These were namely the two Australian national daily newspapers, the Australian and the Australian Financial Review; the two biggest-selling Fairfax metropolitan daily newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age; and the two biggest-selling News Limited metropolitan daily newspapers, the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph.. This selection satisfied the imperatives of the cross-demographic hypotheses, which demanded an even comparison of News Limited and Fairfax newspapers, as well as a reasonably clear division between “quality” broadsheets and “popular” tabloids [for a discussion of the various interpretations and limitations this concept, see Turner, 1995]. The decision to expand the study into an international comparison on attitudes to the technology in Australia, the United States and Europe was taken after discussions with various academics in the field yielded no knowledge of previous academic research in this area. An investigation of international journalism and media studies journals also found no references to international comparisons in the use of, or tolerance for, digital retouching and manipulation; hence a null hypothesis (see Section 2.7, Hypothesis 3) was formulated. As the ethical questions surrounding the use of digital delivery systems in photography are generally debated internally in technologically developed countries in Northern America and Europe, these continents were an obvious choice for comparative analysis. In Europe, two countries were selected: the United Kingdom and France. This was partly due to their historical differences in news culture, partly because both lay claim to being the birthplace of photography, and not least because (with Germany) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 96/282
France and the United Kingdom are the countries with the largest media industries in Europe (Occhiminuti & Auschitzky, 1998: 35). In order to provide a sample size large enough for comparison to the Australian research, it was decided that the identical study be carried out on two newspapers in each country. The use of six newspapers in the Australian study was both a matter of convenience in assuring a large enough sample size in the entire study from a home base, as well as a means of ascertaining any real differences between newspaper groups Fairfax and News Limited (see Hypotheses 2a and 2b in Section 2.7). The selection of the two newspapers in the United Kingdom was a relatively straightforward process. A journalism educator at City University in London, Linda Christmas, kindly volunteered to set up the study through management at the country’s best-known broadsheet, the Times (owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International group). In order to continue the comparison between broadsheet and tabloid use of the technology, and to look at possible differences resulting from different ownership the second newspaper selected was the Daily Mirror – a top-selling tabloid owned by the Mirror Group. In France and the United States, however, the process of selecting newspapers was not quite so straightforward. Given that the British terms “tabloid” and “broadsheet” are meaningless in countries where size is no indicator of quality, attempts were made first to find other indicators. When it became clear that there were few clear-cut indicators in these countries, it was decided to concentrate on national newspapers with diverse markets. In France, where the national newspaper market is relatively small, the most obvious choice – Le Monde – was dismissed on the basis of its lack of photographic content. Indeed, the newspaper is one of the few internationally recognised newspapers in the world which still eschews photographs on the grounds that words and line drawings are a more valuable means of communication (other traditional “quality” newspapers in English-language media divested themselves of such attitudes in the 60s and 70s). Next, the well-known moderately right-wing Le Figaro was approached as a substitute, but declined to participate in the research. A third approach was made to Libération, the left-wing and proudly intellectual newspaper established by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in 1972. Libération agreed to participate in the study, but, as is the case in many French newspapers, finding photographers who worked there proved to be a problem. Despite its strong emphasis on visual imagery in the newspaper, Libération employs only a photo manager, photo editor and technical support staff, with most of its images being supplied by agencies. As a substitute measure, photographer participants for this component of the research were drawn from Agence France Presse — with the justification being that the agency was cited by Libération as the one it was most likely to rely on for its images, and because as a French-based service with mainly French photographers, it was more likely to adhere to French cultural values. The second newspaper chosen in the French study was the lesser known Le Parisien, with four regional editions and a readership extending well beyond Paris but not throughout the entire country. Although this newspaper has a reputation for concentrating more on ‘local’ news, and for being generally more downmarket than the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 97/282
likes of Le Figaro, Le Monde or Libération, it does not fall into the tabloid market. Indeed, there are no French newspapers which compare with British tabloids like the Sun or Daily Mirror, with the majority of the population opting for other forms of media, leaving newspapers for a relatively elite market. In the United States, the problem of selecting a broadsheet versus a tabloid newspaper was again encountered, due to confusion over the term “tabloid” being used as a grouping for minority or “supermarket” press in the American lexicon. Since such small market publications could hardly stand as representative for a larger proportion of American photographers, they were dismissed in favour of more widely read, albeit upmarket, newspapers. Another difference in the American market which made comparison more problematic was the preference for regional rather than national newspapers. The only two really national newspapers – USA Today and the Wall Street Journal – were dismissed on the basis that they were atypical of the general American newspaper market, with distinctive styles which distinguished them dramatically from the general market. The more traditional American newspaper, the New York Times, was described by one American academic consulted on the issue as “too international” and by another as still “local rather than national”. In the end it was financial constraints of the research which confined the American selections to the West Coast. Of the newspapers in this area, the largest — the Los Angeles Times — was selected, along with the smaller regional (but still influential) San Jose Mercury News. Therefore the difficulties in using the broadsheet/tabloid categories in relation to market in France and the United States were considerable, but it is hoped that the choice of newspapers with different readerships and styles will serve (at least to some extent) the original purpose of the study’s second hypothesis in helping to determine whether the “quality” of the newspaper has any influence on its ethical standards in relation to digital delivery systems for photographs. Finally, in order to investigate the fourth hypothesis on developmental challenges, a series of investigative interviews were conducted at the on-line news service MSNBC and at Microsoft itself, as well as with individuals in key research areas or with specific industry experience. These interviews served to better define and help explain issues arising in the main body of research, as well as offering information on future developments of news photography and its technology. The Australian surveys and interviews were all carried out over a five-month period between October 1997 and February 1998, beginning with the two Melbourne-based newspapers in October and November, followed by the four Sydney-based newspapers in January and February 1998. The European research began in March 1998 and ended in November 1998, with the American research being conduced at the end of November and throughout December 1998. The author carried out all interviews, and interviewees were asked to complete the written survey themselves immediately following the interview, with clarification provided by the author on request. This work was carried out while the author was either living in the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 98/282
country in question, or making specific field trips. The research on European photojournalism was undertaken while the author was based at the Institut français de presse at the Université de Paris-2. For the French interviews, the questionnaire and survey were translated into French, with verification of the translation by a bilingual native French-speaker with knowledge of photojournalism terms. All but one interview in France was conducted in French (the exception occurring where the interviewee was a native English-speaker).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 99/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 100/282
4. AUSTRALIAN RESULTS The Australian study was carried out at six newspapers between October 1997 and February 1998, using the oral interview (see Appendix A.1.1.) and the written questionnaire (see Appendix A.2.1.). The research was undertaken during intensive periods ranging from three to five days at each newspaper. Visits to the Melbourne-based newspapers, the Age (owned by the Fairfax newspaper group) and the Herald Sun (owned by News Limited) took place in October and November of 1997. Visits to the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review (owned by the Fairfax group) and the Daily Telegraph and Australian (owned by News Limited) occurred in January and February 1998. Since that time, a number of managerial changes have taken place. For example, Michael Stutchbury has replaced Campbell Reid as editor of the Australian, Campbell Reid now edits the Daily Telegraph, and Greg Hywood has moved his editor-in-chief role from the Australian Financial Review to the Sydney Morning Herald. Where this has occurred, they are listed as “former” managers in the text of this chapter. The results of the research in this chapter and in Chapter 5 (Overseas Results) and Chapter 6 (Australian/Overseas Results Comparison) are set out in identical headings to allow for ease of comparison between the sections. The heading of each section corresponds to a question or set of questions (such as the grouping of the demographic results in Section 4.1.) in the oral interview. The tables represent the responses obtained from the written questionnaire. As these relate directly to the questions in the oral interview, they appear throughout the text under the related section heading. The results in Chapter 7 (Additional Interviews) applied to certain areas of the research where further investigation was deemed necessary, and therefore thematic headings were used to organise the information.
4.1.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic differences in the Australian study showed little alignment with newspaper styles (tabloids versus broadsheets). There was also no notable difference between the levels of experience and educational backgrounds, although younger photographers in all newspapers were more likely to have undertaken some form of tertiary education. Photographers on the national daily newspapers (the Australian Financial Review and the Australian) tended to have worked in journalism for shorter periods of time, compared with those in state-based newspapers. In some cases (particularly at the Australian) this was because they had worked previously for state-based newspapers. However, at the Australian Financial Review, photographers tended to come from an art/commercial photography background, and were more likely to be recruited in the first couple of years after finishing their tertiary education. There was no significant difference between experience levels at quality newspapers compared to tabloid newspapers. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 101/282
The newsroom where photographers had worked longest was the Age (with an average of 12.7 years) followed by the Sydney Morning Herald (11.7 years), the Herald Sun (10.2 years) and the Daily Telegraph (8.5 years) . These figures contrast sharply with those gathered at the two national newspapers, where many photographers were relative newcomers (Australian Financial Review: 2.8 years and the Australian: 4.3 years). The majority of Australian photographers were aged in their thirties, with the youngest sample taken from the Australian (mean age 29 years), followed closely by the Australian Financial Review (31.3 years), then the Sydney Morning Herald (33.3 years), the Herald Sun (35.3 years), the Age (38.7 years), and the Daily Telegraph (40.2 years). At the Australian Financial Review, respondents had a more diverse educational background than at any other Australian newspaper. Here, one photographer had gained an economics degree before commencing her photojournalism career, followed by a graduate photography course in France. Another photographer had studied for a news photography diploma in Italy and had started her career working for Italian newspapers. Two others had graduated from universities with Bachelors of Arts degrees in fine art, while the remaining two had no formal degrees and had worked in commercial photography fields. Four of the six had been formally trained in Photoshop at university or through short courses. The other two were eligible for short-course training paid for by the newspapers, but said they felt the skills learned on the job were adequate for their use of Photoshop. None of Australian Financial Review photographers interviewed had received any formal training in photojournalism ethics (digital or otherwise). However, a meeting was convened in January 1998 to discuss issues on the initiative of staff photographers. At the Australian, none of the photographers interviewed had received formal training in Photoshop or in ethics. Three had not received any tertiary-level training, although all cited on-the-job training in technical photography. One had graduated from a two-year, part-time degree at a private college, and two had graduated from Sydney’s University of Technology diploma photography course (a one-year, full-time, or two-year, part-time course). At the Sydney Morning Herald, five of the respondents had completed the Sydney University of Technology diploma course in photography. Only the oldest photographer had no formal qualification in photography. Before Photoshop was introduced in 1994, the Sydney Morning Herald had offered a two-day training course. However, none of the photographers interviewed had ever received training in ethics. Three of the Daily Telegraph photographers had graduated from the Sydney University of Technology diploma course in photography, and one had completed the four-year, part-time course. One photographer had graphic design and technical photography qualifications. The oldest photographer received only on-the-job training. None had received any formal Photoshop training, or training in ethics. At the Age, one photographer had a Bachelor of Education in Media Studies, as well as a graduate diploma in arts and entertainment management. Of the remaining five, all had received only on-the-job training, supplemented with some short courses in lighting and technical issues at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 102/282
during their cadetships. Three of the photographers who were working for the newspaper when Photoshop was implemented had participated in a two-day technical training course. None had any formal training in ethics (although they have tried to work out a code together). All photographers at the Herald Sun had been employed as photographer cadets at the newspaper following high school. In addition, two of the younger photographers had graduated from a two-year, part-time course at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology with technical courses but only one had had training in journalism/photojournalism ethics (a former word journalist cadet who had opted to switch to photography). Only two had attended the company-paid one-day training session in Photoshop. Table 4.1-1 : Comparison of photographer demographics by newspaper1 NEWSPAPER2
AFR
AUST
SMH
DT
AGE
HS
n=6
n=6
n=6
n=6
n=6
n=6
Mean years in journalism
9.1
7.3
13.7
18.8
18.3
17.5
Mean years at current newspaper
2.8
4.3
11.7
8.5
12.7
10.2
Mean age in years
31.3
29
33.3
40.2
38.7
35.3
Tertiary educated (%)
83.3
50
83.3
83.3
16.7
33.3
Tertiary educated in photography 3(%)
66.7
50
83.3
83.3
16.7
33.3
Tertiary educated in photojournalism ethics (%)
0
0
0
0
0
16.74
1
This table discounts editors and managers of photo-departments on the basis that all editors and one photo manager came from a
word journalism background and none were currently taking photographs. 2
AFR=Australian Financial Review; AUST=The Australian; SMH= Sydney Morning Herald; DT=Daily Telegraph; AGE= The Age;
HS= Herald Sun. 3
Tertiary educated is defined by at least one year in tertiary education, exiting with minimum diploma qualification.
4
The photographer in question had word journalism training previously, and learned about photo-journalism ethics in this context at
cadet classes.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 103/282
4.2.
ATTITUDES TO THE INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
Photographers at some newspapers were more positive about the introduction of the technology than those at others, although most agreed that speed was its major advantage. About half the photographers interviewed cited ethical concerns before being prompted with specific questions later in the interview. Editors were more positive than picture editors: indeed, the only editor to express any misgivings about the technology was Age editor Mike Gawenda, and picture editors were more positive than photographers. However there was little correlation between the results of the written survey on the question of levels of concern about the implications of the new technology (see Table 4.2-1) and the answers photographers gave in their oral interviews. For example, while in the written survey, the Australian Financial Review photographers were most concerned about the impact of the new technology on photojournalism ethics, they were also the group of photographers most positive about the introduction of the technology in their interview. Table 4.2-1 : Level of concern about implications of technology in percentage NEWSPAPER1
AFR
AUST
SMH
DT
AGE
HS
n=8
n=8
n=8
N=8
n=8
n=8
Very Concerned
62.5
37.5
50
37.5
25
37.5
Somewhat Concerned
37.5
62.5
50
62.5
37.5
37.5
Not Concerned
0
0
0
0
37.5
25
Undecided
0
0
0
0
0
0
Insufficiently informed
0
0
0
0
0
0
When asked whether the introduction of the technology had been a positive or a negative development, former Australian Financial Review former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood said the technology had been very positive since it was introduced in 1994, but that this was not necessarily the case for other
1
AFR=The Australian Financial Review; AUST=The Australian; SMH=The Sydney Morning Herald; DT=The Daily Telegraph;
AGE= The Age; HS=The Herald Sun.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 104/282
newspapers. He acknowledged his decision to take this approach had been seen as controversial, both within the newspaper and outside it. To explain his reasons for the change, he put forward the following argument: [The Australian Financial Review] has different needs to other newspapers and the use of photo-imaging and photo-illustration techniques has been particularly helpful to us. If you look at the nature of the Financial Review, its constituency is essentially men (middle-aged men) in suits. This is not the greatest target audience for interesting photography, unlike other newspapers which have, maybe sport, a lot more human interest, have crime, have just a huge variety of subject matter for their photographs … [The Australian Financial Review] is primarily about business, and about issues relating to business, and the people surrounding that which are essentially an elite group of people … and we focus on their business life, not their life outside that. So with limited subject matter, you need to think a lot smarter about what sort of photographic techniques you use because you need illustrative power in a newspaper. The only other alternative you have … is to use some sort of illustration by artists, and essentially that does not provide you with much of a quality look. So if you want a quality look, you essentially have to commit yourself to photography. What we’ve developed here has been a more artistic approach to photography than has been the general norm in newspapers. Picture editor Greg Newington came to the Australian Financial Review at Greg Hywood’s invitation when the first digital pre-press systems were introduced, and said this was partly due to his interest in using the new technology. He was “extremely positive” about the technology and the new possibilities for images. He said the new look has enhanced the credibility of the newspaper, because it was exciting and added to the overall impression of quality. All six Australian Financial Review photographers saw the technology and capabilities as a positive development, citing better imaginative possibilities for creating images, faster processes and fewer health risks. However, the younger photographers were unreservedly positive, whereas those with more experience in traditional darkrooms expressed some concerns. One 41-year-old photographer said she missed the darkroom and the feel and look of photographic prints. By comparison, she said digital photography was different: “It’s not as meditative … it’s just a different feeling, and you don’t get anything tangible out of it. You get a, you know, pissy little photocopy. So the end results are different.” Another 33-year-old photographer with a commercial photography/advertising background said he was originally scared of the technology, but because of its industrial implications (digital cameras usurping jobs) rather than its impact on photographic veracity. However he said he had since changed his view, and now believed it had brought newspaper photographers back to being what they always were but did not like to acknowledge – artists. The Australian’s former editor, Campbell Reid, said the introduction of the technology had been “absolutely positive” in that it had improved the quality of images, the speed with which they could be _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 105/282
delivered (especially under deadline pressure) and in only a few years had taken photography out of its comparative “dark age”. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said it was positive in that it had sped up the whole picture delivery process. He expected to see greater use of the technology’s illustrative capabilities in the future: I think in the future when digital imaging is more accepted and you can see what the scope is, there will be more emphasis put on training and you will be able to have a bit of fun with pictures or photo-illustrations and so on. But at the moment that’s not … a big part of newspapers. You’ve got photos and you’ve got your illustrations done by artists. There’s not a lot of middle ground at the moment. However, the newspaper’s photographers were less enthusiastic. Only one described the introduction of the new technology as a purely positive development (specifying increased speed and new creative opportunities), with the rest expressing mixed feelings. Four of the remaining five said they regarded the increased speed of capturing and relaying images as positive, one said he liked the ability of the technology to rescue images which once would have been permanently damaged. Three photographers expressed reservations about ethical dilemmas involved. At the Sydney Morning Herald pictorial manager Michael Young said the introduction of the technology was very positive, and had been largely driven by the need for greater speed in photographic processes. He said he did not miss the darkroom at all. Yet picture editor Gary McLean had mixed feelings. Positives included “being able to rescue negatives that previously you would throw in the bin” (for example, a good negative that is under-exposed), better quality and speed of delivery images. The negative side was the increased danger of manipulation. Of all those interviewed in Australia, photographers at the Sydney Morning Herald were the most negative about the new technology’s impacts on photojournalism, with five expressing mild to strong reservations about the technology and only one expressing enthusiasm. Three were nostalgic about the loss of the darkroom and one was building a replacement at home. Two said the new technology had had a largely negative impact due to increased ethical problems. One photographer, who at first described the technology as “great – especially for sports”, also said he was sceptical about the technology’s boast that it was faster than traditional pre-press processes: “It takes 15 minutes to scan a photo!” (a point mentioned by two other Sydney Morning Herald photographers). A features photographer was primarily concerned about the industrial implications for photographers, particularly with increased usage of digital cameras. At the Daily Telegraph, managing editor Roger Coombs said the introduction had been positive, citing speed of electronic transfer as the primary advantage. However he alluded to “some difficulties with the implementation” which he later defined as ethical difficulties. Picture editor Julian Zakaris described the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 106/282
technology as “very positive for the future” due to its speed. “By the Olympic Games this place will be 90 percent digital.” No photographer was unreservedly positive about the development, with only one – the oldest photographer at 61 years of age – describing the technology as good. However, while he was enthusiastic about the possibilities he added that: “You pay a price for whatever you gain.” The other five photographers all expressed nostalgia for the darkroom or traditional processes. One also lamented that the digital age had taken the art away from photography because now “anyone can do anything with the push of a button.” Editor of the Melbourne-based broadsheet the Age, Mike Gawenda, expressed immediate reservations about the introduction of the technology and cited ethical concerns. I think it’s a positive development that has thrown up lots of problems that we have to deal with. I’m not sure that there is a clear code in dealing with the problems that it has thrown up, but that’s what’s necessary. That’s what we need. Pictorial manager Louise Graham said the technology was a positive development for photojournalism due to increased speed (particularly for events occurring close to deadline) and because it made montage easier for editorial staff: “[I]t also makes it easier to combine photographs and photographers can do it themselves, whereas before an art department did it.” One Age photographer described the technology as “hugely positive” (citing increased speed, ease and quality). It’s one of the biggest advantages that we have had in newspaper photography that I can think of. Dad was a photographer, and he used to say the greatest things were miniature cameras … I can’t think of anything that is anywhere near as good as Photoshop and having computers to help transmit and send and receive pictures. It’s just fantastic. Another described it as “positive overall”, and another said it was “more positive than negative” and that the technology had to be accepted as a natural progression. The fourth said it was positive in terms of its ability to allow colour correction, but provided increased temptations to manipulate or “improve” images. The fifth said it was positive in terms of time-saving capacity, but had some ethical problems. The sixth said there had been positive (increased speed and efficiency) and negative (losing traditional darkroom craft) impacts. At the Herald Sun, editor Peter Blunden said the technology had been a great advantage to the paper, increasing efficiency and improving quality. Similarly, pictorial manager Bruce Howard said the introduction of the technology had been positive overall and cited technical improvements. Two of the photographers were highly enthusiastic about the technology. One said it was “definitely positive” from a commercial point of view, but mentioned ethical concerns. Another described the technology as positive in _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 107/282
terms of its ability to deliver cleaner, better quality and “more perfect” images, although he was concerned by the use of contributed or non-staff pictures, the authenticity of which was becoming increasingly difficult to guarantee.
4.3.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND NEW METHODS
A clear majority of photographers and managers interviewed said they did not see the new technology as presenting new ethical dilemmas. However, it was also clear from responses to the questionnaire that the speed and ease with which the new technology could manipulate images was an ethical concern which had magnified the potential for abuse to a remarkable degree. As such, this ethical dimension constituted a new ethical consideration. For while most computer manipulations had always been possible in the darkroom, the time involved and lack of perfection in the techniques had acted as a natural barrier to abuse. However whether the removal of this barrier was leading to new temptations was an issue of dispute. Australian Financial Review former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood acknowledged there were dangers in digital techniques, but said photographic veracity was a difficult concept to define because the very nature of the photographic process involved many manipulations. There was also a danger that the new tools could be over-used, and that they were used when a representational photograph could be the more powerful image. I think it can be an excuse: if you can manipulate everything and pull everything from everywhere else, it takes the emphasis off making sure the photographic quality is up to par … I think it’s suffered from over-use too, because if you over-use it some things are a little bit silly. Picture editor Greg Newington said photographs had always been able to be manipulated and that the socalled new ethical dilemmas were probably the same as the old ones. The photographers with more of a news background were most wary of the ethical implications of the technology. One such photographer, Belinda Pratten, whose experience was completely news-based, was more concerned than the others, and said she would appreciate some more guidelines or rules. Two other photographers (the news background ones) agreed. However, the three with a more commercial/advertising background said they enjoyed the creativity that the technology allowed and would be wary of constraints. Meanwhile, the Australian’s former editor Campbell Reid said the new technology was having a positive impact on ethics. I know for a fact that the most horrendous crimes of that kind of nature were committed years and years ago in the darkroom … And because at that time it literally happened in the dark, and none of the rest of us knew anything about it, it’s kind of naïve to think now: Oh, because they’ve got this computer technology people are going to dive in and start _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 108/282
manipulating this stuff. In fact … because it’s much easier to understand, people can see how it’s done and it’s there to be done. Because of exactly that, it’s not done any more. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said the new technology was technically positive (faster, cheaper and more freedom). But he believed there was no real difference in terms of ethics. Later he declared: “I’m sure it’s happening less now than it did in darkrooms” and wondered if digital imaging might have tidied up photographic ethics overall. To explain this point, he said truth had always been open to interpretation in photography – the extent to which photographs should be retouched was not clear cut, but various shades of grey: “Personally I would have no problems removing a powerline or whatever, but I can see that it opens a whole pile of other issues and a whole pile of questions and it is the thin edge of the wedge.” Among photographers at the Australian, former Reuters photographer Megan Lewis said digital imaging ethics depended exclusively on how the photograph was acknowledged. As a picture, only basic reproduction improvements should be considered. She said the technology had brought up a whole range of new issues. Two photographers said they saw the digital workroom as an extension of darkroom tools, not creating greater ethical dilemmas but simply making life easier technically and sometimes “saving” an image which would otherwise have been unusable. Another photographer said he did not know if photographic ethics were better or worse after the digital revolution. However, two others said it had made it much easier for manipulations to get past. One photographer said he was often tempted and had sometimes transgressed the boundaries. Another said it was “probably positive” due to technical advantages such as increased speed of digital transmission, but expressed concern over archival problems (expense) and technical problems with digital cameras. And one said that while he did not miss darkroom chemicals, he was “intensely mistrustful of digital technology” in terms of its veracity: Your ethics say you shouldn’t do it, but in the haste of the moment you were photographing something and you didn’t see there was a pole sticking out the side of someone’s head and … depending on what it was, I’d say take out the pole. He said before he wouldn’t have worried about it because it was too difficult and there was a more obvious process of concealment. Now it was such a grey area. Photographer Verity Chambers said that the ethics of digital technology are only a problem when they begin to compromise people or change the truth of the general situation in focus: Where the ethics are really a problem are when you’re compromising people. Okay, largely … if you’re taking a beautiful landscape and there’s a powerline in it and you want to get rid of the powerline, who gives a shit, you know … I don’t necessarily agree with it, but, you know. But with people … if somebody who was photographed says “I wasn’t standing next to Paul Keating”, you know, you’ve got a problem on your hands.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 109/282
She said photographers were generally not thinking of inventing an image anyway, they were thinking of capturing it. Sydney Morning Herald picture manager Michael Young said there was nothing ethically new in digital tools: The programs that they use in Photoshop actually allow them to do what they would have done in the darkroom anyway when it comes to dodging and burning and, in fact, they do it much quicker, in a much cleaner way on screen, so it has not posed any problems in that respect. He said problems on grey areas never arise because they are hypothetical – that is, his photographers never stepped outside the boundaries. Sydney Morning Herald picture editor Gary McLean said the new technology gave greater scope to manipulate, but he qualified this by adding that the nature of manipulation had changed since he began working as a photographer in the 1950s. In his early career, he said, photography was regarded as more of a craft where photographers were recorders of events, whereas today’s photojournalism was much more concerned with the interpretation of events. And while some manipulations (such as setting up photographs) were permissible in the 50s, those practices were now falling out of favour. Photographers at the Sydney Morning Herald were more ambivalent about the issue of whether there were new or different ethical dilemmas. All voiced a concern that it was now easier to manipulate images, and some were concerned about what photographers on other publications (particularly the Australian Financial Review) were doing. All were adamant that their colleagues at the Sydney Morning Herald knew their limits and would not go beyond darkroom capacities in retouching their photographs for publication. They said the main threat was losing control over their images to the imaging department, which meant greater handling and the possibility that the truth would become more distorted because the photographer who was there at the scene was not necessarily the one presiding over the image. One features photographer (Jennifer Soo) said she believed it had slowly changed the ethical boundaries of how much retouching of an image was acceptable: “more and more these days you seem to need to do something”. She said time was definitely a factor as well, and a task which would once have taken days in a darkroom could now be carried out very quickly on screen (such as brightening images and colouration). At the Daily Telegraph managing editor Roger Coombs said that retouching of photographs was not new. The only difference with the new technology was that it provided the capacity to manipulate in a more sophisticated way. Ultimately, he said, it would come down to people and no amount of training would make any difference. All in all, though, it was no great dilemma. I think those ethical issues are there to the extent that people want to transgress, and I guess _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 110/282
there will always be people who try to take advantage of it and manipulate things to deceive. But I think in the mainstream that there has not been a huge problem. His picture editor Julian Zakaris agreed that there was nothing new in today’s tools, saying they just made the process of retouching faster and easier. For him, the most significant development in the new era is the new interest in ethical problems. As a result, he said photographers were more ethical than ever before: The way you used to cheat in the darkroom you can still cheat ... in fact the rules are now far more strict ... because the darkroom was a mystery to anyone else ... you could put a tennis ball in a tennis pic, put moons in, things like that. But now ... you just can’t do it, you’re not allowed to do it. However, Daily Telegraph photographers were less convinced that the new tools made for better ethics. Reactions ranged from a 61-year-old male photographer’s view that the technology was “very dangerous” to a feeling of vague unease about the possibilities. It was interesting to watch features photographer (Bob Parker) explain that he did not think the ethical parameters had changed with the new technology, while at the same he erased a pimple from someone’s face for a feature article photograph. When asked about this, he said it was acceptable to retouch features photograph in this way (more so than news anyway) as long as the “basic truth” of the photograph was not altered. The only Australian newspaper editor who believed the technology had brought new ethical problems was the Age’s Mike Gawenda: Obviously it does. I mean, photographers can now do things with photographs that they couldn’t do before ... They could always manipulate images. It’s just silly to pretend that they couldn’t – they could. The idea that photographs tell the truth is a pretty simplistic idea. The ability to manipulate images has increased, has exploded in the last few years, has raised ethical dilemmas that photographers probably didn’t have before. However his pictorial manager, Louise Graham (recently arrived from the Herald Sun), said any difference was not particularly concerning, except when dealing with submitted photos or those over which the newspaper had no control: I think the only problem it poses is that ... with the final image you would not know whether it had been done or not. So the ease of it, but it’s also the tracing of it. I mean we could get a picture from overseas and it could look absolutely fantastic – a Clinton shot that may not be true – but we don’t know. Among Age photographers, John Woodstra (who had previously featured on the ABC’s watchdog program Media Watch for manipulating a farmland photograph by adding more cows (see Appendix A.4.1.4.) was concerned by new ethical dilemmas, and said the temptation to improve a photograph by adding or removing elements was very strong. He said before the introduction of digital technology, these _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 111/282
temptations would not have occurred to him: they would have taken too long and would have been too easily recognised. News photographer Andrew De La Rue said that although the speed and ease made it easier for people to cheat, he thought most professional photographers were now aware of the consequences of transgression (dismissal) which was not worth the risk. However, he said submitted photographs and possibly images from freelance photographers posed a problem. He also said that he thought staff photographers found altering the truth in photographs should be immediately dismissed: It’s a dilemma out there on the street ... any kid can own Photoshop ... kids will own Photoshop, kids will manipulate pictures. It’s going to mean that any photographs you’re looking at now aren’t going to be honest. They’ve got to come from a reliable source. I’m quite proud to say this is a reliable source which is good, but there’s no super-duper guidelines set in concrete and it’s pretty vague. Another, Peter Cox, thought that photographic integrity was reasonably secure at the Age, but thought the more time photographers had to work on their photos pre-production the greater the temptation was to improve on reality. Ray Kennedy thought there were probably new ethical issues – particularly because there was now no real original negative to refer back to, meaning that if the photographer had an hour to work on a photograph, she or he might start to forget how different the original was. The others mentioned the speed and ease of the technology as a temptation to “improve” on darkroom techniques, but disagreed or were uncertain as to whether the core ethical issues had changed. Features photographer Craig Abraham said the range of options open to photographers was incredible “but only if you use them” and thought the negativity surrounding digital imaging per se was rather too hysterical. Manuela Cifra said there were no new ethical issues as long as photographers adhered to darkroom standards; otherwise the possibilities were limitless. She did not, however, think time was a factor, saying she preferred to equate ethics with personal integrity. Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden said the risks of ethical transgression might increase in the digital era, but that was not the issue. He said it was ultimately the market that determined ethical standards. And because the Herald Sun was the biggest-selling “family newspaper” in Australia, he thought any Photoshop changes would be relatively conservative: We’re throwing this paper on to people’s front door steps every day, and we have to be very careful about what we do … [W]e make it clear in our policy that reasonable touch-ups to improve picture quality ... can be acceptable. But it’s rarely done, and we’d either say so, or, you know, there’s a telegraph pole coming out of someone’s head or something like that, those sort of examples. It very rarely happens and if it is ... most pictures are cropped ... that’s just standard procedure ... By and large it’s just very rare that you’d ever have to look at pictures and say ... we had to change this or move this ... we just wouldn’t do it. There’s no need for it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 112/282
Pictorial manager Bruce Howard said he did not think there was anything intrinsically different about the new technology: “I think it’s certainly a cleaner way of working”. However, he acknowledged that by not being so “hands-on”, it might have disadvantages as well as advantages. As for ethics, he said there were appropriate guidelines already in place in the Herald and Weekly Times Limited Professional Practice Policy. Among Herald Sun photographers, picture editor/photographer Wayne Ludby was adamant that the new technology did pose more ethical dilemmas, but said that if it was properly managed it did not have to be a problem at all. Lucy Swinstead and Ian Baker thought there were no new ethical issues. On the other hand Mark Smith and Stuart Hannagan pointed to substantial differences. Stuart Hannagan said the ease and accessibility of the technology was a threat in itself, and that any 16-year-old child could now submit a highly manipulated photograph without even being aware of what the profession’s ideas of “darkroom standards” meant. Indeed, he said it was now impossible to assure the integrity of the image, especially with casual contributors. He said one contributor admitted recently that he inserted a hockey ball in every hockey picture he submitted: How do you know what they’ve done before they’ve sent it to you? In the old days it was pretty simple. All you could do was put a neg in a machine, send it, and at the other end you’d get a print. These days you would have no idea. Some bloke up in Darwin says he’s got Cathy Freeman at Ayers Rock with the Aussie flag around her ... well you would hope that would actually be true, but you could do that ... on a computer, no problem. Craig Burrow said he believed the technology created new ethical issues through the very nature of its accessibility to anyone with the available computer equipment. This ultimately meant that photographers had lost control of their professional tools to anyone who was computer literate, and that as a result ethical standards were less assured.
4.4.
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEWSPAPERS
Most of those interviewed for the Australian study (particularly those working in Sydney) agreed that the Australian Financial Review was clearly making the most visible use of the technology, but opinions varied on whether this was a positive or negative step for the newspaper. Australian Financial Review former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood described his newspaper as the leader in the field: “Absolutely, I don’t think there’s any doubt.” He said the newspaper was the first to introduce the technology and had “refined” it more than any other Australian newspaper. He also noted that there was probably more emphasis on newspaper design in Australia than in the US, where there was “less local competition”. Picture editor Greg Newington agreed that his newspaper was the leader, but also admired the way the Daily Telegraph used the technology to introduce humour into its images, and said that technically this newspaper was also of a _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 113/282
very high standard. All photographers at the Australian Financial Review thought their own newspaper was making most use of the technology. At the Australian, former editor Campbell Reid said the Australian Financial Review’s images were experimental, but he said the newspaper needed to take more care not to pass off manipulated images as news images. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said the Australian Financial Review made most use of the technology in Australia, but said he did not like or understand the style and thought it too “off-the-wall” (as opposed to being unethical). Four photographers all pointed to the Australian Financial Review as the newspaper which made most use of the technology, with none of them approving of the way the technology was used. They said it was a classic example of the technology having superseded common sense. However, one photographer did not see the images produced as photojournalism – as such, he said they should not be compared with news images in other newspapers. One photographer said she thought the Daily Telegraph made greater use of the technology (in terms of dubious ethics) than any other newspaper in deliberately trying to deceive the public about the truth. One exception to the focus on the Australian Financial Review came from Sydney Morning Herald picture manager Michael Young, who said all dailies now had access to the same technology and none of them were using it any better. [He noted later that he disapproved of the Australian Financial Review’s images and thought the approach a bad one. He also commented on the dangers of mixing the Sydney Morning Herald’s archives with those of the Australian Financial Review, saying he did not trust the integrity of images from the latter. He said he was actively working on creating a greater distance between the two newspapers, because he was now reluctant to use any of their pictures. This was his “main concern” about the technology at the moment.] Picture editor Gary McLean and all Sydney Morning Herald photographers agreed the Australian Financial Review was making greatest use of the technology. Reactions ranged from tolerance of a new medium for a new market (although none was particularly admiring of this), to the very negative reactions. One photographer, Dean Sewell, was undertaking his own investigation of the levels of retouching carried out on news photographs, with a view to banning the exchange of photographs between the two newspapers on ethical grounds: Up here, photographers on the Herald, we purely shoot news and features and things like that. Down on the Fin Review there’s a lot of crossover. The photographers do a lot of photoimaging and photo-illustration … it gets to the point where you don’t know whether … what appears in the Fin is actually truth or fiction any more. Meanwhile sports photographer Steve Christo found the Australian Financial Review’s use of the technology sometimes verged on the ludicrous and was in danger of becoming predictable: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 114/282
The biggest one that they’ve got that gives you the shits, you go and see a picture and there’s a Telstra box … some guy’s fishing off a rock and there’s a fucking Telstra box next to him … there’ll be one on the moon next … That’s all right to illustrate something, but it’s not photography. At the Daily Telegraph, managing editor Roger Coombs said he thought the Daily Telegraph “led the way initially” as a leader in the News Limited colour pre-press process. Now he said there was no real leader. As for the Australian Financial Review’s images, he said he was not shocked by the use of the technology, particularly since all the techniques could have been achieved through traditional darkroom processes. However his picture editor Julian Zakaris disagreed, saying that Fairfax had purchased digital cameras before News Limited, but he said all News Limited newspapers were expecting to be working in digital cameras (with only occasional use of analogue cameras) by the 2000 Olympic Games. Among the photographers, views varied about which papers made most use of the technology, with only two citing the Australian Financial Review as an industry leader, or as doing anything particularly different. One said this was because of their style and because they had more time at their disposal to be creative. The other thought their creativity was to be applauded (he professed to be the photographer at the Daily Telegraph most interested in doing illustrations and said his nickname was the “do-up boy”.) Another thought the Australian stood out in its preference for large photo-composites. One thought all newspapers used it in the same way, while another thought they all used it differently. The others said they did not know enough about the technological/stylistic capabilities of the other newspapers to comment. Age editor Mike Gawenda thought tabloids made more use of the technology and were more prone to unethical manipulations than broadsheets (although he said that there were some “pretty stunning” examples of broadsheets mis-using the technology in the mid 1990s when it was first introduced). He said the Australian Financial Review should not be compared to other newspapers because its manipulations were very obvious: “It’s clear they’re manipulations. No one would imagine that they’re not, I don’t think”. Pictorial editor Louise Graham took a similar view. She cited the Australian Financial Review as the newspaper that made most use of the technology, but thought its usage did not pose ethical problems, not even if the manipulations went unacknowledged: The Fin Review’s a funny one because they don’t actually acknowledge it, or they call it a photo-image I suppose. But it’s quite clear that they have done something like that. It is a montage-type thing ... and I think for them it has probably given them a new lease of life so they don’t have such boring photos ... But they’re clearly manipulated so that anyone would know it wasn’t an image that was taken. Of the photographers, five out of six said the Age made most and best use of the technology (with more montages and illustrations than the Herald Sun). However they were not particularly aware of photographic
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 115/282
styles outside their own state. The sixth photographer, John Woodstra, said he thought there was no difference in the standard/degree of usage among all metropolitan-daily newspapers in Australia. At the Herald Sun, editor Peter Blunden said there was no outstanding best, but pointed to some bad examples of digital technology usage in newspapers – notably the Age magazine cover depicting then Premier Jeff Kennett as naked. Pictorial manager Bruce Howard said most Australian metropolitan dailies used the technology reasonably well with no outstanding (or outstandingly unethical) user. Among photographers/photographer-editors, Wayne Ludby thought that the Age and the Australian newspapers made most use of the technology, and because their photographers were allowed more time and more control over their images, they were more prone to over-using its capabilities and coming up with unethical images. However, Lucy Swinstead thought there was little difference between the Age and Herald Sun’s usage and said the Australian Financial Review made most use of the technology for its new-look abstract illustrations. But she thought individual standards, rather than time, would determine how much a photograph was retouched/manipulated. Craig Burrows thought the Age was in front in usage of the technology, but that this also created more ethical dilemmas, particularly since Age photographers had more time at their disposal to improve on the original. Ian Baker said there were few differences in metro daily usage, and all were susceptible to the use of supplied/advertising photographs (such as models like Elle McPherson who insisted on controlling their image). Mark Smith thought the Age used to over-use their digital imaging capabilities, but said the Age was now backing away from this after the ethical problems involved. He thought the Australian Financial Review used it a lot, but was in a different market. He also believed that Australian Financial Review readers were well aware of the new approach to illustration. Stuart Hannagan (a former Age picture editor) thought News Limited publications used and abused the technology more than Fairfax, and did not think time to retouch made any real difference.
4.5.
CODES AND REGULATION
At the time the Australian interviews and surveys were carried out, the only newspaper in the study to have an official and relatively detailed code dealing with photojournalism/image manipulation ethics was the Herald Sun. However, given this code had been instituted by an editor who had since departed for the opposition newspaper, its current status was unclear, and some of the newer photographers had never seen it. In February 1999, just over a year after the Herald Sun study had been carried out, this code was updated with minimal changes and extended to all News Limited newspaper titles (see Appendix A.3.1.3.). The Age, which had employed the Herald Sun’s previous editor as its new editor/publisher, was in the process of replacing its one-paragraph memo warning against manipulation, and devising a new code to be based on the Herald Sun’s Professional Practice Policy. This code was released in October 1998 (see Appendix A.3.1.4.), almost a year after the Age study was carried out. Other newspaper employees cited general _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 116/282
codes (ranging from those in the News Limited group who believed the Herald Sun policy applied to them, to those who cited allegiance to the Australian MEAA Code of Ethics for Journalists (see Appendix A.3.1.1.), and those who thought there was an “unwritten code” that was understood). The Australian Press Council released its statement on Alteration of Pictures in June 1998, after the Australian study had been carried out (see Appendix A.3.1.2.). As this research was ending in August 2001, The Sydney Morning Herald was in the process of developing a company-wide code of ethics applying to all Fairfax newspapers, although references in the draft code to digital manipulation were being kept minimal, with only one sentence stipulating that: “Herald journalists will present pictures and sound that are true and accurate. They will disclose manipulation that could mislead.” (draft code cited in Burton, 2001: email). When asked which
codes or regulations governed photography ethics at the newspaper, Australian
Financial Review former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood said he did not make rules because such things were impossible when dealing with “a product that changes every day”. He said there were “parameters” in place, rather than strict guidelines, to guard against the technology being over-used, and that these parameters were defined through in-house discussion, after which there was generally an “absolute understanding” of what was and was not acceptable. [I]f there is any doubt, people will ask a question. And sometimes if it does fall over the line, well … but it’s a creative process, and like all creative processes you cannot provide strict lines. This is not like providing some sort of system like X-ratings, R-ratings, PG, M, MAratings for movies. You can’t do it. What you can do is you send principles down the line and the supervisor, who is Greg [Newington], provides guidelines, and there’s an interaction of people every day about these things and questions asked. But there’s no rules … therefore training. A set of rules is not really the point here. It’s essentially the culture, and the professionalism, and the common sense of people within the organisation … [T]he balance that you always have to make is between organisational requirements and the absolute necessities for creativity. And if the creativity goes, you’re gone. (When informed later that lack of training on ethical matters was an issue with photographers, he said he would be prepared to consider action if photographers raised the issue with him.) Picture editor Greg Newington said there was no formal code or official policy because every photographer had control over her or his own images. Also, he believed every image should be treated on its own merits. However, he said that photographers generally understood that “a news image was not to be touched”. If photographers wanted to “funkify up” their images, that was fine. But changes to the image (colourations, dropping out/inserting objects) must be acknowledged with the caption “photo-illustration”. Photographers said there was no written code. Three expressed disquiet about this (the most senior news photographers – all women). Belinda Pratten said she was particularly keen to have “rules” and had asked for a meeting about it with the picture editor and other photographers three weeks before the interview. (She explained that this was probably because, as a suburban photographer several years ago, one of her pictures had once _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 117/282
been manipulated without her consent.) She also did not believe there was a common understanding at the Australian Financial Review about which enhancements were acceptable and which were not. Those with a more artistic or commercial background were less concerned. At the Australian, former editor Campbell Reid said there was a code in force at the moment based on Steve Harris’ Herald and Weekly Times Code of Professional Practice (see Appendix A.3.1.3.) but he did not know if it was in place at the time of the Martin Bryant photo-imaging controversy (see Appendix A.4.1.3.). However, he rejected the idea that newspapers were out to subvert the truth and needed to be held in check. He gave examples whereby more retouching would be necessary in order to provide the public with a picture they had an interest in seeing that might otherwise have been of unpublishable quality. I’m … a bit affronted by the idea … the assumption, that we’re not going to do the right thing, that we’re not as human beings going to know how to behave unless somebody hands us a rule book … At the end of the day, newspapers, all news services, rely on one thing which is their credibility. And if your credibility is exposed and you are shown to be a plagiarist or a creator of false photographs or a distorter of the truth, then every time you do that, another brick in the foundation of your credibility is removed. So therefore our requirement, our obligation, to behave ethically is at the absolute foundation cornerstone of what we do. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen had strong views on this subject. He acknowledged that existing formal training was not good, but said this was typical of newspapers, and that the best education came on-the-job anyway. As for Photoshop training, he said photographers were using early versions because they did not need to have complex skills: “The worst thing you can have in a newspaper is someone who tries to do something by the book,” he said. The textbook approach was usually slower and technical perfection in Photoshop was not a requirement for photographers at the Australian. As for codes, he said there was “not really” a formal one in existence at the Australian: “It’s an unwritten code.” When told of his editor’s response to this question, he said he had temporarily forgotten about the News Limited code. None of the Australian’s photographers was aware of a specific code dealing with the technology, although some said they generally abided by the MEAA code, and another thought the company might have some policy in place. Several referred to an “unwritten code”. Verity Chambers said training would be unlikely to make any difference anyway, as people would still be tempted to improve on photos (something she doesn’t think matters very much on the smaller scale – it’s when fabrication of people and events, not moving a wire, are involved that it becomes a problem). She said there was no need for training the photographers used by the Australian, but that increased scrutiny in general could be beneficial. Sydney Morning Herald picture manager Michael Young said there was an unwritten code: “No, it’s not written. It’s one that is enforced and articulated by myself and they know what they are allowed to do and _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 118/282
what they’re not allowed to do.” He said he believed this code and the technical training photographers received was adequate because ultimately photographers only needed a day’s training on Photoshop to learn how to make photographs reproducible and change from colour to black and white. Picture editor Gary McLean said there was a voluntary code and that it was very clear. He said the editor had made it clear that anyone who manipulated a photograph would be sacked. Nevertheless, he said there were still some grey issues. He later remarked that some kind of formal training in the ethics or a strict code would be beneficial. All but one of the Sydney Morning Herald photographers interviewed were in favour of a formal written code being introduced as well as better training in photographic ethics. Three made reference to an “unwritten code”. The dissenter, Palani Mohan, said he did not think a formal code or training program would make any difference to behaviour, and that Sydney Morning Herald photographers were very ethical anyway. Dean Sewell wanted a general code and training program on ethics for MEAA members/ newspaper photographers. At the Daily Telegraph, managing editor Roger Coombs said there was no specific code, but a broad awareness, particularly at the level of editors and news editors, that the material needed to be treated carefully. He did not think there had been any particular training courses or other initiatives aimed at photographers’ ethics. He said that if photographers had lost a degree of control, then perhaps it was a necessary evil. He said the general rule was: “If you’ve got any doubts, consult your editor”, and added that “The new imperative is to be honest and upfront about what you do.” Picture editor Julian Zakaris said he had seen the Steve Harris code designed for the Herald Sun and thought it a good example of a code of ethics. But he said there was a guideline at the Daily Telegraph forbidding undue manipulation of images. The policy was written somewhere, he said, and it was his predecessor who was responsible for writing it after a member of staff complained to Media Watch about the manipulation of a photograph of dolphins in Sydney Harbour. Media Watch ran the photograph, and the policy followed. However, he said that because the majority of the photographers did not scan their own images in anyway, the issue of undue manipulation did not usually arise. He said the imaging department was well aware of the limits, and when there was any uncertainty about the limits of acceptable retouching, he was called in to decide the final version. Few photographers at the Daily Telegraph were clear on whether there was a code of ethics (unwritten or otherwise). Comments included the following from Jeff Darmanin: “There is, somewhere. I should know. I was a member of the house committee at Cumberland [newspapers] and I do have the code of ethics.” He also thought, however, that the whole issue came down to trust, and with photographers increasingly losing control, it meant they were not trusted. In the end, he thought this would backfire on management because photographers knew how to use Photoshop anyway. Another thought he had read a code about ethics after the Martin Bryant photo-manipulation charges. He said the basic premise was “no obvious manipulations”. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 119/282
Another (features photographer Bob Barker) said that while he was not aware of any code, the real danger of manipulation did not come from photographers but from layout people. Kristi Miller said there was a code that everyone talked about but nothing formal (in writing). Uwe Kuessner and Nicole Emanuel said they had never heard of a code, although Ms Emanuel said there was much discussion after the Martin Bryant photograph “fiasco” which left her with the impression that she should consult her boss if she had an ethical dilemma: “If it comes down to the question of shouldn’t I, the bosses [say] if you have any doubts just shoot and leave it up to us in the end.” With a new editor and pictorial manager, the Age was about to embark on re-formulating its policy. Both Age editor Mike Gawenda and pictorial manager Louise Graham thought the then current memo on digital imaging ethics at the Age was inadequate and with the arrival of new editor-in-chief Steve Harris, plans were underway for a more detailed general code to replace it (see Appendix A.3.2.4.). Louise Graham said the current “one-sheet thing” was not appropriate: I think it’s pretty fluffy and it doesn’t really draw the line ... But even in the code that will come down from upstairs I still think there will be grey areas ... [where] the editor has the final say, and it does depend on who is editing the paper at the time and what their ethics are ... so there is a grey area that can sometimes be the responsibility of one person to state a rule on the day. She said it was impossible to have a code unless it was enforced throughout the company and every department (including imaging and advertising) was aware of it. Thus, it had to be enforced “from the top floor right down to the bottom.” Although it was very hard to train someone to be ethical, she said it was far easier to give them a code to abide by and to let them know what the company expected, and what was a sackable offence. Among photographers, opinions on whether there was a code varied from two who thought there was an unwritten code to one who remembered once seeing a memo to three who thought there were guidelines but did not remember seeing them. Two photographers mentioned an attempt at devising their own code within the photographic department after an incident involving photo manipulation (see Appendix A.4.1.4.), but said views were too divided to come up with common standards. All photographers were in favour of codified principles. When it was pointed out to editor Mike Gawenda that the photographers were generally not aware of the newspaper’s then existing written code, he said: “That’s interesting.” and said it probably referred to a lack of working together between the photography department and the rest of the newspaper which would need to be addressed. At the Herald Sun, editor Peter Blunden said that “judgment and taste” were ultimately the deciding factors where ethics was concerned. In any case, the Herald Sun was not out to cheat readers: “You don’t try to get _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 120/282
away with things – nor would you ever want to.” On the other hand, when asked about codes or other forms of training, he replied: You can’t really have too much training. There are still a lot of experienced journos that miss out on the fundamentals ... the system can never be perfect ... I think it’s a lot better than it used to be that the big media companies have taken the time and effort and energy to ensure that we give our people the best training. Because ... if people are not properly trained we don’t have a product. However he later acknowledged that photographer training was lacking. He said the company now had a policy of not taking on cadet photographers, and so they did not benefit from the same cadet training (including the MEAA Journalists’ Code of Ethics or the company’s Professional Practice Policy) as word journalists. However he said the codes were called upon when it was clear that they could help resolve a particular issue. However they were rarely used in reference to ethical decision-making with Photoshop, partly because the techniques were not heavily used, and partly because photographers had little access to the technology: It is rare that photographers are actually ... making the final decision. Oh they’ll edit their own pictures, um, and they’ll give us the first selection, and they’ll pretty much know what the best frames are, so they’ll put them up. But as far as exactly how they’re used, what size, how they’re cropped, what page, all those details are pretty much out of their hands, to be honest. Herald Sun photographers were universally in favour of greater training, saying that the policy on imaging needed to be talked about and understood. They were also frustrated by their lack of control over their images, and said that if education about photographic ethics were combined with greater control, then image integrity would be much more protected. Nearly all had a story to tell of how a designer from a technical or artistic background had shown a lack of education on news photography and had overstepped ethical boundaries. The most common criticism was that designers over-colourised or changed colours completely.
4.6.
PERCEPTIONS OF INTRA-ORGANISATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Differences in perceptions of ethics were sometimes strongly marked from one organisational level to the next. Even in cases where photographers said they had great respect and admiration for their editor (such as at the Australian Financial Review), many sought more direction on photojournalism ethics. This often came as a surprise when mentioned to editors in later interviews, who generally thought that understanding of computer retouching limits had been well communicated, even if they admitted to not being fully aware themselves as to the issues at stake. Only Age editor Mike Gawenda felt that the policies on and general understanding of photo-manipulation were inadequate and needed to be addressed. Photographers often felt _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 121/282
that editors were not well enough informed about the visual side of their newspaper in general, and about photo-manipulation ethics in particular. At the Australian Financial Review, former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood said he was under no illusion that his deliberate policy decision to exploit the technology to its fullest was a controversial one on all levels: “There was a deliberate policy and … we had particular needs. And it was quite controversial … I had it fed back to me that Rupert Murdoch didn’t like it and thought that a news photograph was a news photograph.” He said older members of the industry were more negative than younger ones. Australian Financial Review picture editor Greg Newington said there was a good general communication about photo ethics, and good lines of communication with management, but that photographers in general could be “far apart” where ethical standards were concerned. Photographers were divided on this issue. Belinda Pratten said that the national newspapers all had different definitions of what was a photograph versus what was an illustration. And there are also differences between photographers working for the same publication. She mentioned instances whereby a photograph would be heavily colourised in the Australian Financial Review but still called a photograph, whereas other newspapers would label it an illustration. This was an ethical dilemma for her: “I would probably call that an illustration myself, but everybody has different guidelines.” The Australian’s former editor Campbell Reid said there was a fairly similar professional attitude on ethics at Australian metropolitan dailies, although there was more manipulation at experimental newspapers like the Australian Financial Review and some of the smaller country/regional newspapers. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen thought that apart from the Australian Financial Review, most news photographers understood the boundaries (although he later said he could tell when photos were manipulated and said he saw examples fairly regularly). Photographers at the Australian were unsure about whether their views were similar to those of colleagues and others in the company. But they trusted their colleagues in terms of their integrity. For example, Warren Clarke said that while no one talked about ethics much and there was no standard agreement: “I think most photographers basically know THE code of ethics. Most photographers are interested to see photography in its purest form”. Paul Burston, on the other hand, said the issue was discussed frequently “over a beer at the pub”, though agreed there was no formal forum for discussion in the office. He said the real problem was not lack of agreement with other photographers, but with the design and imaging department, who were often not from photographic backgrounds and had no real interest in the “integrity” of the photograph. For example, he said they did not understand how to transform a colour image into black and white because they did not understand colour grading in the same way as a photographer did (for example, they made teeth white when they are not really that way at all). He said it was interesting that the controversy over the manipulation of the Martin Bryant photograph at the Australian occurred as a result of a colour problem. As for management, he said they had no real interest in the photography department and that their lack of knowledge and assumption of control was insulting. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 122/282
Mark Williams repeated the criticism that there was a lack of understanding and communication between the imaging department and photographers, but was not sure if this also applied to management.. He said that in general most photographers thought similarly about digital photography ethics. However, there were differences in what was acceptable in the features department compared to news, and he thought this was one reason why photographers were usually assigned to work for one department or the other. Verity Chambers thought organisational views on photographic ethics were fairly similar. However, she said that digital imaging ethics were subject to individual differences in photographic style. For example, she said some photographers would have fewer scruples about photographing private situations on private property. She said no amount of training would stop people trying to improve their photographs, and often it did not matter so much with little things. Paul Jones, however, thought photographers at the Australian had quite different views about imaging ethics: “In all honesty it comes down to what you can get away with.” (This was consistent with his view that he did not believe a photograph was true anyway.) Sydney Morning Herald picture manager Michael Young said differences never arose: We just don’t do photo-manipulation in the way that the Fin Review do it. I think the Fin Review have not only got close to the line but have crossed the line. We just don’t do it … it’s not photography, it’s illustration. It has its place, I’m not saying that it doesn’t, but it’s illustration using photographic tools. Picture editor Gary McLean said all photographers were clear on the ethical standards they needed to adopt, although there were some grey areas open to debate. All Sydney Morning Herald photographers were adamant that they trusted their colleagues on their ethical standards – even though some differences arose (for example, Dean Sewell thought it was not ethical to set up photographs, preferring what he called the traditions of European photojournalism, whereas Bobby Pearce said that in general anything set up before the photograph was taken was acceptable). At the Daily Telegraph, managing editor Roger Coombs thought there was a general understanding among editors and the imaging department, but he did not think the issue was particularly relevant to photographers as they were not usually required to retouch images. However, Julian Zakaris said disagreements did arise quite frequently, and in these cases he was the arbiter. Photographers generally thought that while they had similar ideas about what was acceptable, the designers at the imaging department often retouched images more than photographers would have liked. However, sometimes there were fundamental differences on appropriate levels of retouching even among photographers or photo editors. To illustrate this, he referred to the infamous example of photo manipulation at the Australian, where the eyes of accused killer Martin Bryant had been highlighted to the extent that he appeared mad. His account of how the photograph had been changed contradicted the explanation of former Australian editor Campbell Reid, in that Mr Zakaris said the decision to run the “mad eyes” had been a premeditated _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 123/282
one, and that the Australian’s picture editor approved it. As a newspaper picture editor for the same company, Mr Zakaris said he had been offered the manipulated image for use in the Daily Telegraph, but had refused to run it, preferring another version using only very basic reproduction techniques. Mr Zakaris did not believe the Australian had set out to be unethical in its use of the photograph, but rather that the problem resulted from a designer having been handed control of the image instead of a photographer. However, he said he still could not understand how his photo editor counterpart at the Australian could have approved the use of an obviously heavily manipulated image. Only Age editor Mike Gawenda thought there would be a difference of opinion about ethical issues between photographic staff and others employed in the newsroom in editorial/editorial management: I think there would be agreement with some photographers and not with others ... I’ve been in this job for three months [and] I haven’t had the opportunity to really go through this issue with them ... I’m surprised they don’t know about the code that was drawn up. Pictorial manager Louise Graham believed there to be a similar view among photographers on professional ethics at the Age, but said the problems were greater at other newspapers where the picture editor did not have a high status in the company and was not entrusted with making top-level decisions. Two photographers mentioned that while they had believed there would be a fairly standard view on the ethics of manipulating photographs, they had been shown otherwise by the “cow incident” at the Age (see Appendix A.4.1.4.) and the discussion which followed in the department. One new recruit – Manuela Cifra – thought there was a similar view among colleagues, and between departments and managerial layers. However the perpetrator of the manipulated cows photograph, John Woodstra, was uncertain on this question, saying he was still inclined to use the technology more than most of his colleagues. I think everyone has similar views. There are certain people who use digital imaging more than others ... I used to be one of those ... well, I suppose I still am ... I don’t actually change the content of the picture any more though whereas in the past I suppose I’ve had some [problems with this]. At the Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden responded again in terms of the Professional Practice Policy (see Appendix A.3.1.3.), saying there was a commonly understood standard which boiled down to common sense. He pointed to other publications (such as the Age with its Jeff Kennett magazine cover) which he thought did not necessarily have the same ideas about ethics in these areas and were inclined to overstep the boundaries of ethical retouching. Pictorial manager Bruce Howard thought there was a common understanding about the policy throughout the company. Among photographers/picture editors, Wayne Ludby thought there were substantial differences on retouching standards between colleagues and between other editorial staff, management and photographers. Lucy Swinstead believed ethical standards to be very different throughout the organisation, between news and features departments, and said the difference of _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 124/282
opinion had increased with the introduction of the new technology along with all its new options. Ian Baker and Mark Smith thought there were very similar views among photographers and throughout the organisation, whereas Stuart Hannagan said photographers all agreed on basic standards, but he did not believe there was a particularly good understanding of photographic department issues from other parts of the organisation. Craig Burrow said he thought there were substantial differences among photographers, but was not sure how the rest of the organisation understood the issues.
4.7.
PHOTOGRAPHERS’ ATTITUDES TO THEIR JOB AS ART OR PROFESSION
This series of questions provoked a wide range of views. Photographers working more often in hard news images tended to see themselves more as news professionals than as artists, whereas the description was usually reversed for news feature/feature photographers. Most of the interviewees saw their job as a mixture of the two. At the Australian Financial Review, former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood and picture-editor Greg Newington said photography was both an art and a profession. In answer to the question on photographic truth, Greg Hywood had this to say: “What is truth in photography? If you take a photograph from one lens, it looks entirely different than if you take it with another lens, but they’re both photographs.” Photographers said the issue of whether their job was professional or artistic depended on the context – a news shot could be more about truth, and a features shot more about art, although they did think there was more scope for “lateral” interpretation of truth in news shots, illustrating one idea through another, particularly with financial stories where it was difficult to extract interesting photographs from the subjects themselves. For example, a story about rising interest rates could be illustrated by a photograph of an abseiler climbing a mountain. The photographers with more advertising/commercial backgrounds tended to emphasise the artistic importance. According to Frances Mocnic: “Aesthetic is important to every job. You capture truth via the aesthetic and vice versa…I certainly think that an aesthetic photograph … makes a bigger impact than one that just contains the elements.” Only Michelle Mossop (who had a traditional news photography background) said she was reluctant to consider news photography as an art at all. The Australian’s former editor Campbell Reid said photographs had always been vulnerable to untruths, and in the digital era they were probably more truthful than ever before. He described news photographers as professionals who wanted to deliver the truth in images to their public, although they would naturally be tempted to take out temporary facial blemishes such as pimples. He was not totally opposed to this but by and large thought the technology should be used to bring images up to a standard where they could be published, but that they should also mirror what was in front of the lens. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 125/282
saw the job as a mix between a profession and an art. However, he thought news photographers tended to be governed more by professional than artistic values because “if you’re an artist you’re pursuing your own goals and that’s not consistent with being paid a wage by someone who produces a product”. As a side issue, he commented that he thought the trend in newspaper photography was to move away from artistic photos and towards what he called a more tabloid style (with close-cropped, candid images) – a trend that started in the UK and had moved to Australia. He thought this trend would have a long-term effect on the industry: “We’re all going away from the classic, artistic pictures to have much more immediate tabloid style newspapers, stuff that is not set up.” It should be noted that this contradicts the view expressed throughout Section 4.2. that setting up photographs is one of the key characteristics of the British tabloid style. Of the photographers at the Australian, Paul Jones said he did not think that photographs told the truth. He said even young photographers were amazed when they were first trained in the technology. Paul Burston said it was both a professional and artistic occupation, but ultimately the professional side won out. He thought news photographs did tell the truth but said he was one of the “purists” in the industry. Nevertheless, he thought truth was less important in feature photographs. All in all, photographers on the Australian thought they were more professional than artistic. For Mark Williams, it all depended on what the word truth meant. “Quite often you go out there and it’s really not like that but your editor is saying that’s what I want”. He said that when he started the job he would have liked to think of himself as an artist, but over recent years he had realised that his primary function was to record events. Megan Lewis thought news photography a blend of the artistic and professional. But Warren Clarke saw it primarily as a professional occupation. Even in features, he said, realism was making a comeback. At the Sydney Morning Herald, picture manager Michael Young described news photography as more professional than artistic, but thought the occupation was best described as a craft. Nevertheless, he thought the job was becoming increasingly more professionally-oriented: I think it’s a craft, mainly, rather than an art form. I don’t have much time for art photography … The US market has led the world in saying that photography is an art form and I suppose it could be considered an art form as such, but I still think it is considered more of a craft … For years in the US it consumed galleries over there, and in fact, in the UK it has gone the same way … it’s still 10 years behind in that respect. But I think photojournalism is very different. It’s not an art form. I think if you have an artist who comes through the recognised art background and starts to use photography as a medium of expression, then it’s different from photography itself. It becomes an expression of a specific concept … or freedom … they may have. Photojournalism is not an art form, it is a skill. It could be an intuitive skill if you like to know how a picture is taken, how a picture is framed.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 126/282
Picture editor Gary McLean said the style was changing and was becoming increasingly artistic, but he did not think this was distorting the inherent truthfulness of photos. Sydney Morning Herald photographers had differing and sometimes surprising views on this. For example, features photographer Sachlan Hayes said he did not see that much of what he did was artistic – it was more of a professional job aimed at capturing truth and more of a craft. His features colleague Jennifer Soo agreed with this view, saying there was “art involved” but that overall she saw herself as a professional. News photographers Dean Sewell and Palani Mohan and sports photographer Steve Christo said they thought the job was a combination of art and professional newsgathering. Meanwhile veteran all-rounder Bobby Pearce said it depended completely on the job – some photographs depended more on art, others were completely focussed on straight-shooting of news events. However, he said the nature of the job had been changing over the 33 years of his career and that it was no longer appropriate to describe photojournalists as press photographers and the job was now more multi-dimensional and interpretative. Daily Telegraph managing editor Roger Coombs said he did not know if photography was more an art or profession, but described photographers at two levels (those who take the pictures or gather information and those who did the imaging (managerial photographers who are entrusted with more of the ethical decisions at that level). This view of general photographers as information gatherers was endorsed by Julian Zakaris. He said photographers at broadsheets like the Australian had more licence to fiddle around and make “their skies all dark and their clouds all puffy”. One Daily Telegraph photographer described herself as an artist, another preferred the word photojournalist, yet another saw himself as a news professional. Meanwhile feature photographer Bob Barker said newspaper photography was not art – it was truth or the photographer’s perception of it. The remaining two said it was a blend of an art and a profession, but more of a profession. In all, with one exception, they rejected art in favour of the news gathering/truthtelling side. At the Age, editor Mike Gawenda said he thought most photographers would consider their job as a profession, but that there was obviously a hybrid between professional values such as truth and artistic values. However, his pictorial manager, Louise Graham, said that compared with traditional professions like law, she would consider photojournalism more of an art form. She said it is probably some kind of hybrid, requiring artistry, technical skills, and understanding of journalism and the news issues of the day. With one exception, Age photographers were emphatic that their work fitted much more snugly to the profession category as opposed to art. Although they acknowledged it might be a more artistic profession than most, they viewed the artist categorisation as extremely dangerous to their reputation as news reporters. For example, Peter Cox thought that even computer-colourised food pictures should be acknowledged (although the other four photographers thought there should be more artistic leeway in features photographs compared to news). Only Andrew De La Rue gave art and professional reporting an _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 127/282
equal weighting as necessary skills for the job, saying that it was impossible to have one without the other. Thus he saw art as a necessary component of professional as opposed to amateur news photography. On the issue of whether photographs tell the truth, Age editor Mike Gawenda said that he thought most readers assumed that photographs told the truth, and that this was the expectation that the newspaper tried as much as possible to meet. Pictorial manager Louise Graham said that while news photographs told the truth, feature photographs were a hybrid of truth and art. Among photographers, John Woodstra thought that photographs were a mixture of truth and art, but that feature photographs could be more artistic, whereas news photographs should capture a real event and not be tampered with in the pre-press process. Meanwhile, features photographer Craig Abraham said that because the public expected photographs to be true, this is what photographers should strive to deliver – for this reason he was uncomfortable with photojournalists who described themselves as artists. He said truth was the far more important value. Andrew De La Rue thought that it was possible to have the best of both worlds – a true picture which had enough art for people to want to look at, so as to make it interesting: If you’ve got no news and your picture’s got no art, then you haven’t got a picture which is going to get published. It’s a blend of both of these. A picture that looks like an event is going to look like your grandmother took it ... The picture must be truthful, the picture doesn’t lie but it’s got to look good as well. You don’t want it to look like a suburban paper ... Peter Cox, Ray Kennedy and Manuela Cifra all responded that photographs should be accurate, but that more artistry was permitted in features than news photographs. Peter Cox said accuracy didn’t forbid taking out a lamp-post or wire to improve the photograph, whereas Manuela Cifra said art and “improving” the photograph should be forbidden in a news image. On the question of whether the job was more professional or artistic, Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden said this depended on whether the photographer was trying to tell a story or give an accurate representation of what happened at the event. As for whether photographs were true, he said this also varied: “It depends if it’s telling a story or if it’s giving you an accurate reflection of what happened.” Pictorial manager Bruce Howard thought press photography was a combination of many things, involving both art and news skills. He said he told cadets they should feel at home in art galleries and that they must learn that they were close to art while recording history. However on the question of whether photographs were true, he did not think truth should ever be overridden by art, although for features photographs “you might be able to do more artistic things, represent what you think is best but not falsifying it”. Among Herald Sun photographers/picture editors, the general view was that the job verged on being professional more than artistic. Wayne Ludby said the longer he stayed in the job, the more he considered _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 128/282
himself a news professional and the less an artist. Lucy Swinstead thought of herself as “just a professional”. The rest all saw themselves more as news professionals than as artists. On the question of whether photographs were true, photographers found this difficult to answer. All talked in terms of the elements of truth in a photograph that the photographer tried to capture, except for Wayne Ludby who saw photographs as images of truth and the photographer as a documentor of reality. The other five all believed there was more truth in a news photograph than in a features photograph.
4.8.
PERCEPTIONS OF READERS’ ATTITUDES
Most Australian photographers, picture editors and editors thought that readers trusted images in their newspaper, but thought readers were becoming increasingly cynical as they became increasingly familiar with the technology and media criticism. Most also said they thought photographs were “true”, with the notable exception of Sydney Morning Herald picture manager Michael Young, who described photographs in newspapers as representational. At the Australian Financial Review, former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood said the newspaper had a different and younger demographic (five or ten years younger on average than demographics of other major metropolitan newspapers) which was technologically literate and responded well to new illustrative techniques rather than to pure representational photographs. His overall view was that any manipulation of images was acceptable as long as it did not deceive the reader (and that this was ultimately what the reader cared about). He said that since the newspaper manipulated photographs in a very obvious way, it was clear to the reader that the photograph was not representational. He said he had never had a complaint from a reader over “terrible ethical issues” like deception, and that what the newspaper did with its images is well understood by staff and readers alike. Pictorial manager Greg Newington also said that readers were well aware of the style of the newspaper and said that sometimes the abstract image told a much more truthful account of a business story than the “boring-men-in-suits” photograph. Australian Financial Review photographers all agreed that truth was crucial to the credibility of their organisation, but said the aesthetic was also important, and that if an image conveyed a greater truth by being more artistic, then that was acceptable. But from this point, opinions varied. For example, Rod Young (who had an advertising background) said that if he changed colour in a dramatic way, he would still define the image as a photograph rather than an illustration. Deputy picture editor Michelle Mossop (who has a traditional news photography background) was reluctant to change anything in a photograph in a news picture: “The most you should do is crop it or [use] minor darkroom techniques.” She was particularly concerned by the ethical implications of the technology. However, she was prepared to accept far more alteration in feature photographs than in news. This was because she thought interpretation was _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 129/282
more allowable in features, which she defined as “certainly more subjective”, and because the degree of acceptable manipulation depended on the context of the image and whether the public imagination would accept its version of events. The Australian’s former editor, Campbell Reid, said it was important not to treat the public as fools, and that readers were smart enough to know that the sky was not bright red in general, and that such colourisations were a digital effect. There was not a need to tell them. Also, he pointed out that more complicated procedures were necessary to bring a photo up to publishable quality sometimes. In all, he said that whether a heavily retouched image went to print was often a question of public interest in making sure that the image was seen, rather than following some rigid rule which would see the photograph binned. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said he had no problem with manipulated pictures being used in news pages, and said that while the market was still conservative, readers were becoming increasingly accepting of image manipulation. He added that newspaper managements had to be aware that most of their readers were older people who were used to seeing news in a certain way. Nevertheless the success of liftouts and the new layout styles were proving that people could accept change over time. He did not think the public was becoming any more cynical: “If they did they wouldn’t watch ACA [A Current Affair].” And anyway, he thought newspapers were “actually quite responsible” and that “these are questions that only ever seem to be asked by people at universities … it’s not something that’s actually an issue out there”. Of the Australian’s photographers, Paul Jones thought that while the public realised photographers set up photographs, they probably did not realise the capacity of computers to deceive. Mark Williams said that while readers expected news photographs to tell the truth, they might not be as concerned by truth in feature photographs. Verity Chambers thought readers were becoming increasingly wary: “People are actually suspicious that if it’s a really good picture, oh, it must have been imaged.” However she saw this as a positive trend, even though the techniques used in Photoshop were only an extension of what had always been done in the darkroom. Still, on the whole she thought readers tended to believe what they saw. Warren Clarke said he did not think the public cared about newspaper photographs much at all: “I know a lot of my friends, they never look at pictures in the paper…and I get a little saddened by that. You know, sometimes you work your butt off…” Paul Burston said the public was becoming more cynical and didn’t like being “sucked in”. Megan Lewis said she did not know if people cared about accuracy in photographs or not. At the Sydney Morning Herald, picture manager Michael Young thought photographs were essentially untrue: [A] photograph is fake representation of the world. A black and white photograph is a fake representation of the world , a digital picture is the same … A moving film is a fake. It’s just _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 130/282
a massive trick we play on ourselves to confuse our eyes. It’s an illusion. However, he thought readers probably trusted photographs more than they trusted a painting. Picture editor Gary McLean said he did not think readers cared too much about re-enactments of events in photographs which were purported to have taken place spontaneously in front of the lens. He said overall readers preferred interpretation of the truth – something cute or powerful – to bland reality: “Interpretations of the event are the ones we get the most feedback on.” The majority of Sydney Morning Herald photographers were adamant that truth was still as important as ever in their jobs and that their credibility with the public relied on truthful images. They described themselves in terms of being documentary photojournalists, although Bobby Pearce said he had no objection to the photographer changing what was in front of the camera as long as it was done before the photograph was taken and not after. Dean Sewell said he thought readers were capable of recognising great pictures, but not necessarily “doctored” ones. However Steve Christo said that he was surprised at the occasional calls indicating reader cynicism over whether a photograph was “real” or not. Palani Mohan said he thought readers took the credibility of the newspaper’s images for granted. But he was disappointed that they often saw the photograph as a decorative accompaniment to a news story. Overall he thought they were more interested in being emotionally moved and that it was the photographers who cared more about truth. At the Daily Telegraph managing editor Roger Coombs said photographs were true reports in that photographers were sent out as information gatherers. He said readers were not sceptical about the veracity of news photographs for the present, but “put that thought in their head and they’d probably leap to that conclusion!” Picture editor Julian Zakaris said that although photographs should be true reports, the highlighting of ethical abuses through investigative programs like Media Watch was making audiences increasingly sceptical. All photographers thought that photographs told the truth, although two defined this as the photographer’s vision of the truth (for example, Nicole Emmanuel said setting up a photograph did not pose a problem in truthtelling unless it was a spot photograph). But as for the photograph’s credibility for readers, Nicole Emmanuel said readers were becoming more sceptical. She found it a shame that readers were now doubting the authenticity of outstandingly “true” photographs. Meanwhile Kristi Miller said that while subjects were suspicious of how they were being set up when photographed, they were not generally aware of what could be done after the photograph has been shot. Bob Barker agreed, as did Jeff Darmanin who said programs like Media Watch were educating the public about the capabilities of the technology. He said the Martin Bryant scandal encouraged more cynicism. Age editor Mike Gawenda and pictorial manager Louise Graham both thought readers cared about complete accuracy, or rather assumed that that was what they would get from photographs when they _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 131/282
bought the newspaper. However Louise Graham thought that while features had to be artistic and create an idea, if you applied the same standards to news photographs “you would be held up to ridicule”. She said audiences definitely had a different expectation of accuracy depending on the photograph and its context: “I think a lot of people expect a news photograph ... to be true and accurate, and they’ll look at a feature photograph and think ‘isn’t that aesthetically nice, or doesn’t it look good, or isn’t that a great photo’.” Among the Age’s photographers there was agreement that readers trusted news images, but they thought that scepticism was increasing. Andrew De La Rue was the only photographer who expressed the view that the public had no need to be sceptical because the Age presented them with photographs that were true and accurate. He said the paper had a great tradition, people trusted this and it was important. On the question of whether complete accuracy should be sacrificed for a more powerful image, photographers thought this was acceptable in a features photograph but not a news photograph (except for John Woodstra, who said he tried to capture the reality of the event and that exact representation was not so important). When it came to news photographs, however, opinion was divided on whether removing light poles/wires/obstructing objects should be considered an inaccuracy, with three photographers saying they did not believe this changed the truth of a news photograph. At the Herald Sun, editor Peter Blunden said readers liked variety in images, but did not answer the question asked, saying there was “no question” as to the validity of the Herald Sun pictures. Pictorial manager Bruce Howard said he thought newspaper readers or viewers were very discerning, and were quick to call and question any irregularities (for example, in the caption). This is increasing, he said, and whereas people historically had not been quick to complain, now they questioned more than ever before. Among photographers, Stuart Hannagan thought there was no difference between the importance truth should have in features versus news photographs, whereas others thought the features sections had more licence to run artistic, beautified images. Wayne Ludby says the public expected to be stimulated, but they also wanted honesty, integrity and credibility – he said the reaction from the community over the Kennett photographs in the Age (and its subsequent fear of trickery) proved this beyond all doubt to him. For his colleague Mark Smith, there was more leeway for manipulation in a features photograph, but the fear of discovery was always a disincentive: A pure news picture, I would personally be worried about pulling a telegraph pole out of, because if I did that and it went and won a Walkley, well I can’t do that because I’ve got to hold the neg up ... so from that point of view news photographers are scared. Features, I think there’s a bit more licence, but if you change it too much it’s not a photograph, conceived by a photographer and taken by a photographer. Getting down to specifics, Ian Baker thought that in features it was acceptable to blur backgrounds, or even clone sections without changing the integrity of the photograph. Again, tradition was the key: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 132/282
It’s just something that would have been done by the artists years ago, but now you can do it photographically because of Photoshop. So I’m not talking about actually distorting the actual subject matter, we’re just talking about something that would have been done by the commercial artist or art department years ago. Craig Burrow said that when he took a photograph he just thought of what would make a nice picture, then tried to portray it as truthfully as possible. Lucy Swinstead said truth was more important for a news picture, art for features. She believed readers to be increasingly cynical as awareness of the technology’s capabilities increased, but she thought traditional levels of manipulation (especially with features photos) should be permitted.
4.9.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MANIPULATION OF IMAGES
In the written survey, respondents were asked the questions: “When should photographs which manipulate the truth be acknowledged?” and “How should these photographs be acknowledged?” In answering the first question, those opting to acknowledge manipulations “only if the manipulation was of a substantial nature and likely to deceive” were more likely to be the editor or picture editor. Only one photographer (at the Age) thought only spot news photographs which manipulated the truth should be acknowledged. Table 4.9-1 : When should photographs which manipulate the truth be acknowledged? Responses in percentage NEWSPAPER1
AFR
AUST
SMH
DT
AGE
HS
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
Always
100
75
100
75
87.5
75
Never
0
0
0
0
0
0
Only if the manipulation is likely to
0
25
0
25
0
25
0
0
0
0
12.52
0
deceive Other
1
AFR=The Australian Financial Review; AUST=The Australian; SMH=The Sydney Morning Herald; DT=The Daily Telegraph;
AGE= The Age; HS=The Herald Sun. 2
spot news only
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 133/282
In Table 4.9-1, photographers were asked whether manipulated photographs should be acknowledged. If they replied that such images should be identified, they were asked to choose between four options: a general symbol (such as a computer icon to show it was not a real photograph); categories such as “photo illustration” or “photo montage”; a caption describing how the photograph had been manipulated (for example, dramatic colour changes or stretching of the image); or their own preference. Those who selected “other” preferred a more precise method containing both categories and a precise caption where possible. Table 4.9-2 : How should these photographs be acknowledged? Responses in percentage NEWSPAPER1
AFR
AUST
SMH
DT
AGE
HS
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
Not at all
0
0
0
0
0
0
With a general symbol
0
0
0
0
0
0
With categories
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
62.5
62.5
With a precise caption
0
0
12.5
12.5
25
37.5
Other
12.5
12.5
0
0
12.5
0
Australian Financial Review former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood said if there was any doubt that the image was a photo-illustration or a representational photograph, it should be clearly defined. The safest policy was to label non-representational photographs as “photo-illustrations”. Picture editor Greg Newington said all images should be acknowledged (and that so far only a couple had slipped through without acknowledgement at the Australian Financial Review). Photographers were almost unanimous in believing that adding elements or taking them away should be an important deciding factor in whether an image was an illustration rather than a photograph. They agreed that readers expected to be told the truth, but often pointed out that readers of their newspaper were more sophisticated than general readers and
1
AFR=The Australian Financial Review; AUST=The Australian; SMH=The Sydney Morning Herald; DT=The Daily Telegraph;
AGE= The Age; HS=The Herald Sun.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 134/282
could be expected to understand abstract ideas conveyed through images, which did not render the images themselves less truthful. At the Australian, former editor Campbell Reid said it came down to ensuring the public knew what was a genuine photograph and what was not. But he said that did not mean treating them as stupid. For example, he said there was no caption at the bottom of a feature photograph to say: “This is a feature picture”. However he says the American-style pedantry with explanations (photographic labels) might well be a cultural thing. You can’t sort of think that everyone is a complete lunatic and can’t tell if the sky is red. It comes back to … understanding the intelligence of your reader and their ability to tell the difference between an image that is…created to serve a kind of purpose or a genuine, this is the news, event … [for example, there is no need to declare that a feature pic is a feature pic]. People who have grown up with newspapers understand where we are coming from. He said that ultimately a newspaper’s obligation with its photography (like its journalism) was to be honest: “So if you were manipulating images or copy to portray a situation that doesn’t exist…then obviously you’re in extremely dangerous territory and you’ve gone beyond the bounds where you ought to be.” (On the other hand, he said that removing shadows is actually doing the right thing to bring pictures up to publishable quality.) Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said he did not really like over-exposed solarising techniques or superimposed images, and said that whenever they are used should be acknowledged as something other than a straight photograph. Of the photographers, only Megan Lewis gave a specific definition of image manipulation as those where elements were added or subtracted, and said such images should be labeled as digitally altered. All the others said the standards were the same as defined by basic reproduction techniques in the darkroom, where elements could be added or subtracted only in so far as traditional darkroom techniques permitted (such as cropping or airbrushing). Any technique over and above this traditional standard should be deemed an illustration, montage, or another appropriate distinguishing label. Of these five photographers, only Paul Burston said he was not sure where the line was. He said it was more an instinctive feeling with photographers about when an image had been altered too drastically. He said colour balance was not manipulation, but taking things out or putting them in was. (When asked about fish-eye lenses, he said they were not a trick image, just a trick lens.) But he said removing a powerline did not mean the image should be labelled a photo-illustration, suggesting that perhaps it could be called an “electronically enhanced image”. Mark Williams said it was fine to alter elements of the photograph before the shot, but said he was “nervous” about fixing up the image on the computer afterwards. Verity Chambers did not think it unethical to remove powerlines, whereas Paul Jones did, but said he had “no issue with colour enhancement”.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 135/282
At the Sydney Morning Herald, picture manager Michael Young said he worked according to a basic rule: “If it can’t be done in the darkroom, it won’t be done.” Altering the tonal balance of the photograph was as far as he would go before deeming the image something other than a photograph. He thought that as soon as the techniques used had gone beyond basic enhancement, the picture should be acknowledged as digitally enhanced. Picture editor Gary McLean said the public did not care much about photographs which interpreted the truth and therefore there was no real need for complicated captions. However, he did think that illustrations should be labelled as such. Among photographers, views differed on this issue. Palani Mohan said all photo illustrations should be acknowledged but that it was a very difficult thing to distinguish. Overall it came down to the unwritten rule that “anything you can’t do in a darkroom” should be acknowledged. Moving elements of a photograph was forbidden; burning and dodging acceptable: “You can darken a cloud as long as you don’t create it.” Like all photographers interviewed at the newspaper, Dean Sewell was in favour of three categories: photograph, photo-illustration and photo-montage: “I think that by having those three terms you can classify most [images] … but if you do change a colour I think it should go down not as a photograph but as a photo-illustration.” He described a very colourised image used in the Australian Financial Review a few months earlier which was not acknowledged. He said the image was now preserved in the Fairfax archive as a photograph. Daily Telegraph managing editor Roger Coombs and picture editor Julian Zakaris both agreed (albeit in vague terms) that as soon as a picture was manipulated past the level of an ordinary photograph, it should be labelled a digital image. But Julian Zakaris said it was the broadsheets who tended to make more use of the digital image/art picture/compilation than the tabloids, who preferred to crop in close and “keep it simple”. Photographers consistently used the so-called “darkroom standard”, saying any Photoshop changes which went beyond traditional techniques should be called a digital manipulation, with one adding that “anything moved” constituted a manipulation. Another said colouration was not a problem and that anyone who said it is was “nitpicking”. At the Age, editor Mike Gawenda said photographs should be acknowledged as soon as they had been manipulated. He qualified this by adding that framing a photograph (cropping) and cropping people out of photographs did not need to be acknowledged. But as for changes to the image itself or its surroundings inside the crop: “I wouldn’t want that changed in any way.” Pictorial editor Louise Graham said images should be acknowledged as soon as the reader’s perception of the situation photographed – particularly in news – changed. For instance, she said a photographic cut-out of two enemies back-to-back on a features page would not need to be acknowledged because it would be symbolic. But a photograph of political adversaries moved to appear closer together would need to be acknowledged. Age photographers were unanimous in the belief that as soon as objects were removed from or added to the photograph, this was a manipulation which should be acknowledged. However several expressed reservations about calling an _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 136/282
image with a lamp-post removed a photo-illustration. For example Craig Abraham said removing powerlines did not make a photograph an illustration, but it meant that the photographer was not nearly as skilful as one who had thought to take two steps sideways to avoid them. He said one of the problems with the technology was that it tended to make people lazy, thinking they could fix something in postproduction. Manuela Cifra said that as long as the photograph is “pretty much what the eye sees” then it was a photograph rather than a digital manipulation. Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden said readers should be aware whenever anything is done to change the meaning of a picture: “But I can’t remember the last time we had to do it, I mean, apart from cropping and deep etching for a features section.” When this occurred it was obvious to the reader so there was no need for acknowledgement: “You’re changing the picture but you’re not changing the meaning of it ... if you stuck another head on it, that’s something different.” Pictorial manager Bruce Howard said manipulated photographs should be acknowledged (however he commented earlier in the interview that a telephone wire taken out of a features photograph need not be acknowledged). But he was not in favour of too many categories, preferring a simple “digitally enhanced image” as a cover-all, even for composites or collages. Photographers/picture editors all agreed that manipulations should be acknowledged when they overstepped traditional darkroom standards – although their ideas of this varied. For instance, Wayne Ludby said anything that was not “dodging or burning” – for instance, adding or subtracting – needed to be acknowledged. Lucy Swinstead and Craig Burrow said changing tones, even colour was probably acceptable, but moving things or people was not. Ian Baker thought the big problem was manipulating the primary subject matter, whereas removing background elements, even cloning, was acceptable. Mark Smith thought it should be acknowledged when the subject matter was manipulated to such an extent that the content of the photograph differs markedly from what actually happened. Stuart Hannagan was one of the few to express reservations about too much tonal change, and said that an image dodged or burned more than 25 percent should be acknowledged, as should adding or subtracting elements. When it came to the written survey on levels of approval for different kinds of photo manipulation, the differences between newspapers were not substantial. As Table 4.9-3 shows, at the two state-based Fairfax newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, respondents were less likely to approve of Photoshop techniques in news photography (1.39 percent approval) than their colleagues. But the newspaper with the highest approval rating, the Australian Financial Review, at 12.5 percent was not far ahead of the other titles. The most popular computer technique was intensifying colours, followed by blurring and dropping out a background. In feature photographs (see Table 4.9-4), the Daily Telegraph was the leader in manipulation approval rates with a total of 52.78 percent, followed by the Australian Financial Review and the Herald Sun (both 43.06 percent), then the Age (38.38 percent), the Australian (34.72 percent) and the Sydney Morning Herald (22.22 percent ). Again, the most popular technique was intensifying colours, _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 137/282
followed by dropping out or blurring backgrounds. However, there was also considerable support for extending borders by cloning elements, and removing distracting elements. In labelled photo illustrations (see Table 4.9-5), there was almost universal support for all techniques, albeit slightly lower at the Herald Sun (84.72 percent) and the Daily Telegraph (87.5 percent) where respondents occasionally expressed caution over techniques like combining people from two separate photographs.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 138/282
Table 4.9-3 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (spot news)
SITUATION
SPOT NEWS (percentage who say yes or maybe)1
NEWSPAPER2
AFR
AUS
SMH
DT
AGE
HS
N=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
1.
Remove distracting telephone poles/wires
0
0
0
0
0
12.5
2.
Move object closer to subject
0
0
0
12.5
0
0
3.
Stretch photo 10 % to fit a layout
37.5
0
0
25
0
0
4.
Combine two people from two separate photos
12.5
0
0
12.5
0
0
5.
Blur a background to emphasise a subject
37.5
12.5
0
25
0
12.5
6.
Remove people from background who distract
0
0
0
0
0
12.5
7.
Intensify colours for graphic effect
50
62.5
0
12.5
12.5
25
8.
Extend a photo’s border by cloning elements
0
12.5
0
25
0
0
9.
Drop out the background
12.5
12.5
12.5
0
0
25
12.5
11.11
1.39
12.5
1.39
9.72
TOTAL (combined percentage of acceptable manipulations)
1
2
Multiple responses were allowed for each category of photograph. AFR=The Australian Financial Review; AUST=The Australian; SMH=The Sydney Morning Herald; DT=The Daily Telegraph;
AGE= The Age; HS=The Herald Sun.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 139/282
Table 4.9-4 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (feature photo)
SITUATION
FEATURE PHOTO (percentage who say yes or maybe)1
NEWSPAPER2
AFR
AUS
SMH
DT
AGE
HS
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
n=8
1.
Remove distracting telephone poles/wires
37.5
37.5
12.5
37.5
50
50
2.
Move object closer to subject
12.5
0
12.5
12.5
12.5
0
3.
Stretch photo 10 % to fit a layout
50
0
25
50
12.5
25
4.
Combine two people from two separate
25
12.5
12.5
25
12.5
0
photos 5.
Blur a background to emphasise a subject
37.5
50
37.5
75
62.5
75
6.
Remove people from background who
0
37.5
12.5
50
25
25
distract 7.
Intensify colours for graphic effect
87.5
100
37.5
62.5
62.5
75
8.
Extend a photo’s border by cloning
62.5
37.5
12.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
75
37.5
37.5
87.5
50
75
43.06
34.72
22.22
52.78
38.89
43.06
elements 9.
Drop out the background
TOTAL (combined percentage of acceptable manipulations)
1
Multiple responses were allowed for each category of photograph.
2
AFR=The Australian Financial Review; AUST=The Australian; SMH=The Sydney Morning Herald; DT=The Daily Telegraph;
AGE= The Age; HS=The Herald Sun.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 140/282
Table 4.9-5 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (photo illustration)
SITUATION
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION (percentage who say yes or maybe)1
NEWSPAPER2
AFR
AUS
SMH
DT
AGE
HS
n=8
n=8
n=7
n=7
n=8
n=8
1.
Remove distracting telephone poles/wires
100
100
100
87.5
100
100
2.
Move object closer to subject
100
100
87.5
100
87.5
50
3.
Stretch photo 10 % to fit a layout
100
75
100
87.5
87.5
75
4.
Combine two people from two separate
100
100
100
75
87.5
75
photos 5.
Blur a background to emphasise a subject
100
100
100
87.5
100
100
6.
Remove people from background who
100
100
100
87.5
87.5
87.5
distract 7.
Intensify colours for graphic effect
100
100
100
87.5
100
100
8.
Extend a photo’s border by cloning elements
100
100
100
87.5
100
75
9.
Drop out the background
100
100
87.5
87.5
100
100
100
97.22
97.22
87.5
94.44
84.72
TOTAL (combined percentage of acceptable manipulations)
1
Multiple responses were allowed for each category of photograph
2
AFR=The Australian Financial Review; AUST=The Australian; SMH=The Sydney Morning Herald; DT=The Daily Telegraph;
AGE= The Age; HS=The Herald Sun.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 141/282
4.10. ATTITUDES TO DIGITAL CAMERAS Rather than dwelling on the consequences of the demise of the photographic negative, photographers and their managers were far more concerned with the practical problems of archiving multiple digital images than in proving the event ever took place. At the Australian Financial Review, former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood said he had not really thought about the issue of how to prove an event had taken place but, when asked to, said he could see potential problems in photographic proof arising from the replacement of film with digital cameras. By contrast, picture editor Greg Newington and his photographers said they were concerned about the ethical implications of not having a negative. Two of the photographers mentioned archiving difficulties (no first copy stored). One said that while the technology lent itself to exploitation it should be embraced and overall the determining factor was a person’s ethics. The Australian’s former editor Campbell Reid said he supposed that not having a negative could be an issue for the long term. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said not having a negative may be a legal issue, but otherwise it was a “moot point” which in real life did not present a problem. Of the photographers, Megan Lewis said she was worried about the demise of the negative. She would rather have a safeguard than to “rely on the individual morality of the photographer”. Warren Clarke had no idea what the problem was, and thought there would still be a raw file – “wouldn’t there?” He said ultimately the technology had to be accepted, no matter what problems it threw up. Paul Burston said the problem could diminish the credibility of the profession. It would make it easier for fake photographs to win an award. The other photographers all thought it was a problem except for Verity Chambers who said photographers had always been able to manipulate images if they wanted to, so why should this make a difference? This was one reason though why contributor pictures were not a problem at the moment – because most times they were taken by ordinary people on the street and submitted as negatives. She did believe a fake picture could win a Walkley, but thought the time involved in Photoshop processes would be too long to be bothered with. Paul Jones was the only photographer who saw the demise of a negative as an archiving problem. Paul Burston reflected a general nostalgia for the print and negative process, rather than the digital one. At the Sydney Morning Herald, picture manager Michael Young said there was no real difference between the technology in its archival or ethical abilities. He said he had always thought Susan Sontag and her idea of photographic record as “deeply boring”. Picture editor Gary McLean had this to say on the consequences of the disappearing negative: “You’re basically relying on the ethics of the individual photographer? That’s a concern…got to say, I’ve never thought of it…They say the camera never lies. Well, it can now, but hopefully it doesn’t”. Features photographer Sachlan Hayes said he was very concerned about the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 142/282
consequences (legal and ethical) of not having a negative, but admitted that he did not know enough to make an informed comment. Jennifer Soo said the issue would come down to one of trust. She had no difficulty trusting her colleagues at the moment, but said that with the next generation, when training was no longer defined by a darkroom, the ethics of news photography would inevitably become more blurred and issues such as not having a negative would become increasingly important. Bobby Pearce thought the demise of the negative would cause problems. He said there would be no way to prove an image was real unless there was another photographer from an opposition newspaper there at the same time “and then you’ve got to trust both of them”. Steve Christo said the change in technology would not change the way his colleagues worked and their integrity. And if it did?: “Hopefully I’ll be dead by then.” Dean Sewell said his concerns about archiving problems and maintaining the original version of an image would be compounded by the demise of the negative. And Palani Mohan said archiving was a big problem but not one that he thought would really affect his life at the Sydney Morning Herald. All were concerned about the potential of a completely fabricated image to win a major journalism award. At the Daily Telegraph, managing editor Roger Coombs said he did not understand the capabilities of the technology well enough to comment on this. When problematic legal and ethical scenarios were suggested, he said he had not really come across any practical examples so far: “It’s a moot point, isn’t it?” I guess it’s really just another dimension to it, isn’t it? I mean you can still have arguments nowadays about the authenticity of negatives when there are highly controversial photographs ... I guess this just adds another dimension to that and makes it even easier for people to be sceptical. Which, maybe, makes it a reason we should be aware of it. People are sceptical enough already about newspapers. However, picture editor Julian Zakaris said this is one of the greatest ethical drawbacks of the new technology, particularly when combined with archiving difficulties. He said that versions of digital images could not be stored in great numbers, and therefore only one version was retained (usually the final image to appear in print): “You have these digital controls and all that ... but the whole system of filing, this is a problem.” He also pointed out that selling the wrong version of the picture could put the newspaper at risk legally because the veracity of the image published could be challenged in court. One photographer (Nicole Emmanuel) was concerned about the death of the negative because she said it was one more indication that art in photography was giving way to computers. She said it made the darkroom a “sad place”. Uwe Kuessner said it simply highlighted that education among photographers about ethics would be crucial. Other photographers were concerned about the loss of the negative either as a diminution of the art of photography, or as a loss of control issue. When asked specifically about future problems with proof, photographers said they had not really considered the issue but agreed that it could be a concern. Only one (Jeff Darmanin) said it concerned him to a great degree, and although he thought there would be short-term problems, he thought that in the future, when images were downloaded straight from the cameras into a _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 143/282
computer memory, that a safeguard would be installed to give better protection and more comprehensive archiving potential. At the Age, editor Mike Gawenda said digital cameras were already being used widely and had been accepted by photographers. He said no major issues had arisen so far, but as for possible ethical problems with the demise of the negative, it would be up to newspapers to train their photographers in ethical decision-making. He said training would be increasingly important across journalism. However pictorial manager Louise Graham said there was nothing intrinsically different in the two mediums and that it is a question of alternative reporting of events rather than one medium being ethically superior. She said she had more problems with dilemmas over storage of images, but spoke in terms of legal proof that events took place, and of archiving efficiency generally, rather than in terms of ethical consequences. Among Age photographers, John Woodstra said the fact a photograph was no longer used as evidence in court posed long-term problems in terms of recognition of photographic authenticity. However he had not thought about the ethical/legal ramifications of no negative. Craig Abraham said he was very concerned that with the demise of the negative, in 20 years time a photograph would cease to mean anything important as a visual record of an event. After pondering the issue, Andrew De La Rue said the first thing an unethical photographer working in the traditional medium would do is lose the negative, so he did not see how the new technology posed any particular risk here. Peter Cox said newspapers were going to have to train photographers in the issues if negatives were to disappear. Ray Kennedy said you could copy and falsify a negative now anyway, so it was a not particularly valuable record in terms of its guarantee to authenticate an event. Manuela Cifra was concerned about issues of proof and increasing problems in this area when negatives disappear. At the Herald Sun, editor Peter Blunden said he was not bothered by digital issues because the paper was trusted by its readers. He said photographers knew that if they crossed the line of acceptable retouching as set out in the paper’s policy that they would risk their jobs. He said he did not see any problems in archiving images and in general the technology efficiency had improved the newspaper’s archives (in that now images were of better quality and did not deteriorate with age as quickly as negatives or prints). Pictorial manager Bruce Howard said: “I am one of the people who think it will be a long, long while before we change completely to digital. I’ve seen nothing in the technology that would allow, say, next week we’re going to buy everyone a digital camera.” On archiving concerns, he said: “The opportunity for the man-on-the-spot to do something, other than send it back to the office, is quite remote ... perhaps there should be a facility where that image is recorded pristine in the system when it comes back.” Among photographers/photo editors, Wayne Ludby thought concerns were pointless because the technology was here to stay and had to be accepted. Lucy Swinstead was resigned to the problems inherent in the technology – she said the loss of the negative would mean that the photograph was under ever more _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 144/282
pressure to prove its relationship to real events. She said ultimately the only way for newspapers to control ethics was to employ people they thought would be ethical. Craig Burrow said the negative was a tool of truth and mourned its passing, but said he embraced the new technology, digital cameras and all their advantages. Ian Baker did not see any ethical problems arising from archiving/digital cameras, saying editors needed to trust their staff and the policies they have put in place. Mark Smith, on the other hand, thought the demise of the negative was “a huge issue” in terms of proof in general, and in the context of awards. He said there would be a tremendous amount of grappling about how to prove the authenticity of a photograph: “How do you prove it wasn’t sharpened, even.” Given the amount of prestige that comes to an organisation when they win Press Photographer of the Year ... or to win a Walkley ... I can still think that it would be within the bounds of possibility that an organisation, within itself, would turn a blind eye to an enhanced picture. Stuart Hannagan said that digital cameras and the demise of the negative would create a “massive” problem in the short term but thought solutions would emerge. He said digital cameras actually solved about 90 percent of the problems with potential manipulations in that photographers sending images from events just sent the image direct and it appeared in the paper with the minimum of retouching to bring it to publishable quality. He thought that even as the technology evolved, photographers at sports and spot news events would be prevented from manipulating their images on the spot due to time constraints: “We found that at the Age. A photographer is out in the field, he sends you the picture, it’s dead raw. He can’t touch it. It’s brilliant!” However, he said the volume of digital space required to archive all these images will prove a problem, at least in the short term.
4.11. INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS Few photographers were enthusiastic about the future possibility of merging television and newspaper image technology. Nor were they interested in multiskilling. Most saw a continued role for themselves in newspaper photography, which they thought would always be differentiated from television because of the nature of the still image as opposed to the moving one. Editors, on the other hand, were more open to the idea of multiskilling, although they emphasised that any widespread change would not occur quickly. At the Australian Financial Review, former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood said there had been no real industrial problems and that multiskilling was being increasingly accepted. “[B]ecause newspapers have continually been about changes in technology…usually you’ll find that people in newspapers have grasped it pretty quickly.” His picture editor foresaw no problems in this area that could not be overcome with communication. Photographers at this newspaper were generally concerned about their job security in the future, with
copyright issues also considered as a future battleground. However, they thought that
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 145/282
photographic skill would never be generally acquired by word journalists and that it would become more important to have photographers making editorial decisions on images rather than designers or journalists. They hoped this would be achieved by public concern about the ethical issues. Australian editor at the time of the study, Campbell Reid, said he suspected the changes would be slower than some anticipated (for example, he did not think the newspaper would be 100 percent digital by the Olympics). He thought the demise of the negative and lack of digital archival space, as well as sourcing internet/wire photos, would cause some problems, but objected to the idea that human beings would not automatically seek to capture truthful images, especially when they knew their newspaper’s greatest asset was its credibility. Picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said industrial concerns were valid ones and that the threat of print journalists taking over photographers’ jobs was not a new one: I think that if newspapers want to have crap pictures in their paper they can go down that route. Ultimately the public will make the decision about that. If they don’t like the newspapers they’re looking at, then the newspapers will change. As for losing negatives, he said this might be a legal problem, but that otherwise the technology was very positive. He was not nostalgic about film and thought video stills cameras were a great step forward for photography. Among the photographers at the Australian, there were mixed views on the introduction of video still cameras. But only one (Paul Burston) said he thought cross-skilling was a positive thing. The others feared images would lose integrity if video stills took over. Mark Williams said it was easier for photographers to do word journalism than the other way around. At the Sydney Morning Herald, picture manager Michael Young said he could not imagine sending word journalists out to capture images with video recorders, at least not until the technology improved drastically. He said there was now a new technology which enabled a photographer to take 25 photo frames in a second as well as television pictures (video still cameras). I think that if you put that sort of camera in the hands of a journo, then all you’re going to get is something which would illustrate the story. You’re not going to get a nicely crafted picture that lends something to its story … and you probably wouldn’t get a picture that would stand up on a page in its own right without the story. Picture editor Gary McLean said photographers had lost some skills over the years already (for example, with autofocus technology, focussing skills were less important, and some photographer no longer knew how to print a photograph from a negative). However, he said a photographer will always need a photographic eye to record something well, and said dual roles (writing and photography) would be impractical because both are separate skills and can often not be done at the same time (it would be very difficult to take interview notes and photographs simultaneously for spot news, for example). Palani Mohan _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 146/282
said industrial change and the redefinition of a photographer’s job description was something he accepted, even if he didn’t particularly like it. He thought news images would become more “artistic” particularly as newspapers go on-line and merge with internet companies: “If I had a choice I would prefer it to be the way it was 15 years ago … [but] I think people who fight it, whinge about it and complain about it really have to realise that that is the way it is going”. Dean Sewell, on the other hand, said he did not think photographers would be asked to take on other roles and he was not in favour of multiskilling because he thought it would result in the de-skilling of photographers and undervaluing of the photograph: “It undermines the whole integrity behind the photograph. It just blurs the boundaries.” The other four photographers said they were concerned about the industrial implications of the new technology, but did not see a drastic change in their job specifications in the near future. Daily Telegraph managing editor Roger Coombs thought it “highly possible” that his newspaper would follow the British model industrially, employing only a handful of staff photographers/managers/imagers and outsourcing the rest of the work necessary to produce the newspaper’s images. Julian Zakaris was adamant that this was the future for the newspaper. But while Roger Coombs believed there was little possibility, at least in the foreseeable future, of multiskilling journalists to take over photographers’ jobs (saying that industrially it would pose too many difficulties),
Julian Zakaris was convinced that
multiskilling was inevitable, and that photographers would have to work hard to compete in the digital television era without adding audio and written skills. He believed that in the next decade, the TV cameraperson’s function will have completely merged with the still photographer’s in news organisations. He saw industrial difficulties as the only real impediment to that happening sooner rather than later. But overall he said photographers would have to accept that they would have to take on many new skills, adding that this was already occurring in the UK. Most of the photographers were negative about this option, one saying he believed he was a member of a “dying breed” but that he would “not go down without a fight”. The only markedly different view came from the eldest, Uwe Kuessner, who said progress had to be accepted because it could not be beaten: “If my existence in this game is only to keep journalists out then I shouldn’t have a job”, he said. At the Age, editor Mike Gawenda and pictorial manager Louise Graham thought that industrial concerns would need to be discussed with staff, but that wide-scale multiskilling was not a feasible option at the moment because it would degrade the quality of the paper. However, for special cases, where editorial staff wished to do both, dispensation could be sought and already there had been some examples of writer/photojournalists at the Age. All Age photographers were sceptical about the benefits of multiskilling and were concerned that their profession might be in decline if economic rationalists rule the newspaper world. Craig Abraham, for example, said there would probably be a period where word journalists were equipped with digital cameras before sales dropped and photography-only staff were restored: “Papers _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 147/282
around the world have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on colour printing presses ... they won’t be wanting to fill them with very average-looking images.” He was angry that pictorial departments lacked board-room influence in the organisation, and that when new technology was introduced it was artists and production people who were trained to use it rather than photographers (who were really the image specialists). Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden thought demarcation was a ridiculous concept and welcomed multiskilling. He was very much in favour of allowing journalists take photographs and vice-versa: “I know photographers who write. If someone has both skills they’re welcome to use it and they can increase their value.” He said he had seen no evidence that multiskilling would threaten the livelihoods of photographers. Pictorial manager Bruce Howard said multiskilling would be a “hideous thing” if it meant fewer jobs for photographers and that photographs were only ever recorded on digital cameras: “[T]here would be people who it would be impossible to train in the art and know-how to set up a picture in the first place, and if newspaper photography came to that, then that would be a very sad day.” Among photographers/picture editors, Wayne Ludby said purely digital images would produce very sterile results, especially if cameras were used by reporters. Craig Burrow was also opposed to multi-skilled word/photojournalists, saying the expectation to produce both words and pictures would be the “thin edge of the wedge” for news photography. Lucy Swinstead was very negative about the possibility of dual-skilling believing it would undermine excellence and talent. She said most word journalists were “visually illiterate”, and that it was often physically impossible to be both photographer and word journalist. However she was in favour of multiskilling, as long as one part of the job and one skill is allowed to flourish. Ian Baker said he would be “a little concerned” about the potential industrial consequences of new era digital cameras, and had no ambition to be a word journalist. He said much could be gained by word journalists and photographers working on a stories as teams, and coming up with a complete story as opposed to two halves. Mark Smith said the industrial consequences would be largely dependent on the culture of individual newspapers. He hated the concept of multiskilling, even while agreeing that those with a dual talent should be given the opportunity to work in both mediums. If they’re full-on mass-circulation daily newspapers like we are, where emphasis is on pictorial content, you couldn’t get a journalist to do that. The same way if you were a quality daily with the emphasis on the strength of your words you [could not] get away with sending a photographer out there to scribble five pars. It just won’t work ... I worry from an industrial point of view about where it is going to end. He said even if the policy was to give journalists boring photo assignments, there was the problem of news changing, and of potentially boring photographs turning into award-winning images. Meanwhile, Stuart Hannagan thought that although multiskilling would occur to some extent in the future, it would be _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 148/282
confined to sections like real-estate, or suburban newspapers. He said it was not a practical or likely option for quality newspapers. This picture of the ethical, professional and industrial landscape Australian newspapers is illuminated and deepened by an exploration of the same issues as they relate to the debate on digital images at overseas newspapers. For example, a number of photographers and managers at the three Australian News Limited newspapers made it clear that British newspapers in the group were often a model for both industrial and ethical issues at their Australian counterparts. Similarly, the study carried out in the United States is particularly useful in furthering the debate on professionalism in photojournalism. Meanwhile, the French study takes the debate on photojournalism and art to a new maturity. As such, the results of the Australian study are given context by the international comparisons which are made in the following results chapters.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 149/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 150/282
5. OVERSEAS RESULTS The British study took place in June 1998 at the Times and in October and November 1998 at the Daily Mirror. In France, the interviews and written survey were carried out at Libération, the Parisien and Agence France Presse in September 1998. The American study at the Los Angeles Times and the San Jose Mercury News took place in December 1998. Results obtained in relation to technical performance and archiving practices in this chapter can be compared directly with the Australian Results chapter in most cases. However, it should be noted that the release of a new generation of more powerful and better quality digital cameras before the American study may account for some differences in approval ratings in technical areas. Reasons for the absence of general editorial participation in the French study are detailed in Chapter 3. In the case of the Daily Mirror, requests for participation from senior editorial managers in the study were refused on grounds of availability.
5.1.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic differences in the international study showed little alignment with newspaper styles (tabloids versus broadsheets). For example, there was no notable difference between the levels of experience and educational backgrounds of the Times, Daily Mirror, Libération and Parisien but there was a remarkable difference between the educational levels and training in ethics at these newspapers and those at the San Jose Mercury News and the Los Angeles Times, where photographers were twice as likely to have been tertiary educated and had almost universally received training in ethics. As Table 5.1-1 shows, the average photographer in the overseas survey was aged in his or her thirties. The youngest sample was taken from the Daily Mirror, with an average age of 34.2 years. The oldest group came from the San Jose Mercury News, where five of the six photographers interviewed were aged over 40. However, the mean is higher at Libération, due to the age of two of the five Agence France Presse photographers used in the survey (58 and 59 respectively). Photographers at Libération and the Parisien were far more likely to have worked with the same employer for longer, with an average of more than 12 years at both newsrooms, compared to periods ranging between four and seven years at other newspapers. Those working at the Daily Mirror and the Times were also less likely to have permanent, full-time jobs than those working at the other newspapers surveyed.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 151/282
Table 5.1-1: Comparison of photographer demographics by newspaper1 NEWSPAPER2
TMS
DM
LIB
PAR
LAT
SJMN
n=6
n=6
n=6
n=6
n=6
n=6
Mean years in journalism
15.3
10.8
20.6
14.3
9.2
16.5
Mean years at current newspaper
5.2
4.5
12.5
12.8
7.8
4.8
Mean age in years
37.5
34.2
42.8
38.8
37.8
40.5
Tertiary educated (%)
33.3
66.7
50
50
100
100
Tertiary educated in photography 3(%)
33.3
50
16.6
33.3
83.3
100
Tertiary educated in photojournalism ethics (%)
0
0
0
0
83.3
100
Differences in educational standards attained were particularly marked. Photographers at the European newspapers were less likely to have had a formal education in photography, and none had undertaken specific tertiary studies in photojournalism (and photojournalism ethics). At the Times, only
two
photographers had a tertiary degree in art photography (one had a visual arts degree from an Australian college, and the other a postgraduate diploma in photography after a history undergraduate degree). The others were all self-taught or had received on-the-job apprenticeship-style training. There had been no training in photography, and according to Paul Fieves “we all teach each other”. At the Daily Mirror, four of the photographers had a tertiary degree, and three had qualifications in art photography. While two had covered Photoshop in their university courses, none had had any formal training in journalism ethics. Of
1
This table discounts editors and managers of photo-departments on the basis that all editors and one photo
manager came from a word journalism background and none were currently taking photographs. 2
TMS=The Times (UK); DM=The Daily Mail (UK); LIB=Libération (France); PAR=Le Parisien (France); LAT=The Los Angeles
Times (US); SJMN=The San Jose Mercury News (US). 3
Tertiary educated is defined by at least one year in tertiary education, exiting with minimum diploma qualification.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 152/282
the remaining photographers, one had received on-the-job training, and the other was a self-taught freelancer. Half the photographers at Libération and the Parisien had tertiary degrees, although they were more likely to have studied another discipline first and to have received their photographic training during their military service or on-the-job. Only one of the photographers at Libération had received tertiary photographic training, two had graduated with law degrees before training as photographers (one through military service and one on-the-job at a regional newspaper), one had started his career as a television cameraman before making a career change to news photography and the other two (the oldest) had learned their craft on-thejob. At the Parisien, two of the photographers had degrees in art photography, and another had a degree in science followed by on-the-job training. The remaining three had learned their craft through a combination of self-teaching and on-the-job training. None of the French photographers had received tertiary training in photojournalism ethics. By contrast, photographers at the San Jose Mercury News and the Los Angeles Times had not only received tertiary training in photography, but had studied journalism or photojournalism, including study of photojournalism ethics. Only one of the photographers at the Los Angeles Times had not studied photojournalism, having graduated from a degree in science writing, followed by an early career as a technical photographer. All photographers at the San Jose Mercury News had formal tertiary qualifications in photojournalism.
5.2.
ATTITUDES TO THE INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
In the written survey, employees of the San Jose Mercury News and the Los Angeles Times were clearly most concerned about the implications of the new technology on journalism ethics, with those working at other newspapers less concerned. However, French photographers and editors working at newspapers were far more concerned than those working at Agence France Presse (something to be taken into account when reading the percentages below). In all newspapers, editors were less concerned about the implications than their photographers, whereas there was no discernible pattern of responses among photo editors. Differences in attitudes to the introduction of the new technology were far more evident in the oral and qualitative responses to interview questions than in the quantitative written survey.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 153/282
Table 5.2-1 : Level of concern about implications of technology in percentage NEWSPAPER1
TMS
DM
LIB
PAR
LAT
SJMN
n=8
n=7
n=7
n=7
n=8
n=8
Very concerned
12.5
14.3
57.1
28.6
75
75
Somewhat concerned
62.5
71.4
14.3
14.3
25
25
Not concerned
12.5
0
28.6
57.1
0
0
Undecided
0
14.3
0
0
0
0
Insufficiently informed
12.5
0
0
0
0
0
In answer to the general question about whether the introduction of the new technology had had a positive or negative effect on the industry, Times deputy editor John Bryant said he thought the technology had been “tremendously positive overall” and that photo illustration was a specialised area that represented “really a very small proportion of our work”: I would have thought from the point of view of running a newspaper, there is going to be a tremendous advantage in having access to huge archives of pictures, and a lot of live pictures, and to be able to get them on screen and manipulate them in terms of size or something very easily. Picture editor Andrew Moger said the development had been positive due to its speed and its ability to improve the quality of otherwise unpublishable images. Among Times photographers, most thought the impact of the technology was positive overall. Paul Fieves said he thought it was positive, due to its increased speed of picture delivery. He also thought that it helped preserve famous old photographs (such as the Daily Mail’s library photo of St Paul’s Cathedral after being bombed in World War Two) which could now be reproduced digitally. Simon Walker said he thought it was positive. So did Gill Allen, who thought the main advantages were cost savings and flexibility, as well as giving photographers the independence to set up their own agencies and to sell images all over the world. Chris Harris gave similar praise, even if he was still concerned with quality: “The idea of digital photography is brilliant because …
1
TMS=The Times (UK); DM=The Daily Mail (UK); LIB=Libération (France); PAR=Le Parisien (France); LAT=The Los Angeles
Times (US); SJMN=The San Jose Mercury News (US).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 154/282
it gets rid of developing and film and speeds up the process immensely. The reservation that I had and still have is on the quality, but it’s improving all the time.” However, he said he did not believe digital photography would ever replace film, but thought it would have its place in news journalism, “because at the end of the day, it’s about getting materials back as quickly as possible”. Brenton Edwards agreed: I think it is good as it allows the photographer to take a technically difficult photo, knowing he can then rectify any colour balances or other small problems which can help make a good photo a great photo. If the question also extends to digital cameras, they are a fantastic tool for press photographers who are working close to deadline. One of these, a laptop and a mobile phone saves time and money, giving the photographer absolute freedom to be virtually anywhere in the world and make deadline. Robin Mayes was the only photographer at the Times who expressed overall negativity, saying he preferred analogue technology and mourned the loss of control of his images, which were now handled by graphic designers after he scanned them in. However, he did think there was a great advantage in using digital cameras for stories close to deadline, and thought the quality of the newer cameras was “very very good” and “almost the same as a negative”. At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan oversaw the introduction of the first electronic picture desk in Britain when he worked as picture editor for the now defunct tabloid Today in the mid 1980s. He was then employed by the Mirror group of newspapers to oversee the establishment of the electronic picture desk and implementation of Photoshop in 1994. Although in both these situations the new technology was not well accepted by photographers at first, he said they came to appreciate that the time savings and flexibility of the new system was an “enormous breakthrough” for the industry. Duncan Lovett, who now works full-time on the electronic picture desk, said the new technology makes his job easier and provided benefits such as improved efficiency. For example, he said that even though digital cameras might sometimes deliver a photograph only 10 minutes faster than the analogue cameras, this time saving was sometimes crucial. Freelancer Tim Anderson thought the new technology was positive and still demanded lots of skill, but said they were only really useful for sport and late assignments. “I’m not buying one yet because I’d end up doing all the late jobs. Besides, it’s 7500 pounds for the camera for a return of 300-400 pounds a month. At the moment it’s not worth it”. The three other Daily Mirror photographers agreed that the technology was positive, and cited advantages as speed and improved ability to “rescue” bad photographs. French photographers and photo editors all saw the new technology as a positive development, even if some were worried about the ethical implications of digital retouching. At Libération, head of the photographic department Laurent Abadjian said the new technology delivered a greater choice of images and that the quality was better overall because poor images could be salvaged. He said it also gave _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 155/282
photographers more time in the field, and less time in the darkroom, whereas before this was reversed and photographers used to spend more of their time developing their images and less time gathering them. His deputy Luc Briand agreed, adding that the advantages of digital archiving systems were also considerable, with access to images in seconds through searching electronic data bases as opposed to relying on the former library system. Among the Agence France Presse photographers interviewed, only Gérard Leroux thought there were more disadvantages than advantages (citing ethics as his primary concern, as well as his preference for darkroom developing methods). The rest agreed that the new technology had brought increased speed and was particularly advantageous for agencies who could now sell images anywhere in the world, even if there increased ethical problems. Like most of his colleagues, Vincent Amalvy had mixed feelings: There are two aspects to the introduction of the new technology: in the first place there is the advantage of saving time, and for us [agency photographers] that is something fundamental … but afterwards the reverse is true, in that we lose credibitity: the more you can do to a photograph, the more you want to do. [See Appendix A.5.6.] Tomas Coex agreed, saying that despite the improved speed, quality and efficiency, the danger was that someone with good Photoshop skills could easily create a fake photo. Sometimes this could start out as something amusing, but the more photographers played around with the technology, the more dangerous it was for photojournalism. Gabriel Bouys thought the new range of digital cameras which allowed photographers to see the images on screen as they went were particularly advantageous from a compositional point-of-view. Gérard Fouet thought the ability to rescue damaged or bad quality photographs was the greatest advantage, commenting that if the technology was viewed in terms of developments over the pervious 40 years, photography had been re-invented. At the Parisien, head of the photographic department Emmanuel Pagnoud thought there were advantages and disadvantages. The former included the increased practicality and improved speed: “C’est vachement plus pratique … elle donne au journal bien plus vite la photo la plus chaude” (It is so much more practical … we get the hottest photo so much faster). He was somewhat concerned that the quality of digital images was still not as good as those images produced using analogue methods, and also thought journalism had lost out to the technological imperative: Unfortunately today we are increasingly less concerned with journalism. We get so caught up in the technicalities, in the computers, by the multitude of photographs which come from so many different sources (in other words through our subscriptions to AFP, AP, and other internet sources). So we are inundated by photos, we receive them from everywhere. That means that now we have to dedicate ourselves increasingly to these new technologies and less with our fundamental base and why we are here, in other words, less with photography and journalism. [See Appendix A.5.7.] _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 156/282
However, he said Photoshop had not yet been introduced to the newspaper for industrial reasons (the prepress workers union had forbidden it) and so there was not the capacity for photographers to digitally retouch their own photos. Layout had only just changed over to electronic pagination, and photographers still worked in the darkroom. The only photographs which were “Photoshopped” were those received from agencies or internet sources. All staff photographic prints and negatives were stored in a traditional photographic library at the newspaper. The staff photographers interviewed at the Parisien (Vincent Lesage, Aurélie Audureau, Philippe Desprès and Olivier Couron) were largely positive about the new technology, and wished they had an opportunity to use it. Aurélie Audureau did express a preference for traditional methods, but she said the new technology was so much more practical, particularly for sending back assignments when working outside Paris. The two agency photographers who made up the survey at le Parisien were less enthusiastic, citing ethical problems which offset the advantages to some extent. For example, Eric Feferberg thought it was positive only if the limits on retouching were properly set out so that journalism was protected. Jack Cavez also pointed to difficulty in choosing which images were to be archived (saying that at Agence FrancePress he only had the chance to archive on average two photographs from each shoot and would celebrate the day when technology had advanced far enough for his whole disk to be saved, and there was a way of proving what the original image was): “C’est une evolution ou il y a encore du progrès à faire” (It is an evolution where there is still progress to be made). At the Los Angeles Times, managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky had mixed feelings about the technology, saying that it was positive in the improved speed and ease of photographic delivery, and its ability to save damaged or poor quality photographs. It was negative because it increased the risk of deceiving readers. He said often the misuse came about through bad training rather than intention to deceive: “You see it even around here, very clumsy attempts to make the paper look more compelling by altering photos”. He said the sports section of the newspaper seemed to be most vulnerable to attempts at over-using the technology, particularly through cut-out images and inserting text over photographs. Director of photography Larry Armstrong also mentioned the increased competitiveness among wire services in his list of positive things about the new technology. It had also resulted in less expensive services for newspapers, and less reliance on using agency technology for staff photographers sent on outof-the way events: In the old days when we went to a sporting event, for example … (it) could eat up a lot of film, and you walk into the AP and they are charging you $10 a roll to process 10 rolls so you spend a lot of money there, and then they charge you for every frame they are going to transmit, so that is more money there, and it’s time, and it’s a nightmare. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 157/282
At the top of his “downside” list, however, were problems with archiving the multiple images supplied by digital cameras, or downloaded from agencies or the internet. Other problems included difficulties in capturing light through digital cameras. Among photographers, two who shot only on digital cameras (Paul Morse and Kurt McCoy) mentioned only positive attributes to the technology, including speed, ease and quality that was equal to film. The others had mixed feelings, including Mika Namir who thought the technology was efficient for sport and late-running news, but worried about increased ethical dangers. Annie Wells was more concerned about changing processes than ethical problems, saying she missed the “womb-like sense of the darkroom”. At the San Jose Mercury News, where Photoshop had been intrododuced in 1994, assistant managing editor Brian Munroe said the technology had many advantages as a tool in that it made the work of photographers and their editors easier and faster. However, director of photography Geri Miglielicz said that while there were advantages as a deadline tool, she did not believe the technology saved time or money overall. Among photographers, two (Michael Malone and Michael Rondou) were overwhelmingly positive in their attitude to the technology. Michael Rondou was particularly eager for the day when the newsroom would be 100 percent digital with only digital cameras: I welcome it, I think it’s just going to make it easier, faster for us. Anything that does that and allows us to shoot pictures and take less time turning them out, I’m all for it. And the quality is getting better all the time … now the quality is so good you can hardly tell whether it is a digital image. In fact, we’re going to switch over next year and I’m hoping I’ll be one of the first ones to use it. By contrast, Gary Reyes thought there were “pluses and minuses”, in that Photoshop was a useful tool for the features section, particularly for creative and illustrative work. But he did not like the weight of digital cameras and their accompanying computers, and thought that in many ways digital processes were more time-consuming for photographers than traditional methods. The remaining three photographers were primarily negative. Richard Koci-Hernandez said he missed the darkroom, and thought there were many examples in the United States of the media not using Photoshop responsibly. Rick Martin thought that computer technology had detracted from the craft of photography, even if it was disseminating information more expediently. And Luci Houston said she “hated” the technology because newspapers had become too dependent on it and there were still too many things which could go wrong.
5.3.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND NEW METHODS
Many photographers were unconcerned by the ethical implications of the new technology, pointing to manipulations which had regularly occurred in the past and saying that new retouching techniques were
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 158/282
governed by the same general standards as were used in the darkroom. At the Times, deputy editor John Bryant said that while the technology was different, the principles were the same: In the early days when I worked in Fleet Street I saw photographs doctored for various reasons. It was very low-tech, I mean it was really scissors and paste and a bit of airbrushing and so-on if they wanted to do something, and it was mainly done in those days for feature illustrations. I’ve never seen it done on a hard-news photograph. Picture editor Andrew Moger thought the ethical concerns were basically the same, but that the volume of images he received at his desk every day made it more difficult to guarantee the integrity of the image. You know, previously the picture editor of the Times 15 years ago was looking at 40 pictures a day from known sources and the judgement was being made on the desk or in the darkroom with his involvement – you know, should we snowpaint this out, why don’t we move these people closer together (what used to be called “hammersmithing”). Now there are 1500 pictures on the wire a day, all digital, there are 100 pictures transmitted by our guys digitally, there are another 100-200 negs or prints that go past my desk. So the potential of things again to go past by virtue of digital technology is much greater. Among photographers, Paul Fieves said he had no real concerns about the introduction of the technology: “I’m old enough and I’ve been around long enough to know what has always gone on in the darkroom, and I don’t think there is a lot of difference”. Simon Walker said he felt confident the technology was a positive thing as long as people around him were responsible. The problems started with people, not technology. Gill Allen said sourcing was the main ethical difference, given the volume of imaging: “Come the World Cup we will be dealing with thousands of images every day”. However, even with the extra competition, she thought there was “still a lot of integrity out there”. She said she did not believe most press photographers would consider manipulating their images because the short-term gain would be outweighed by the long-term damage to their credibility. Indeed, she thought that if anything the technology had made photographers more concerned about ethics. In addition, she said any retouching was far more visible to colleagues now that they were no longer working in the darkroom. Robin Mayes also alluded to the common-place manipulation of images in the past, and said the only difference in the digital age was that such manipulation was easier. However, he thought that this might make for greater temptation: “It used to take hours and hours … no one would bother … now you can do it so easily.” However, Chris Harris pointed out the declining opportunity for photographers to work on their own photos (at the Times most photographers only scan their images and leave the retouching work to the pre-press technicians and sub-editors). Above all, he thought photographers should be concerned with ethical issues other than digital manipulation: For me what’s changed in the past 10 years is not so much how photographers do things, it’s how other people do things and try to manipulate photographs – especially in politics and news. They’ll set up a photocall where they will try to get news. So there’s a much greater _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 159/282
understanding of the photograph now and how it can be used to your advantage. And that’s difficult now because you end up going to events that aren’t about any real thing happening … It’s much much harder to cut through it now … Tony Blair is a classic, I don’t think I know him any better now than when I first met him. Brenton Edwards said he thought there were no new ethical problems in the new technology that photographers had to worry about because “most photographers have little say as to what happens with a photo once it is in the hands of sub-editors”. However, he thought most publications would realise that their reputations were at stake if they tried to dupe the public. At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan said that there was not a lot of difference in the impact of the technology on ethics, but that the public believed differently: The first point is that now almost everyone has a computer, so the public understand what can be done. Before it was just like magic. They came out when the presses rolled and they thought that what you saw was what you got …. It had always been done in advertising, but suddenly that technology was available to newspapers. Duncan Lovett said that “manipulation” was a difficult concept to define. Although he thought it was now easier to retouch photographs, unethical manipulation and retouching were not the same things. For example, sometimes a poor quality photograph needed significant work to bring it up to publishable quality: I think there is quite a fine line between improving the quality of the picture and changing the subject. Improving the quality or adjusting it, I don’t think [that] is manipulating it. Manipulating it is when you’re changing…It’s one of those things: I think it’s an individual call and every person has different views … (Manipulation) is not something that is done a huge amount, full stop. It’s a bit more unscrupulous if it’s done with a sports picture and moving the ball or something like that. But very occasionally … someone might want the ball moved fractionally. Now the guy just hit the ball and the ball was going off. If that picture were taken half a fraction earlier the ball would have been coming off the bat … so, I don’t feel that is teaching someone to manipulate, because if the picture was taken quarter of a second, half a second earlier, that flightpath of the ball [would be the same] … but if you move the ball from one side to the other, implying that the player is right-handed instead of left-handed [that is different] … It’s one of those things that depends so much on each picture. People think everything is changing and that we manipulate everything because journalists, everyone in the whole industry are liars etc, but manipulating a picture really takes a lot of time and unless people really have a great reason for it to be done, apart from a quick adjustment of colour and a quick crop, there isn’t the time to sit there and adjust the pictures. Other Daily Mirror photographers said they did not see a real difference in ethical dilemmas from the old era to the new one. For example, Tim Anderson said the digital era was “just the modern version” of photography and that there was no real difference in ethics: “You don’t see that much electronic retouching really … I’ve only ever seen photographers clean up their pictures, never really alter anything”. He said he _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 160/282
disapproved of removing or adding people in photographs. However, he said most photographers would not have the time to undertake elaborate manipulations when they were working to a deadline. On the other hand, French photographers were more wary of the new technology and felt it could be dangerous in the hands of the unscrupulous. They regularly referred to British newspapers when referring to examples of unethical use of the technology. At Libération head of the photographic department Laurent Abadjian said British newspapers’ abuse of the technology, including what he saw as “no rules” for the use of Photoshop, highlighted the fact that it was now increasingly difficult to tell the difference between a fake photograph and a real one. However, he said awareness of the dangers had made photographic agencies more careful than ever before in assuring the veracity of their images. The internet was a particularly dangerous source of photos, and to this extent he said there were new ethical dilemmas. Similarly, Luc Briand was adamant that there were ethical differences between the old era and the new. He said his reaction had been to pay increasing attention to sourcing photographs and to work only with those he trusted. Among the Agence France Presse photographers, opinions were mixed on whether Photoshop increased the potential for ethical abuses, but the majority thought the technology made it easier for those so inclined. Vincent Amalvy said he thought the ethical problems were the same, and said that there were plenty of famous historical examples of well-known photographers who had manipulated photographs to the point of creating fake images. For example, he said a favourite darkroom trick for photographing car races was to put an elastic band across the photograph to make it appear as if the cars were at the finish line. In fact, he thought today’s photographers, particularly with the increasing reliance on agency images, were probably more ethical on the whole. Gabriel Bouys agreed that agencies were increasingly reliable, but said those freelancers not in direct competition for images would find it easier and more tempting to fake images than before: We at AFP are in competition with AP and Reuters. And so what purpose would it serve to fake a photograph? If I fake a photograph and the Reuters photographer doesn’t, they are later going to ask me why and how I got that image. And they are going to find the truth quickly … We are a democracy here, and now everyone can have the technology if they have a little money to spend, but you have to ask yourself whether it would be worth faking the photo. Now, here at the agencies, we have rules … but you can see how easy it would be for a freelance photographer in England to fake a photograph. [See Appendix A.5.8.] The remainder of the AFP photographers interviewed for Libération all thought the technology was dangerous in the wrong hands and that manipulation was now much easier. Tomas Coex said there had always been faked photographs, but now the quality was so good that it was sometimes impossible to tell a fake image from a real one. Gérard Leroux said the increased potential for abuse meant that it was now more important than ever that those working for the media industry had solid journalistic training. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 161/282
At the Parisien, photography department head Emmanuel Pagnoud did not think the question was relevant because Photoshop was not used by the newspaper. But photographers working at the newspaper felt there was an increased threat, even if they thought photographers were generally handling the technology responsibly. Vincent Lesage said that, like with every other revolution in photographic technology, photographers were adapting to the new challenges. Yes, perhaps there are more ethical problems. Certainly today with the new equipment, with digitised photographs, there is potential for every kind of abuse. But there are still rules to respect, even if these rules are not static. I’ve never actually seen a code of ethics on this, but I think that everyone has to be more aware of the problems. [See Appendix A.5.9.] He also pointed out that there were different standards depending on the newspaper for which one worked. In France, for example, photographers at the Parisien were permitted to pose people for news photographs, whereas this practice was frowned upon at agencies. Aurélie Audureau said temptations had certainly increased, even if it was often about very practical concerns (such as reversing a photograph to better fit a layout) which were not in the same category as faking images. And Philippe Desprès said photographers had to be much more disciplined in the way they worked now. Photographers at the Los Angeles Times and the San Jose Mercury News were the most concerned of the overseas photographers by the potential for new ethical abuses with Photoshop, pointing to problems in sourcing internet/freelance images, new archiving dilemmas and increased temptation to see the image as something constantly changing while losing reference to the original photograph. Los Angeles Times managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said a photo editor’s “gatekeeping” role had become increasingly difficult. He said that despite the newspaper’s significant proportion of staff photographers, the high usage of international wire service photos meant that the original image was not in the hands of the newspaper, and any manipulation would be difficult to trace: “That’s what is so sensitive – newspaper credibility is under attack all over the place. And not just the photos, but the newspaper generally, journalists. And if the public feels that they can’t even trust an image that they see, that things can be manipulated, where does that leave the paper?” He said the problems with increased temptation to manipulate had also surfaced within the newrsoom, and that the Sports section was a particular problem, with some photographers and designers getting carried away with the creative idea before giving adequate consideration to the ethical problems involved. He gave an example of an imaged photograph which had appeared of Tiger Woods swinging a baseball bat. While this image had been acknowledged as a fake, he said there had not been due consideration of the effect that this would have on the newspaper’s credibility. Director of photography Larry Armstrong pointed out that lenses could manipulate an image as much as a computer, but he said this was part of the craft of photography and it was well accepted that manipulations could take place as long as they took place within the camera. He said this might mark him as a “purist”, and some might say that it did _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 162/282
not make any difference whether the change was created through a lens or on a computer, but that it was important to hold on to the traditional idea of what constituted photography. Photographers felt it was easier to manipulate photographs with Photoshop, and that the technology’s greatest impact was on fashion and some features photography. For example, Paul Morse said the alarm over computer manipulation was a very real one, and there was an increased temptation to create a perfect photo. Robert Gaultier thought that photographers were more ethical than they were a generation ago, but that Photoshop was still a threat. I think there was an ethical boom after Watergate that changed the way journalism was supposed to be practised, an evolution from the old boys network pushing out agendas rather than reporting on facts. Now it’s come a full circle, and now the technology is so good that I think there is a temptation for people to make things perfect, and they can excuse things to a certain degree until they are way over the line and they don’t even realise it. Yet reader sophistication was providing some degree of counter-balance to this trend: “I think the pressures to walk the line are a lot greater, so I think the new technology brings more responsibility to walk the line.” Annie Wells thought temptation to manipulate was greater than ever: It’s muddled up the standard of the ethics in the industry a lot. There is a temptation to use it … when they first came into being … there was a photograph of a politician at a podium and the background was brown, and somebody somewhere along the line decided that the background should be blue, so they changed it to blue. Now it didn’t necessarily change the content of the photo, but it didn’t reflect what was there. But I know I had a picture that was taken under fluorescent lights and it was at a school and so there was all this monochromatic colour, and right behind the subject’s head was just fluorescent pink flyer, and your eye just went right to that flyer, so we changed the colour of that flyer, so that you would see the subject … You know, I can sometimes thumb my nose at the paper that turned their background blue, but at the same time I’ve done it as well. She differentiated between traditional and new methods in this way: “What’s the difference? You know I didn’t get in trouble for that. But when you start moving elements around in a photo, and start changing the content, I think that’s when it becomes something else.” Kurt McCoy said he was also tempted to use Photoshop to improve on his images, but he said his conscience has served him well so far and he used “darkroom standards” to decide how far was far enough. At the San Jose Mercury News, assistant managing editor Brian Munroe said he felt the problem lay more with people than with technology. Director of photography Geri Migielicz said photo manipulation was not a new issue, and she was confident that there was not an increased ethical problem at the newspaper as a result of the introduction of the technology. We don’t burn down backgrounds, we don’t change the temperature, the quality of the colour _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 163/282
… that’s not a high enough standard. There is nothing inherently truthful about an enlarger, it’s just another tool, and it’s just that Photoshop is a more powerful tool. You have to be true to the subject, true to the situation, true to the information you are providing. You can’t use an old-fashioned standard that doesn’t mean anything for 20-year-old photographers who have never been in the darkroom. Photographers said the potential for abuse was greater but that it had not affected ethical standards at the Mercury News. For example, Michael Rondou said he was confident of the standards applied by the majority of his photojournalist colleagues, and while manipulation might be easier, anyone caught out would face the end of his or her career: “I think that’s our biggest fear to all of a sudden be accused of manipulation, because that just goes totally against what journalism is supposed to be, and we are journalists, and to be accused of modifying information, that’s a nightmare, something you don’t ever want to have to deal with.”
5.4.
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEWSPAPERS
When photographers were asked which newspapers in their own countries made most use of digital technology, many were confused as to whether the question referred to quality of reproduction, investment in and access to the technology, or unethical manipulation of photographs. Photographers and editors tended to point to the tabloids as making most overall use of the technology, but while the Times interviewees thought tabloids used the technology to the extent of being unethical, Daily Mirror employees praised the tabloids for being the leaders in their take-up rate of the technology. At the Times, deputy editor John Bryant said that although there was possibly more temptation with the modern age, the temptation for photographers and editors to be “larrikins” was possibly greater in the past than in the present. To illustrate this, he recounted the story of a war correspondent he worked with in Rhodesia in the 1960s, who had told him of his hoax photograph depicting “the other side of the moon”, which was in fact a crispbread with the holes in the cracker passing as craters. Mr Bryant said while today’s technology made picture delivery faster, picture editors were still required to make the same kind of judgments as they had in the past about whether the picture was genuine. Picture editor Andrew Moger said that many British newspapers were very gifted at retouching photographs digitally, but he also thought they worked according to traditional values. Compared with other cultures, he thought British newspaper photographers and photo editors probably used techniques such as burning and dodging more than those in other countries, and acknowledged that “sometimes they overdo it”. However, because photographers at the Times were not given much time to work on their own photographs on Photoshop, this was probably an advantage, because there was less temptation to manipulate, and therefore he thought the Times’ photographs were “hopefully much truer to the original taking of the picture, which results in our department winning awards year after year for true reproduction”. Among photographers, Paul Fieves _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 164/282
thought that all were fairly similar in their equipment now, although the tabloids made more use of photoimaging techniques for fun. Simon Walker said he saw no real difference in the quality of the technology and that “they were all pretty much of a muchness”. He said some newspapers, like the Daily Telegraph, had had digital cameras on the road for 18 months and were advanced to that extent. Chris Harris thought the Evening Standard used the technology best because, unlike other newspapers, all their photographers were equipped with digital cameras. He said the tabloids were certainly making more use of the “fun” digital image, but that he did not like it and found the images “tacky”. Nevertheless, he thought the magazine industry abused the technology far more than the newspaper industry: I don’t like manipulation of images full-stop, I don’t like people moving images or taking things in and out. I don’t think it’s true photography. Magazines are the worst culprits of all, they are forever changing colours because they don’t like them. It’s amazing what they do … The thing that determines the difference is often the amount of time that you have to spend on a particular image – in a magazine you might have a week to do it or a month, with newspapers it happens on a daily basis and it’s got to happen quickly. Often you get an image, scan it in, get it ready for the paper, and it’s got to be ready within minutes. Brenton Edwards said he did not know which newspapers in the UK made more use of digital imaging. At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan said it was the now defunct newspaper Today which pioneered the technology with the first electronic picture desks, but that now the Mirror group was leading the Murdoch papers. Duncan Lovett thought the Mirror had introduced the technology before most of its competitors and were probably still leading the field: “We were the leading edge and we probably are still – desk wise and the way we are organised we win hands down, but we probably don’t win in the fact that we don’t have that many digital cameras.” The rest of the photographers all thought tabloids used the technology more than broadsheets, but did not point to any which used the technology the most. Although they were asked which French newspapers made most use of the technology, the French photographers and managers interviewed were consistent in their comments that the French press made very little use of the technology. When talking about their local industry, Libération photography department head Laurent Abadjian said news and entertainment magazines like Paris Match made far more use of the technology than newspapers (he gave the example of a manipulated cover of Princess Caroline of Monaco: see Appendix A.4.3.2.). However, an Agence France Presse photographer, Tomas Coex, thought the faked photographs in Paris Match were to be expected as an extension of over-hyped scandal stories in the magazine’s journalistic reporting. Three other Agence France Presse photographers and Libération deputy photo head Luc Briand said the Parisien was more likely to manipulate photographs than any other French newspaper, but that this was only occasional. The other two photographers said they could not point to any particular difference, other than to say that the agencies used the technology to take and deliver their photographs to a much greater extent than the rest of the industry. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 165/282
At the Parisien, head of the photographic department Emmanuel Pagnoud was emphatic that the technology was not used unethically in France. Parisien photographers Vincent Lesage, Aurélie Audureau and Philippe Desprès said French newspapers made very little use of the technology compared to their British counterparts and French magazines, in terms of utilisation (such as digital cameras) and manipulation. The three Agence France Presse photographers interviewed again pointed to the difference in utilisation in agencies in France compared to newspapers. At the two American newspapers, photographers and managers said that on the whole there was very little difference in the quality and levels of manipulation in their country. Los Angeles Times managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said the newspaper was increasing its use of the technology in terms of the numbers of digital cameras used, increasing the capacity of digital archives and constantly updating photo-desk technology. But he said there had been a decrease in the use of the technology for illustrative purposes, with a return to traditional news photography portrayals wherever possible. He said he thought this had been the experience of many American daily newspapers. Photographers did not point to any particularly unethical use by a newspaper, or any leaders in the field, although several mentioned that agencies were almost completely digital now, as opposed to choice of analogue or digital cameras at many newspapers. An almost identical view was echoed at the San Jose Mercury News, with no one pointing to particularly ethical use. Director of photography Geri Migielicz and photographer Michael Rondou spoke of the dangers of switching over to a new trend too quickly, and pointed out the experience of two Canadian newspapers which had had problems with reproduction quality after fully digitising their photographic departments. Richard Koci-Hernandez summed up the general view that: “All US papers are using it as a tool, not to change the pictures.”
5.5.
CODES AND REGULATION
None of the overseas newspapers studied had a detailed code of ethics, although some mentioned a verbal code, while others pointed to some kind of short written editorial directive that photographs not be manipulated. Only photographers and managers at Libération and the Parisien were largely in favour an international code governing standards, with other interviewees almost universally dismissing the idea as being unworkable, or limiting the freedom of newspapers to express themselves in their own style. The only exception was an Australian photographer on exchange at the Times who favoured the creation of an international code. At the Times, deputy editor John Bryant said the code was an informal one governed by a general understanding of management wishes. Sometimes there was an overwhelming case for changing a photograph, but this could only be justified in rare examples: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 166/282
I can only speak personally ... although I’ve been in Fleet Street for a long time and I’m very professional. As far as I’m concerned I work from the basis that the simple blanket instruction is that you don’t muck around with photographs ... because I just think that it devalues the whole thing ... once you start doing it, particularly now that the technology is so good that you can do anything ... My own view is that you don’t muck around with hard news photographs and even if they wanted to remove a telegraph pole or a telegraph wire sticking out of somebody’s head or something, I would expect our picture editor Andy Moger to come and ask me if this was OK with me and they know that I’d be cross if they didn’t do it [ask permission before manipulating a photograph]. For all sorts of reasons – I mean if it’s a good news picture the same picture can crop up in two or three different newspapers and if they are laid side by side on the news stacks you can soon see if somebody has been mucking around with the photographs. Bryant said codes were not nearly as useful as common sense. Personally I think it’s obviously common sense ... I personally find it much simpler to say – you don’t muck around with, you don’t distort images, and if somebody thinks there is an overwhelming case for doing something with a picture for whatever reason, you just should be able to go to the picture editor who, in most cases, should be able to handle it, and if he’s got a problem he should come and see me about it. And it’s that simple really. A picture editor would only have to discuss any issue with me a few times before he would know where the boundary is. Picture editor Andrew Moger said there was no real code, and that he was prepared to consider devising one. He was not in favour of an international code of ethics. Nevertheless, he thought there was a general understanding of imaging ethics at the Times: There is no formal imparting of that information, and that’s something that perhaps we ought to address. Although I’ve been considering this issue for some time it isn’t something that has got itself into a formal declaration of policy, which we probably need to deal with. Nevertheless I think most contributors, regular contributors, have a sense of what is acceptable and they get that from daily conversations. There are often telephone conversations with our sports photographers, on a touchline, who will say: “I’ve got this great shot, but the ball’s just half [out of the frame]. I’m going to send it to you as it was but I’m also going to move it.” And I say: “Don’t bother.” And quite often they’ll say: “Yeah but the sports department have been on to me that they’re quite happy about it, what’s the big problem.” And I say: “Well, because the next time you transmit a picture to me and present it to them we’ll not know whether it’s true or not. It’s very tempting and once you get on that slope, you’re on your bum very very soon”. It’s not a daily conversation, but every time that it arises it has to be addressed and that’s what I do. He later expressed doubts as to the efficacy of the ethical mechanisms in place, and said that it was difficult to enforce a policy against what is becoming a new “creative” industry standard in the UK: If that has happened then I haven’t known about it, now that may be an admission that the process actually fails far more often than I think it does because there is this enormous temption. My instinct is that those temptations are being resisted. But they are enormous temptations because they see other branches of the industry doing it all the time and blatantly and enjoying it and having fun. And it’s almost a creative process. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 167/282
Among Times photographers, Paul Fieves said there were vague rules (for example, he thought it was not really ethical to remove a telegraph wire from a photograph, but that it was still “acceptable” if the wire was coming out of someone’s head because this was commonly accepted in darkroom techniques). He said he would like more formal training in Photoshop techniques but did not think formal training or codes of ethics were very useful in dealing with ethical issues. He did think that people in charge of picture desks should rely more on experienced photographers or managers to help negotiate these problems as they arose: “I would rather have a good editor above me who lets me know the standards.” Simon Walker said there was no real code but there was an atmosphere of trust and a general understanding that worked well most of the time. Gill Allen said codes would not be of much use: “It all comes down to the individual really … and there is a lot of camaraderie out there as well”. She said if you manipulate an image it would not just be yourself you would let down, but your colleagues as well. Freelancer Robin Mayes said it was generally understood that manipulation of photographs was not acceptable unless it was deliberate (for example, a comic picture “for fun”). Although he was not particularly concerned about the lack of a code, he said he was very unhappy about the lack of Photoshop training in general for casual photographers at the Times. On the other hand, Chris Harris said he thought there needed to be strict guidelines, but he said he did not know how effective codes would be: The emphasis has always been on policing yourself, I suppose, which is right. If people abuse it then they have to think again. But personally I think newspapers are fairly good. I mean they do things that move images left or right in the picture which personally I think are wrong, But when you’re selling something, the images are important … especially tabloids. Harris said there was no training in ethics or in digital technology for photographers and that he would like to see discussion about these issues: “It would give you clearer ideas about the expectations of the newspaper.” He said he thought there was some degree of confusion about what was acceptable retouching. There is a pamphlet which is an ethical guide for journalists who work at the Times with things that you can and can’t do, but it’s mostly common sense really … Things have changed an awful lot since Diana was killed…There’s always been a reasonably strong ethical guide in the newsroom, almost unspoken really. There was a time when you would be asked to doorstop someone, do whatever you could to get a picture, and that’s changed. You think very carefully now about people’s private lives. He said he was not necessarily against a code, but he was afraid of a trend towards regulation, especially if an international code was applied: I’m not against rules and regulations if there they’re the right ones…But often it can be just used against you. If something goes wrong and someone complains, management can come back at you with “You didn’t follow the guideline”… But I think that if someone has been grossly stupid in manipulating the image then they should pay the consequences. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 168/282
Brenton Edwards said he was not aware of any code apart from the general News Limited code (see Appendix A.3.1.3.) which he had seen when he was working for the Adelaide Advertiser in Australia (Mr Edwards was on a six-month work exchange with the Times). He was the only photographer at the Times who was in favour of an international code: I think it is important for publications to have a set of ethical rules to follow, for the sake of their own integrity and reputations and also to avoid litigation through misrepresentation. If the industry doesn’t regulate itself, then eventually governments may be forced to. At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan said that there was an invisible line between appropriate retouching and manipulation and that it was very well communicated and understood with regular photographers, although it was harder with occasional freelancers. Duncan Lovett thought there was no code of ethics, but that photographers would not have time anyway to manipulate, so usually practicalities would police any tendency to manipulate. Tim Anderson was not aware of a code, but he said he had never seen photographers abuse the technology anyway. He did not see a particular need for training on Photoshop because he said he was happy to leave this side of photography to “the people who would really use it are the people on the art desk”. Other Daily Mirror photographers said they had no knowledge of a formal code and said they thought that problems with unethical manipulations were not great enough to justify them. One, Emma Cattell, also expressed the view that she trusted direction from management on any “grey areas” in using the technology. Neither Libération nor the Parisien had formal codes – the latter for the very good reason that it had not introduced Photoshop into the newsroom. Libération head of photography Laurent Abadjian and deputy Luc Briand said there was no formal code, but that there was a general code of ethics for the newspaper which provided enough guidance. However, both spoke of the need for an international code given the difficulty in trusting images from sources not well known. The Agence France Presse photographers said they did not have a formal code, but that there was a clear understanding among photographers of what was ethical or not ethical. They said that the news images were usually provided in such a raw state that there was very little possibility for an image to be manipulated other than retouching for reproduction purposes. However, some photographers (Vincent Amalvy and Eric Fefenberg) thought that it would be useful to have written guidelines so that the boundaries were absolutely clear. At the Parisien, Emmanuel Pagnoud was in favour of a general international code on Photoshop for news photography, which would limit retouching to colour correction and that after this, the news organisation had a responsibility not to deceive the reader. He said there was no problem with the technology at the Parisien only because it had not been introduced, although he believed that the newspaper’s sense of ethics would ultimately prevail: “Peut-être que si j’avais Photoshop je serais peut-être tenter d’arranger _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 169/282
techniquement les choses, éclairer un personnage, par exemple, mais de ne pas modifier le sens du reportage.” [Translation: Perhaps if I had Photoshop I would be tempted to make technical improvements, to lighten up someone for example, but not to modify the truth of the reporting.] Of the Parisien staff photographers, two suggested an international code of ethics to help differentiate the newspaper industry from the magazine industry and contain abuses in the UK. The third, Aurélie Audureau, thought that it would not make a real difference to the French press, but said she had no real objection. And Vincent Lesage said that he was ambivilent: “[C]’est surtout un problème de conscience.” [Translation: Overall it is a problem of conscience.] The Los Angeles Times and the San Jose Mercury News had no detailed policies, but both had written statements forbidding unethical retouching (see Appendices A.3.4.2. and A.3.4.3.). Los Angeles Times managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said that while there was no official code, he thought the newspaper’s expectations of its photographers was well-communicated through its policy. However, he said it had seemed to be better understood by some parts of the newspaper (for example news) than others (such as sport). On the other hand, director of photography Larry Armstrong referred to the newspaper’s policy (see Appendix A.3.4.2.) which he said had been implemented in 1998 after some “misunderstandings” between the photography and art departments. He said this statement warning against manipulation had been devised based on models used by other newspapers, and had been a collaborative process involving photographers and editors. He said the photographers’ version had been slightly more strict than the editors, however. He also said that photographers were probably more tempted to overretouch their own photographs because they were more personally involved with the process: When we did the Photoshop training we told everybody you don’t do anything you can’t do in the darkroom and that was our first fundamental thing. But we’ve even gone beyond that because we found out that … and we still have this problem to a certain degree, that photographers are so much into making perfect prints that when they sit down in front of a screen, they try to make it perfect on the screen, they forget that’s not what it was first being used for. And we find out that if they do too much darkroom manipulation on it then there isn’t enough data left for the pre-press people to make a good quality reproduction. So we’ve asked more and more for photographers not to touch them too much, to do just the minimum amount of toning that they have to do, and if they really wanted to play, to work with the prepress people, to just sit down with them and say: I’d really like this guy darkened, I’d like this brought back… Los Angeles Times photographers were all aware of the newspaper’s statement against manipulation, and three mentioned the additional NPPA code. However, Mika Namir said that common sense was the best guideline, along with an idea of darkroom standards: The bottom line is you can’t do any work on Photoshop that you wouldn’t do on a commercial darkroom … this is important as a standard because what you can do on a computer is endless, endless possibilities. Also people expect this, and that is about the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 170/282
credibility of the paper. Also important to guard the science of photography. “If you stick to that, in essence you have a guideline.” Two of the others also said they were essentially guided by darkroom standards. However, Kirk McCoy said any guideline, no matter how detailed, did not necessarily provide a good ethical guidance, and that strong leadership from management working on deadline was also needed. For example, he said lightening or darkening an image was usually seen as part of accepted darkroom practice, but this was precisely the problem for one of the most infamous photo-imaging scandals in the US (where both Time and Newsweek magazines manipulated the colour of O.J. Simpson’s skin on the cover of their magazines: one cover made him look lighter and more “innocent”, the other darker and more “guilty”). Patrick Downs said he did the first photo-illustration ever published by a staff photographer by the paper, and that to do so, he had to overcome “a huge amount of resistance”. There were two schools of thought going on here. One was that photographers should only know how to colour correct and you know, how to spot, the basics that you could do in the darkroom. When it gets beyond that into image compositing and multiple image and layers and some of the more esoteric things that photographers do, they said we don’t want photographers to know how to do that … because we don’t want them to have the temptation. I disagree because I think that Photoshop is a very powerful tool and like any tool you have to use it properly and there are rules, and it doesn’t matter how much knowledge or skill people have in terms of using something like Photoshop, if you have rules that people can adhere to they can be a bonafide expert in the program, but still there are things that are not accepted in terms of image manipulation of the newspaper. The two are separate issues really. However, he said that now Photoshop was accepted as a tool just like the darkroom, the fear surrounding it had diminished. But the current policy should be replaced by a detailed statement, particularly for those younger photographers who were not used to the darkroom. He said that while there was a general understanding that if the photograph was altered to deceive the reader, then this was wrong, there should be discussion groups at the newspaper to debate the finer definition of this view. At the San Jose Mercury News, again there was a fairly short written statement forbidding manipulation, but giving little explicit guidance of how photographers should deal with the grey areas. However, all photographers and photo editors had received training in the news technology when it was introduced in 1994: a two week course with a component dealing with ethics, which was available on request for new photographers joining the staff. For assistant managing editor Brian Munroe, this was entirely adequate because the photographers had been well-trained in how to use Photoshop and were professional photojournalists. Director of photography Geri Migielicz said that the one-sentence policy not to alter news pictures was adequate: When we first brought in electronic workstations, Photoshop was on all of them, so anybody _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 171/282
at any point in the process could alter a picture, a copy editor could. So at that point, with an understood policy within the photography department, we just made it a larger policy so that everybody in the newsroom understood and they didn’t ask anybody in production to alter anything…I don’t know what any other Knight-Ridder [newspaper] does. News photos just shouldn’t be manipulated. It’s as sacred as quote marks for reporters, so there is no real need for a list. In any case, she said the newspaper was steering away from using photo-illustrations because it defined the images in the newspaper as art rather than news, and readers were ultimately buying a newspaper. Among photographers, three thought the policy was strong and successfully communicated. However, one of these said she would prefer “something more specific” even though she respected the director of photography’s experience in determining issues as they arose. Rick Martin said he thought the policy gave the newspaper “pretty good credibility” and that it was successfully passed around, but also indicated a preference for more training on photo-imaging ethics. The other two photographers were less convinced. Michael Rondou said he wondered if it were good enough given the number of young people entering the profession who were not aware of the darkroom standards. He said he was particularly worried about ethics on cloning elements of photographs, but had never had training in this area. And Richard Koci-Hernandez said that a one-sentence policy was definitely inadequate: “It’s kind of sad – we have a book on everything else, but not one on digital ethics.” However, ultimately he thought that people, rather than the technology, were the problem, and that no amount of training would dissuade someone from unethical practices if she/he were so inclined. None of the American photographers and managers interviewed were in favour of an international code of ethics, citing reasons including that such a code would be unworkable in being able to give precise instructions on Photoshopping techniques, to the right of newspapers to be governed by market forces and not by rules.
5.6.
PERCEPTIONS OF INTRA-ORGANISATIONAL DIFFERENCES
There were substantial variations between newspapers on the question of whether attitudes towards photomanipulation differed according to organisational layers. Particular concerns on this issue arose from employees at the Times. Libération provided another notable exception, with photo department managers defending the right to intra-organisational differences on ethics, saying the newspaper’s original charter protected the right of each department to decide its ethical stance. Its editors also emphasised that because there were no staff photographers, it would be impossible to know if views on ethics were similar, but they believed their product was ultimately “ethical”. At the Times deputy editor John Bryant said the general direction was well understood: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 172/282
I think it is certainly understood by the picture desk here that they don’t muck around with photographs and even the cutting or the cropping of the photographs matters and I take a particular interest in that and you can do things just by sheer cropping which is quite legitimate and you can certainly portray pictures in different ways. The idea of moving people around in a photograph, moving objects or altering images is just not on. If it were done for a specific reason which is part of the story then it’s different ... let’s just say you were doing a news story on how a public figure would look in 25 years time, so therefore you’re saying, here is a photograph, we’ve put it through a computer and aged it and all the rest of it, that seems to me to be potentially a valid use of the technology ... you can do various reconstructions or a sporting moment or something crazy like that but if you’re going to do it, you’ve got to make it absolutely clear about why you’re doing it and what you’re doing. However, picture editor Andrew Moger said that while there was a similar view and a similar level of concern about ethical issues among photographers and the picture desks, others in the organisation were probably not aware of the dilemmas. He also noted that ethics was a difficult subject to discuss in newspapers due to production values: I would say the depth of concern around picture-taking and picture-using groups in the newsroom is very very strong. Beyond that it’s a subject which people aren’t keen to get involved in at all. Because ethics and newspapers aren’t very good bedfellows on occasions. And considerations of those ethical issues acts as a break to the production cycle. He said views also differed from one section of the newspaper to another. For example, the sports editor and art director different views to his own on the use of photo-imaging: I have to say there are often occasions where the afternoon conference with the editor or the heads of department will occasionally (perhaps two or three times a month) result in someone saying “well, why don’t we mock it up, wouldn’t that be fun”. We look at it and it gets relegated from being an idea for the main image to an idea for the secondary image for the front page in the basement area, which traditionally is our whimsical, funny, well-written, lyrical piece, or something that’s got a joke element to it. And then if you’re using a mockedup image, as long as it says that it’s a mocked-up image, then I think that you can carry the reader through that again. But I don’t think we’d ever use a created image in that regard. Among photographers, Paul Fieves and Simon Walker thought that there was not a great understanding of photographers’ work or ethics from elsewhere in the newsroom, even if photographers’ views were fairly consistent. By contrast, Gill Allen thought views differed between photographers as well as between organisational layers on the ethical limits of enhancement. She said this was sometimes frustrating when colours were scanned in differently by the art department, or other elements were enhanced in a way not intended by the photographer: “They’re not seeing it as you see it.” Freelancer Robin Mayes said that he believed a real image was not a portrayal of truth, but a manipulation anyway, and that his views probably differed from colleagues and management. He added that he thought newspaper editors in general were “totally ignorant” about how their photography departments were run. Only two photographers, Chris _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 173/282
Harris and Brenton Edwards, said they believed there was a fairly uniform idea on acceptable limits to digital retouching of photographs. At the Daily Mirror, editor Ron Morgan said views were similar. Duncan Lovett also thought views were similar around the photo desk, but thought management sometimes had a different view, and it was management who would make the executive decision to turn a picture into a photo-image, but that photographers accepted this system of responsibility. Tim Anderson and Emma Cattell both thought ideas were similar between photographers and managers, but the other photographers all cited occasional differences between photographers, management and the art department. At Libération, head of the photographic department Laurent Abadjian said that of course differences existed and this was an important part of photographic creativity because photographers all had their own way of interpreting events: “Chaque photographe donne son interprétation de l’événement … et il cherche à défendre son droit d’interprétation.” [Translation: Each photographer gives his own interpretation of the event … and he stands by his right to interpret these events individually.] He said Libération’s unique charter meant that management had no part in photographic decisions other than to define the news subjects. After that, all decisions regarding choice of image and ethical boundaries were left to the photographic department, and management had no power to change those decisions. His deputy Luc Briand elaborated further, saying that because there were no salaried photographers at the newspaper, many of the decisions about the photographs were made independent of the newspaper altogether. At this point he also mentioned that photographers, if they chose to work with Photoshop, often did so at home. But because the majority of the newspapers’ images came from Agence France Presse, attitudes on photo-manipulation ethics were relatively assured. The agency photographers interviewed agreed, saying that there was a well-communicated verbal policy, and in general there was a clear consensus about photographic ethics at all levels. By contrast, Gérard Leroux pointed out that the finished product in a newspaper or magazine could have been heavily manipulated, and that the agency had no control over the image once it was sold. At the Parisien, head of the photographic department Emmanuel Pagnoud said he thought there was a consistent approach to photographic ethics, but that management allowed decisions on photographic ethics to be made by the photographic department management. Among photographers, Vincent Lesage said ideas were fairly consistent not just at the Parisien, but throughout France: “On est tous contre [la manipulation]. Et on en parle, mais il n’y a pas de discussion qui soit sacrée sur la manipulation de photo, parce que c’est hors de question.” [Translation: We’re all against [manipulation]. And although we talk about it, there is no discussion about how to create great fakes, because it is just out of the question.] _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 174/282
Aurélie Audureau and Philippe Desprès said that there was a clear understanding on ethics generally at different levels of photographic management, but both mentioned potential problems with newer members of the profession entering jobs without a good understanding of darkroom standards. However, both also alluded to the importance of individual interpretation for photography. For example, Ms Audureau said the more artistic images in Libération were very different from the more straight news style of the Parisien. Again, the additional agency photographers interviewed were consistent with their confidence in a clearly understood consensus on ethics throughout different levels of management at Agence France Presse. Similarly, the American interviewees were also confident of a general similarity of views thoughout their organisation, although some photographers mentioned a lack of confidence in art departments. At the Los Angeles Times managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said photographers and their managers had a comprehensive understanding of photography ethics, but within other parts of the newspaper there were still “pockets of resistance”. Director of photography
Larry Armstrong said that there was a good
understanding of the relevant issues throughout the organisational layers because industry education was of a high standard. Nevertheless, there were always exceptions: Every once in a while you’ll have something happen and you’ll just say: why did you do this? You should have checked with somebody. But it’s rare, and usually we catch them ... Often times somebody will walk up and say: did you see this? Here’s what they are asking us to do … we say then that we don’t do this, what are you trying to say here? There’s a different way to do this … He said that often it was word journalists/editors/graphics people who pushed for a more illustrative look (such as on a cover) and not photojournalists. But he thought changes in styles could only be a confusing message for readers because they had little understanding that they were supposed to attribute a different veracity to the cover than to the inside pages. Los Angeles Times photographers agreed that there was a fairly harmonious intra-organisational view between the 55 photographers at the newspaper (including 25 photographers at the downtown edition where the study was carried out). The six photographers interviewed said they generally agreed with the ethical and technical judgement of their 13 editors and director of photography. However, Patrick Downs, who worked for the news magazine, said there were sometimes different views. For example he did not believe every fashion photograph should be labelled as manipulated because he said this kind of retouching was understood and tolerated by readers. Only Annie Wells said individual ethics on manipulations could vary dramatically. She said that while she was not interested in manipulating photographs, some of her colleagues were, and would “play” with photographs to experiment (an activity she considered dangerous, even when the photographs were not intended for publication).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 175/282
At the San Jose Mercury News assistant managing editor Brian Munroe and director of photography Geri Migielicz both thought there was a consistent intra-organisational view on photographic ethics. Ms Migielicz said discussion was an integral part of communicating expectations. Whenever we see somebody who might have done a little too much work in Photoshop, we talk about it. I say, what colour is this shirt, is it white? How come it looks 10 percent grey, it’s not honest, just don’t push it … Everyone agrees it’s important, even if they know there is a great temptation. But everybody understands our credibility is the most important franchise we have, and if we are tempted to compromise that, people can’t trust us with the news. Of the photographers, four believed there was a homogenous view and that there was no problem communicating expectations between levels. However, Gary Reyes thought that sometimes different values were applied to features photographs, and Richard Koci-Hernandez also thought there were occasional problems in this area.
5.7.
PHOTOGRAPHERS’ ATTITUDES TO THEIR JOB AS ART OR PROFESSION
At the Times, deputy editor John Bryant said photographers were professional, even if their work had its base in craft. However, he said their work was very different to the early newspaper days when they used to draw in images as artists: The great thing about a photograph is that it’s an actual representation … if it’s not true it’s meaningless. There can be some detail in that photograph which can mean a hell of a lot to somebody who understands that particular detail. And if it has been taken out for some artistic reason that’s crazy. He said he would not tolerate any manipulation (even adding or removing distracting small elements) because it undermined the credibility of the whole medium. Also you could “wind up with egg on your face” if you manipulated a photograph which ran in three other newspapers. Ultimately, he saw photography as a truthful medium: We had this with the tabloids with Princess Di and Dodi and a kiss and they turned them round and turned their heads round and did all sorts of things and it is just crazy because once you start doing that why bother to have photographers: you might as well, you’re back to prephotographic eras. I mean in the old days of newspapers before photographs you had people doing beautiful drawings in the Illustrated London News ... but everybody knew this was an artist doing it. It wasn’t necessarily authentic ... so basically I start from the premise that I won’t allow it at all.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 176/282
Picture editor Andrew Moger said he considered newspaper photography as a craft. As for whether photographs were truthful, it came down to a question of reader expectations and commercial values based on those expectations, rather than a discussion of any inherent truth in photography: It is a very compelling issue to get involved in because I think it’s important for every journo and photographer to get involved in because we sell a product which the reader has faith in, and once you start losing the faith of your reader you never get it back, and for the Times in particular, it’s important that we don’t let go those important considerations and we don’t start swindling our readers, fooling our readers, giving them any sense of doubt with the commodity. However, we are a commercial organisation, we have to get the paper out, we have to do new things, we have to entertain sometimes, we have to present our pictures in a different way…there are always going to be new ways to repackage our paper. We have to consider those, but we have to consider them in the context of these ethical issues at the same time. Among photographers, Simon Walker thought news photography was about capturing events in the most realistic way possible. And although he believed there was an element of art to the job, ultimately he saw his role as that of a visual reporter. As for photographic truth, this was an indefinable concept, because all that a photographer could ever be expected to do was to take an impression of truth as he saw it at that moment. Gill Allen said she thought of photographers as professionals who were not professionally rewarded in terms of pay. She said they were documentors of history as well as creative types. Paul Fieves saw his role as a mix of artist and reporting professional, and thought some images reflected one role more than others. Freelancer Robin Mayes saw himself as a visual reporter, but added that even in the process of taking a photograph, a photographer manipulated the truth: “It’s all subjective.” He rejected the idea that a photograph was somehow “real” at the same time as he rejected the idea that it was art: Everything you do with words and pictures … has some sort of artistic merit to it. It’s a question of degree and what sort of photography you do … but it’s not art. Different sorts of pictures have different levels of artistic merit. Chris Harris said he saw the job as a mix of art, craft and profession: “I think a professional press photographer has to be able to adapt to every situation”. He never used the term “photojournalist”, preferring the term “photographer”, and thought photographs themselves were a mix of art and truth. Brenton Edwards said he thought it was both an art and a profession: “Every subject provides a new challenge to produce the best image, whether it be hard news or a two-day features shoot.” At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan said he thought a newspaper photographer’s work was a mixture of art and professionalism. Duncan Lovett agreed, but said it depended what section of the newspaper was being discussed, and that even within sections there were no hard and fast rules because “a news photograph can also be an art picture”. Overall, he said art entered news photography when the photographer had to start “visualising what the picture should be like”. And because it was also an _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 177/282
intellectual activity, he said the artistic element of a news photograph often made it a more truthful image than if the photographer had just shot the first frame he could without thinking. Daily Mirror photographers were remarkably consistent on this issue, all saying they thought their jobs were a mixture of a profession and an art, and that this was reflected in their photographs. At Libération, Laurent Abadjian said the job was a mixture of a profession and an art, but that it was important that photographers did not lose sight of the fact that news photos should tell the truth. For example, if a skirt was blue it should not be changed to red. On the other hand, he said that every photographer interpreted the truth differently: “C’est vrai qu’une image, quand même, est une valeur de preuve dans l’imaginaire des lecteurs, pour qui l’image peut renforcer la vérité qu’ils comprennent.” [Translation: It is true that an image, even so, is a value of proof in the imagination of readers, for whom the image can reinforce the truth which they understand.] He said there were many examples of famous photographs in France where the photographers had paid people to pose, and the fact that these images were still important went to show that the actual truth of a photograph was possibly not as important as the idea which made it true. Luc Briand described the job as an artistic profession and said that at his newspaper, photographers were required to mix the technical elements of art with the characteristics of the news professional. Of the Agence France Presse photographers interviewed, five said they thought their job was a mix of a profession and an art, and that this was a necessary marriage in order to produce a truthful image. One of these (Tomas Coex) said the artistic emphasis was declining, and another (Vincent Amalvy) commented that photographers were increasingly required to learn new skills, and were increasingly technicians. But Gabriel Bouys said an agency photographer should place much more emphasis on the professional side of photography than on the artistic: “Un photo c’est un information, c’est avant tout un information.” [Translation: “A photograph is a piece of news, it is above all a piece of news.”] He said he was not an artist in the tradition of the Magnum photographer, who could spend days on one subject alone. This was not better or worse, just a different way of working. At the Parisien, Emmanuel Pagnoud said the job was a mix of a profession and an art, but that the most important goal of photographers working at his newspaper should be to create a truthful image. Vincent Lesage said he saw himself as more of a news professional than an artist: “Nous, notre role c’est d’être sur la terrain être les témoins d’actualité.” [Translation: “Here our role is to be on the ground, to be the public witness of what is happening.”] Aurélie Audureau said the mix of art and professional in the job was dependent on photographers’ interpretations. For example, she said some photographers thought it was no problem to pose people for news photographs, while others did. Philippe Desprès thought that although a photograph should be a truthful image, whether it was a good image hinged on more than art or profession: “Enfin une bonne photographie est une coincidence entre le sujet et le photographe, et l’environment qu’il y a …” [Translation: “Ultimately, a good photograph is a coincidence between the subject and the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 178/282
photograph and the environment around them …”] Of the remaining three agency photographers, two saw their jobs as a mixture between a profession and an art, even if the aim was to produce a truthful image. But Eric Fefenberg disagreed: It is a journalistic profession, not an artistic or technical one. It is journalistic above all, and on top of that we need the technical expertise to develop the photograph, because that is the method which it is necessary to use. But it is not an artistic or technical profession, it is a journalistic profession. [See Appendix A.5.10.] At the Los Angeles Times, managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said there was a fine line between the art and the reporting in news photography, but a photographer’s aim should be to produce an image that tells the truth as much as possible. Director of photography Larry Armstrong said he thought photographers were becoming increasingly professional in their jobs, and that their role as visual journalists was also being increasingly recognised by others. For many years when I worked here, words ruled, you know, and photos were..I mean they were very kind and they treated us with respect as people, but that is where it stopped, you know. We wouldn’t necessarily get good picture play. If it meant taking words away from the writer, forget it, you weren’t going to get published. Now there is more of a balance, they understand more what we are here to do … They realise too that circulation is declining for everybody, they realise the competition is television and the internet. Well, what common denominators do we have there? Oh, they are very visual! … In the last few years, we’ve had a nice balance here. Among photographers, Robert Gautier said he thought his job was a profession, but that newspapers also dealt in art and the balance was a delicate one: “There has got to be clear-cut boundaries between art and journalism, and newspapers practise both”. Mika Namir, Annie Wells and Kirt McCoy said they thought their jobs were a mixture of profession and art, and that photographers needed to be creative in order to make good pictures. However, Paul Morse and Patrick Downs said they thought of their jobs as a profession rather than an art form because the aim was to produce photographs that were truthful. As Mr Downs commented: It may not be perfect, but news isn’t perfect … It’s exceptional because it is a moment in time frozen, a breaking news event, and to go in and change something like that I think destroys the integrity of the picture. It’s not going to be perfect, and if something is perfect in a news photo I get suspicious. At the San Jose Mercury News, the general consensus was that photography was a mix of art and profession. Assistant managing editor Brian Munroe said that photographs should be as truthful as possible, and in order to deliver this, photographers needed to be professionals, but they needed to apply some degree of art as well. Director of photography Geri Migielicz said that she thought photographs were only as truthful as the people using the tools, and therefore professionalism was paramount. Among _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 179/282
photographers, Gary Reyes and Michael Rondou thought their job was professional and not artistic, even though the former referred to the new technology and its “potential to lie” putting increasing demands on professionalism. The remaining four photographers all referred to their job as mixing elements of the news professional and the artist, although there was a strong feeling that this art should be used only in the pursuit of a photograph that was trustful. As Richard Koci-Hernandez said, “a lot of the art depends on what you do with the camera, even whether you choose to point-and-shoot to your left or to your right”.
5.8.
PERCEPTIONS OF READERS’ ATTITUDES
There was a general view among photographers and their managers in the UK, France and the US that while scepticism was probably increasing, readers generally believed what they saw and wanted newspapers with truthful photographs. However, photographers also thought that readers understood very little about photojournalism. Those at the San Jose Mercury News and the Parisien were less likely to think readers would tolerate manipulation for entertainment value or for a more “artistic” portrayal of the truth than those at other titles surveyed. At the Times, deputy editor John Bryant said that there were obvious cases (he gave the example of “a blurry picture of a space age monster”) where a photograph might legitimately be run through the best computer technology to achieve the clearest possible detail. But in general they should not be tampered with, and the idea of changing detail in an image “because it suits you” was crazy: My reaction is that a photograph has tremendous value as a record of what took place ... if someone starts cleaning that photograph up and moving something out of the frame to make that bold image bolder, you can distort all sorts of things, it’s like a detective looking for clues ... a person looking at that photograph might say – Oh God, the timekeeper’s got his eyes closed. There could be a question mark over the record. Now, if that photograph is not accurate, if you can’t see that little detail, then it’s a meaningless detail. As soon as you alter anything it becomes an illustration and not a photograph. A photograph is a factual record of what took place and it shouldn’t be altered. You can use technology ... legitimately to enhance ... If somebody had a picture of a space alien or the Loch Ness Monster and it came out of a Brownie camera and you say here it is, we’ve put it through the best computers in the world and this is what they say it looks like enhanced – again a perfectly legitimate exercise. It’s just using technology to try and convey information. But the idea of just changing something because it suits you is just crazy. Picture editor Andrew Moger said readers were becoming more sophisticated about distinguishing between a real and a manipulated image. But he said most did not really care about the issue of photographic veracity because they were so saturated by fake images from the advertising industry and newspaper photo manipulations were negligible by comparison. He said most readers scanned a newspaper in the same way as they watched television: “It’s not worth taking the time for them to pause over.” _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 180/282
However, Times photographer Paul Fieves said accuracy was always the goal. Even so, he said that while techniques like taking telegraph poles/wires out of hard news photographs was something a good photographer should not do, they were still “acceptable if it was not relevant to the picture”. This was because there were times in spot news where lack of time meant the photographer made bad choices in terms of lenses and angles, and this might mean that some cleaning up was acceptable later as long as the essential ingredients of the photograph were not changed. As for readers, he thought the “middle-of-theroad people…don’t give a damn”. By contrast, Gill Allen thought most people who bothered to spend the money to buy a newspaper or magazine liked to think they were looking at a true image: “The moment they know there is any doubt that it is a true image they stop buying it ... You should never underestimate the readers’ intelligence…” And freelancer Robin Mayes said readers still believed what they were seeing was real because it was a photograph. Simon Walker said readers did not care about accuracy, but Chris Harris said readers “absolutely” cared about accuracy in photographs: “They question anything, you’ve only got to get something wrong in a caption and they are on to you.” Brenton Edwards said he thought it was important for photographs to be seen to be telling a true story, and if this meant setting up the photograph, that was something readers were prepared to accept: Often, an unnatural pose or scenario is required to bring out the truth in a photo, i.e. a scientist who never looks through a test tube, but instead keeps them in a metal box. A pic of a scientist holding a box says nothing where if the scientist was holding the test tube to the light, makes the photo more interesting. At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan said he thought readers accepted and understood the difference between documentary-style photographs, and photo-montages. Meanwhile, Ducan Lovett said readers wanted to be presented with a clear image that would not compromise the essential veracity of what was being photographed: I think readers want to believe that what they see is actually what was there in front of the camera, but they also want something that is going to entertain them. They want everything out of the one product really, so you have to make a compromise really. As long as you are not changing the picture content … by chopping something out that actually is there … yeah … but if a wire was taken out of a picture, I don’t think the reader would mind … it’s not as if you’re chopping out an integral part of the picture. Two of the remaining five photographers said they thought the public expected truthful images, and that photographers should only undertake colour corrective work for news photos, with slightly more leeway for news features, such as dropping out backgrounds or more significant colour changes. However, one of these photographers (name withheld) said he thought the public would not necessarily distinguish between levels of veracity in news and feature photography. Two photographers thought the public did not think about issues of veracity and believed what they saw in newspaper photographs, and the other said he had _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 181/282
not thought about what the public believed, but that he thought producing truthful photographs was important. At Libération, head of the photography department Laurent Abadjian said readers wanted essentially true photographs, but they understood the difference between the more artistic pages of the newspaper, and the straight news pages, and they had corresponding expectations of veracity. For example, he said that when he was presented with a portrait photograph of a beautiful girl with bad skin, readers preferred that the picture be touched up to remove the imperfections: There are several kinds of images. When you do a portrait it is a different thing to when you do a news photograph … with a portrait, when there is something imperfect you can retouch the image to take out the pimple, or whatever it is … We can’t say to readers [in the caption] that we have removed a pimple, because that would be terrible! [See Appendix A.5.11.] His deputy Luc Briand agreed that public expectations of veracity depended on the context of the photograph and its placement in the newspaper. He gave the example of the traditional portrait photograph on the last page of Libération which was often heavily retouched with Photoshop imaging techniques, whereas he said news photographs were treated with just minor “clean up” techniques. Nevertheless, he said readers did care about the credibility of news photographs in general, even if they were becoming more accepting of fake images because of their exposure to advertising. Ultimately, he said what readers really wanted to see was the most beautiful image possible without compromising the essential veracity of the situation. However, this was a very different view to that of Agence France Presse photographers, who thought that it was important to present readers with images that were as truthful as possible, even if they were not particularly concerned by issues of veracity. Only Gabriel Bouys thought the public didn’t care about veracity at all, saying that because people were saturated with images in the modern age they could no longer distinguish between an advertising image and a news photograph. Another alternative view came from Vincent Amalvy: I don’t care about the public … we’re not a television station here … anyway, what is important is to keep making photographs which can show an aspect of reality … We, I mean the news agencies, are going to evolve and change, but this is why it is important, absolutely necessary, that a photograph stays true to certain principles. At the Parisien, head of the photographic department Emmanuel Pagnoud said the public trusted photographs and that as such the newspaper’s credibility rested on its delivery of truthful images. All four staff photographers interviewed said the public trusted their work and that veracity was important to them. Vincent Lesage said that the public saw news photographers as their visual witnesses, but that they also allowed for certain liberties with more artistic or feature photographs, such as posing people or things to _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 182/282
create the image. Aurélie Audureau said it was important for the public to have access to accurate information. Philippe Desprès and Olivier Couron thought people were concerned about veracity, and both referred to the capabilities of the new technology as having an influence on these public levels of concern. The two Agence France Presse photographers said they hoped the public cared about veracity of news photographs, with the qualification from Eric Fefenberg that although truth could always be interpreted differently, the public expected to be provided with a public record of important events: Clearly the public are concerned by truth. And the newspaper-reading public should not be deceived by an image even if it is a striking image … of course they care. Because this is what ends up forming public opinion (and I’m not just talking about the news image here, but news in general). [See Appendix A.5.13.] At the Los Angeles Times, managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said it was difficult to know what readers thought of the level of veracity in the newspaper’s images: “Hard to say. It kind of depends on how low readers think we would stoop … Our image is not that great so people wouldn’t be that shocked to find out that it’s happening.” Director of photography Larry Armstrong said readers cared about accuracy, but that they also thought this was more important in the news section than in the features section: In the news section itself, the photo should be pretty straightforward, it should be there to tell the reader the truth…sports doesn’t consider themselves the news section, they did for a long time but they have sort of reinvented themselves … in this paper sports does a lot of things that we don’t really care for … They wouldn’t move the ball, but what they do is … more bad taste than bad ethics, they’ll Photoshop other pictures into it, and they’ll build this thing, they’ll take an orange and put somebody inside the orange and they’ll peel it, and get carried away and put lots of type into it, so they are really making a real illustration out of it … Photographers were generally consistent in their view that the public wanted to believe the photographs they saw in newspapers; even some photographers like Patrick Downs found this trust unwarranted: I think the public is really naïve as to the power of this technology, I don’t even think the average people know what’s possible with this technology. This is really a highly specialised field and if you took the average person and showed them what could be done with Photoshop it would blow their mind … I hope our reader takes great comfort in the fact that we are trying so hard to assure the integrity of our news photos. Later, he said that he thought people still trusted news photography because they saw things as real: “They don’t read about it, they see it, and that makes an impression on people when they see that, and if it’s real they believe it and it has a lot of integrity.” Robert Gautier also thought people cared about photographic truth, and he said this was why the new technology made credibility more of an issue than ever before. Mika Namir thought readers cared about veracity, but were “pretty smart” and questioned photographs more than ever before. Kurt McKoy was not sure what the public believed, while Paul Morse and Annie Wells said they did not think the public thought about the possibility of manipulated photographs until the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 183/282
ethics were exposed in subsequent news stories. They both thought the number of technologically savvy readers who could spot manipulation was very low. Paul Morse also thought the public would not care if the manipulation performed on the computer could have occurred in front of the camera had the photographer been given more time (such as removing a passing car). Rather, he said it was photographers who cared about the accuracy of the moment because it preserved the integrity of news photography and represented the real “in an age when things can be changed and manipulated so easily.” At the San Jose Mercury News, assistant managing editor Brian Munroe was adamant that readers cared about veracity in newspaper photographs in general. Director of photography Geri Migielicz agreed, but said the “Silicon Valley factor” (the fact that the newspaper’s audience was a technologically advanced proportion of the world population) needed to be taken in to consideration: Yes readers care. We get email, they fax, they call. When they question something it hurts us, and a lot of people are sceptical, more sceptical than ever before, they cannot believe it – a lot. And so I think when they think we are doing something deliberate and not well we hear about it. And they are a lot more sceptical and we have to earn their trust everytime we are out at an event. For this reason, the newspaper had to be more accountable than ever before and deliver what readers wanted: If somebody cares enough to correct our mistakes then people are really paying attention. They haven’t disconnected from our credibility, they still want us to be sticklers for the Truth…We’re becoming a real visual society, that what people are willing to accept as truth and in which context is going to change, and I want to make sure that what our standards are are at least as high as what our readers expect, and they should be higher than most of our readers expect … and there are readers out there that do care very much, they understand us. Among photographers, opinions were evenly divided, with three saying readers cared about complete accuracy, and three saying that readers were not overly concerned. For example, Gary Reyes thought readers were intrinsically concerned by veracity because they were brought up with the adage that a picture did not lie. Michael Malone thought that readers cared, but only from the standpoint of wanting to trust the integrity of the newspaper, while Richard Koci-Hernandez believed the public was truly concerned by the issues and the outrage provoked over the darkening of the O.J. Simpson photograph in Newsweek was just one example of this. On the other hand, Michael Rondou thought the public was not really concerned by the issue of photographic veracity in newspapers, and Rick Martin said that he thought the public was a lot more tolerant of manipulation than photographers because they were so accustomed to seeing set-up photographs in television and magazines. Luci Houston said that even in the most respected newspapers, accuracy was constantly being sacrificed for a more perfect image. She said she was not sure readers
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 184/282
understood or cared about the ethical issues surrounding the debate on photo manipulation, as long as they held general trust in the credibility of the newspaper.
5.9.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MANIPULATION OF IMAGES
As Table 5.9-1 (compiled from survey results) shows, support for public acknowledgement of manipulation of images was strongest at both American newspapers, and weakest at the Daily Mirror and the Parisien. However, given that most other photographers and managers at these newspapers chose the third response option instead, it is difficult to see these results as pointing to more permissive attitudes in ethics in these newspapers. Rather, it could also be seen to demonstrate a more thoughtful attitude to the issues at stake among British and French photographers, with an understanding that a photograph did not necessarily tell the truth even in its most raw form, and that consideration of public views on deception might be a more effective way of managing disclosure. Table 5.9-2 shows there was a high level of support at all newspapers surveyed for acknowledgement of manipulated images, although no clear consensus on how this should be achieved, with responses divided between acknowledgement through general categories such as “photo-illustration” or “photo-montage”, and more specific captions detailing the manipulation which had taken place. One photographer at the Daily Mirror thought there was no need to acknowledge manipulated images as long as the reader was aware that they were humourous/entertainment images through use of conditional or future tense in a headline, caption or reference in the story. Table 5.9-1 : When should photographs which manipulate the truth be acknowledged? Responses in percentage NEWSPAPER1
TMS
DM
LIB
PAR
LAT
SJMN
n=8
n=7
n=7
n=7
n=8
n=8
Always
75
42.9
71.4
28.6
100
100
Never
0
0
0
0
0
0
Only if the manipulation is likely to deceive
0
42.9
28.6
57.1
0
0
Other
25
14.3
0
14.3
0
0
1
TMS=The Times (UK); DM =The Daily Mail (UK); LIB=Libération (France); PAR=Le Parisien (France); LAT=The Los Angeles
Times (US); SJMN=The San Jose Mercury News (US).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 185/282
Table 5.9-2 : How should these photographs be acknowledged? Responses in percentage NEWSPAPER1
TMS
DM
LIB
PAR
LAT
SJMN
n=8
n=7
n=7
n=7
n=8
n=8
Not at all
0
14.3
0
0
0
0
With a general symbol
0
0
0
0
0
0
With categories
62.5
42.9
28.6
71.4
62.5
50
With a precise caption
37.5
42.9
14.3
14.3
37.5
37.5
Other2
0
0
57.1
14.3
0
12.5
While the survey showed very general attitudes on acknowledgement, the information gained through responses to the interview questions was far more illuminating and often contradictory. At the Times, deputy editor John Bryant said that as soon as anything was altered, a photograph became an illustration. He said a photograph was a factual record of what took place and shouldn’t be altered, although technology could be used legitimately to enhance the photograph. This view was somewhat different from that held by picture editor Andrew Moger, who said the credibility of news images was becoming increasingly important, but that the digital age had also changed things irrevocably. Now there were two different categories of images and the distinction was crucial: What’s important is distinguishing between the two. There are now two sorts of images in the paper, in all the papers. Ones which you want to convey truthfully as an authentic image and you want to be proud to have that image in your paper – whether it’s the Times or the Sun or any newspaper. Then others which are gimmick, comic pictures. Then there’s the mass of images which fall between the two and so you have to be absolutely clear on where the line falls, and I have an opinion and other people will have opinions too. But you never want to go through a situation where a picture presented as an authentic image is precisely the opposite.
1
TMS=The Times (UK); DM=The Daily Mail (UK); LIB=Libération (France); PAR=Le Parisien (France); LAT=The Los Angeles
Times (US); SJMN=The San Jose Mercury News (US). 2
Those who marked “other” usually felt there should be a combination of the choices for indicating photo manipulation (in effect, a
more “strict” delineation such as categories plus detailed description).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 186/282
He said manipulated images were not confined to “sections” in the newspaper, and the front page with its teaser image boxes often contained photographs which could have been manipulated. For example, he said the “puff pictures” or feature/light-hearted images were “almost always cut out and re-sized”. But he said he was happy with the way they were used: We’re not saying necessarily that these are true images, they are part of something inside. This is a “taster”, as we often say … So that’s a secondary use … and I’m quite happy that there’s not any fooling that goes on in that regard, because the true image is hopefully used inside, but not always. Mr Moger said the currently preferred acknowledgement of manipulated images was by category, with reference to the photographer as well (for example: Photomontage: main picture by Robin Evans. imaging by Duncan Robson). But he said this still presumed a certain knowledge about the technology’s capacities from readers: “It’s not very satisfactory because if I was flying in from Mars and picked up a paper you wouldn’t know what that actually meant. So we’re still struggling to find the right form of words for every eventuality.” Photographers were generally in favour of acknowledging manipulation of images, but had quite different views about when illustrative techniques needed to be revealed. Paul Fieves said people would not be interested in knowing any great detail about a photograph’s process. He said high levels of manipulation were usually obvious to the public, and he was not sure that low levels would interest them, so maybe there was no need for acknowledgement (the opposite response from that which he had given in the written survey). Simon Walker said the question was not relevant to him as he was not fond of art-imaging photographs. However, he thought darkroom standards of improving photo quality were acceptable and should not be labelled. Gill Allen said that when an image was so manipulated that it did not really represent a real situation, then it should definitely be acknowledged as an illustration rather than as a photograph… But she also said it was the editor’s decision as to whether he or she wanted to give that information away and risk losing the respect of the reader: “So it’s a very very difficult question.” Freelancer Robin Mayes said that manipulations should be acknowledged for photo-montage or when there was something obvious taken away. Chris Harris said that when pictures had obviously been changed they should be acknowledged as manipulations. He said darkroom standards should be the determining factor, although he said he was unsure whether this was appropriate for younger photographers who had not trained in the darkroom: “I can only talk about what happens here, and manipulating images really doesn’t go on much to the extent that they change the context and the feelings and the truthfulness of the picture.” Brenton Edwards said images should be acknowledged “if the image content has been altered from its original to the point it makes it a different photo”. For example, he said brightening up colours or skin tone was acceptable, but adding or removing items was not. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 187/282
At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan said the line was clear: most news pictures were straight pictures, but the montage effects used would be easily recognised by the public and thus did not need explanation. He said the Mirror made only rare use of other kinds of photo-illustrations, and that therefore discretion was used to judge whether it would be easily understood by the public or whether it would need a specific label or could be acknowledged playfully through conditional or future tenses (for example, “our picture shows what Joe Bloggs would look like if…”). All in all, he said labels like “photo-image” were very rare: I think there’s always been a line and I’ve never seen it crossed actually, and I think that line is very simple. You can retouch for quality purposes, you can take out scratches, you can take out colour casts, you might even remove something which obstructs the picture like a tree stump coming out of someone’s head which is just an accident. What you never do is change the content of the news picture to try and give the impression that something that didn’t happen happened – i.e. you wouldn’t put Arthur Scargill next to Margaret Thatcher … Feature use is different. Feature use is where it is obvious it is done for a reason or an effect. And that should be up there in the language of pictures … Very often when John Major was in power (and he was a very grey and boring man) we used to say: “What if … a well-known designer like Gucci dressed John Major, and we’d stick his head on lots of Gucci kit.” And it was very obvious to the reader what we were doing. Four of the photographers interviewed were happy with the newspaper’s style of acknowledging manipulated photographs, saying the public was well aware of the way images were used to amuse them in the features pages. Tim Anderson and Bob Powell said that news images were usually published with very little enhancement, and another photographer who wished his name to be withheld said he thought the newspaper was responsible in what it chose to acknowledge, and that the occasional playfulness of its features images was obvious. Duncan Lovett said that if the picture had been manipulated to change the content and nothing is said to tell the public that, then that would be misleading the public, which would be a bad thing. However, because the paper’s readers were “intelligent people with their own minds”, a caption with a conditional tense was usually a good solution. The other two photographers were more concerned about the acknowledgement of their images, with Emma Cattell saying she was sometimes unhappy with the way colours were enhanced or other modifications were made by night editors without her knowledge, but that photographers had little control over these issues. At Libération, head of the photographic department Laurent Abadjian said manipulated images should be acknowledged at the point where they might deceive the public into thinking they were something else: “Ca depend de l’image, justement, s’il n’y a pas d’ambiguité, s’il y n’a pas de doute sur le fait de si c’est une vraie image ou pas une vraie image.” [Translation: “It all depends on the image, of course, and whether there is any ambiguity, on whether there is any doubt as to whether it is a true image or not.”] In the case where there was doubt, he said the image had to be marked as a fake or a photo-montage. Luc Briand said the newspaper did not fake images, but that readers understood the definition between the news pages and _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 188/282
the news feature pages where art photographs could appear. There was therefore no need to specifically acknowledge the difference between these two different kinds of photographs. Among the Agence France Presse photographers interviewed, two said they were not sure how manipulated images should be acknowledged because their job was to deliver straight news photographs, and two said simply that manipulated images should always be acknowledged by clear wording in the caption. Gérard Fouet said a manipulated image should always be marked when it purported to show a news event, but he thought different standards applied in features photography. And Gérard Leroux said montages had to be clearly marked, and that even within his agency there was a separate department to deal with these kind of images. He thought one of the problems with acknowledgement in France was that the general term “trucage” (“fake”) was pejorative, and he thought a new term such as “assemblage” (“combination”) would encourage more news publications to use the term in a positive way. He thought using a generic symbol as a means of acknowledgement was a bad idea because the public would not understand it. He said this was already used on the televised political satire program Le vrai
journal and could easily mislead an
unsuspecting viewer: “Vous allumez la television et vous tombez sur une image de Karl Zéro et vous savez pas … ca c’est mauvais.” [Translation: “You turn on the television and suddenly you are seeing one of these fake images from the Karl Zéro program and you wouldn’t know it was a fake … that is not on.”] At the Parisien, head of the photographic department Emmanuel Pagnoud said the question of acknowledgement was irrelevant because the newspaper did not use Photoshop. Other staff photographers agreed, except for Vincent Lesage, who said that when a photograph lied, it was necessary to acknowledge the level of manipulation in a very specific way. The two Agence France Presse photographers were more forthcoming, with Eric Fefenberg saying that a photograph was sacred, a “temoinage” (proof) and that as such, all manipulations (those which did not aim to merely correct the image to bring it back to what the naked eye would see) should be acknowledged. However, he added that features photographs and portrait shots should be given more scope for artistic portrayals. At the Los Angeles Times, managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said that while he preferred not to see any manipulated images in the newspaper, if they had to be used they must be acknowledged as such. Director of photography Larry Armstrong agreed, saying that newspapers should err on the side of caution when it came to acknowledgement, because even the most obvious manipulation might deceive some readers. For example, he was told by the sports department that one computer image of a Hollywood star dribbling a ball down Hollywood Boulevard would be obvious as a fake image and as such did not need to be labelled. However, even an experienced newspaper employee had been fooled: “My boss, who is the managing editor and not really into sports a lot, he looked at me and said: ‘Oh you mean that wasn’t a real picture?’ And that proved my point.” _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 189/282
Patrick Downs, who did the newspaper’s first photo-image when Photoshop was introduced, said that an image should be acknowledged as soon as something was added or subtracted, or when it was enhanced in a way that could not be done in the darkroom. However, he said more manipulation was allowable for certain types of photographs in certain sections of the paper, such as fashion shots. Robert Gautier thought there were fewer photo-images in the newspaper than ever before, but he said when they did occur they should be fully acknowledged. Paul Morse said acknowledgement should occur at the point “when photography goes further than reflecting nature”, while Mika Namir said a photograph became a photoillustration when the content had be changed significantly. Annie Wells said acknowledgement was a difficult issue, and whenever there was a question about it photographers consulted each other and their editors: When should you tell readers? I don’t know if I have a line drawn in my mind, but if you’re going to change the content significantly, and I know significantly is the operative word that you want a definition of, then you need to say that it is a photo illustration. Kurt McKoy thought manipulations should always be acknowledged, and that photographers had to rely on a strong education and training in news to know when they had gone too far in retouching techniques, and that editing news photographs should be a “natural reflex”. At the San Jose Mercury News, assistant managing editor Brian Munroe said simply that manipulations should always be acknowledged through captions such as “photo-illustration” or “photo-montage”. Director of photography Geri Migielicz said illustrations were allowed, but there were rules: Illustrations have to be stock images, cut outs, cut and pastes. It has to be an image that is appropriate to be altered. Anything that falls under the realms of news pictures is very strict, we treat it like reporters treat quote marks. And we have a lot of ongoing discussions about context. Photographers were consistent in their response that manipulated images should be acknowledged as illustrations. This was determined by images which went further in computerised retouching techniques than those which could be achieved in the darkroom. Three of the photographers said the other determining factor was whether the image showed a real situation or not, and that images should be acknowledged as photo-illustrations when they were not representations of what happened in front of the camera. When it came to the written survey on levels of approval for different kinds of photomanipulation, the differences between newspapers was substantial. As Table 5.9-3 and Table 5.9-4 show, Daily Mirror respondents were most likely to approve of the listed Photoshop techniques in news (38.1%) and feature (71.43%) photographs, with the most popular technique being the removal of distracting telephone poles or wires. In second place in the news category was the Parisien (31.75%), followed by the Times (23.61%) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 190/282
and Libération (17.46%). In feature photographs, it was the Times respondents in second place (47.22%), followed by the Parisien (41.27%), and Libération (23.8%). Respondents at the San Jose Mercury News and the Los Angeles Times were far less likely to condone these techniques in either of these categories. Overall, respondents were more disposed towards using the computer to drop out or blur backgrounds, stretch photos and intensify colours than adding or subtracting substantial elements (such as people). As Table 5.9-5 shows, there was a very high approval rate for using Photoshop techniques on images marked as photo illustrations at all newspapers, except at Libération where under half the respondents condoned these techniques even for labelled images.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 191/282
Table 5.9-3 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (spot news)
SITUATION
SPOT NEWS (percentage who say yes or maybe)1
NEWSPAPER2
TMS
DM
LIB
PAR
LAT
SJMN
n=8
n=7
n=7
n=7
n=8
n=8
1.
Remove distracting telephone poles/wires
12.5
71.43
14.29
28.57
0
0
2.
Move object closer to subject
0
14.29
0
0
0
12.5
3.
Stretch photo 10 % to fit a layout
12.5
57.14
28.57
71.43
0
12.5
4.
Combine two people from two separate
0
14.29
14.29
57.12
0
0
photos 5.
Blur a background to emphasise a subject
50
57.14
0
0
0
0
6.
Remove people from background who
12.5
14.29
0
0
0
0
distract 7.
Intensify colours for graphic effect
50
42.86
57.14
71.43
12.5
0
8.
Extend a photo’s border by cloning
37.5
42.86
14.29
14.29
0
0
37.5
28.57
28.57
42.86
0
0
23.61
38.1
17.46
31.75
1.38
2.78
elements 9.
Drop out the background
TOTAL (combined percentage of acceptable manipulations)
1
Multiple responses were allowed for each category of photograph.
2
TMS=The Times (UK); DM=The Daily Mail (UK); LIB=Libération (France); PAR=Le Parisien (France); LAT=The Los Angeles
Times (US); SJMN=The San Jose Mercury News (US).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 192/282
Table 5.9-4 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (feature photo)
SITUATION
FEATURE PHOTO (percentage who say yes or maybe)1
NEWSPAPER2
1.
Remove distracting telephone
TMS
DM
LIB
PAR
LAT
SJMN
n=8
n=7
n=7
n=7
n=8
n=8
25
85.71
0
28.57
12.5
0
poles/wires 2.
Move object closer to subject
12.5
28.57
0
14.29
0
25
3.
Stretch photo 10 % to fit a
50
71.43
28.57
71.43
0
12.5
12.5
57.12
14.29
71.53
0
0
87.5
85.71
28.57
14.29
25
0
25
57.12
14.29
14.29
0
0
87.5
100
57.12
85.71
37.5
12.5
62.5
71.43
28.57
28.57
12.5
0
62.5
85.71
42.86
42.86
12.5
25
47.22
71.43
23.8
41.27
11.11
8.33
layout 4.
Combine two people from two separate photos
5.
Blur a background to emphasise a subject
6.
Remove
people
from
background who distract 7.
Intensify colours for graphic effect
8.
Extend a photo’s border by cloning elements
9.
Drop out the background
TOTAL (combined percentage of acceptable manipulations)
1
Multiple responses were allowed for each category of photograph.
2
TMS=The Times (UK); DM=The Daily Mail (UK); LIB=Libération (France); PAR=Le Parisien (France); LAT=The Los Angeles
Times (US); SJMN=The San Jose Mercury News (US).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 193/282
Table 5.9-5 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (photo illustration)
SITUATION
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION (percentage who say yes or maybe)1
NEWSPAPER2
1.
Remove
distracting
telephone
TMS
DM
LIB
PAR
LAT
SJMN
n=8
n=7
n=7
n=7
n=8
n=8
87.5
100
42.86
71.43
87.5
62.5
poles/wires 2.
Move object closer to subject
75
71.43
28.57
71.43
100
87.5
3.
Stretch photo 10 % to fit a layout
100
85.71
42.86
71.43
100
62.5
4.
Combine two people from two
100
85.71
42.86
85.71
87.5
87.5
87.5
85.71
42.86
71.43
100
87.5
87.5
85.71
42.86
71.43
87.5
75
separate photos 5.
Blur a background to emphasise a subject
6.
Remove people from background who distract
7.
Intensify colours for graphic effect
100
100
52.85
42.86
87.5
87.5
8.
Extend a photo’s border by cloning
100
85.71
42.86
85.71
87.5
87.5
100
85.71
57.12
85.71
100
100
93.06
87.3
46.03
77.78
93.06
81.94
elements 9.
Drop out the background
TOTAL
(combined
percentage
of
acceptable manipulations)
1
Multiple responses were allowed for each category of photograph
2
TMS=The Times (UK); DM=The Daily Mail (UK); LIB=Libération (France); PAR=Le Parisien (France); LAT=The Los Angeles
Times (US); SJMN=The San Jose Mercury News (US).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 194/282
5.10. ATTITUDES TO DIGITAL CAMERAS At the Times deputy editor John Bryant said he had not realised that using digital cameras meant dispensing with the negative. When questioned about the continuing validity of negatives as proof, he replied: “But there will always be a negative.” Following the author’s explanation of the impact of digital technology on newsrooms, he said he assumed that it would always have been possible to fake negatives anyway: I assume (I mean I’m not a photographer or a darkroom operative or anything) but I assume that if you wanted to deceive you could produce a deceptive negative. You could alter a photograph ... I suspect that ingenious people could always have set up a negative if they’d wanted to, so if you’d wanted a picture – let’s just take the classic ones of the Cold War pictures, Russia, very obvious politicians being painted out. I don’t think that it’s beyond the realms of possibilities that if they store negatives, they’ve also put in a doctored negative. I think it’s highly probable ... He said archives were the best guarantee a newspaper could offer, and the honesty of staff who had become gatekeepers of image integrity. He said that in such cases where gatekeepers were dishonest, the only remedy was dismissal: What you’ve got to trust is the archive, so that if there’s a Times archive or a Newscorp archive or whatever it is. I mean, that’s got to have gatekeepers to the archive. Presumably, if I take a picture from this archive I know it’s reliable ... If I send a photographer out on a job and he comes back and produces a bunch of pictures and I choose one and it goes on the front page of a newspaper – I’m relying on his honesty. I’m sure there are intermediary points at which he could do all sorts of fake stuff, but if he’s ever caught doing that that’s the end of his career. You can’t legislate for that. Picture editor Andrew Moger said he was concerned by issues such as sourcing of freelance/contributed images and archiving (particularly when archives were shared between newspapers in the same parent company). Although he said he could usually tell if an image had been “overworked”, he said improvements in the technology would make this test increasingly difficult: When a picture is brought in as you say from the street by a freelancer you don’t know, whose work you’re unfamiliar with…then you apply the same test which is has it in any way been doctored, is it a true representation of what happened. And that’s important obviously to make sure that it’s a good news picture. He described his test of authenticity: First of all you apply the visual test, secondly you have to be aware that it is possible to slip something past anyone. I don’t think the technology is so sophisticated these days that an average photographer is going to go to the trouble of risking future business by trying to slip one past you and that’s important. And we are in dialogue with most suppliers – there are new PCC [Press Complaints Commission] guidelines [not on imaging], and I think we’re all much more aware of the importance of checking on the sourcing of pictures and the circumstances under which pictures have been taken. Paparazzi pictures for instance which _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 195/282
often have a temptation to be manipulated (you know, Dodi needs to be much closer to Di for the kiss… and the money is big) but recently the industry has taken it upon itself to say to its suppliers – either formally or informally – you must tell us if this picture has been taken in dodgy circumstances, on private property, and it’s implied within that that you must tell us about a picture that is not a true, authentic image. However, he acknowledged that in the excitement of the moment, particularly when dealing with big images (such as those of Princess Diana in the fatal car crash of 1997), such tests were often overlooked: [T]he bigger the picture, perversely the greater the temptation to forget your basic rules: in that is this a true picture, who took it, do you know the person that took it, has it been mocked up? Because it’s such a big picture you then forget your ground rules, which is ridiculous. However, on day-to-day material – from page 5 to page 18 – you’ve got perhaps a bit more time. You’re not so bang-jacked, so completely fazed by the enormity of the picture that you actually do consider whether it is an authentic picture. It is perverse but that’s exactly what happens, and it happens in television as it does in still imagery. … Often what happens is that the pictures are sold, not in a commercial sense, but presented to people other than the picture desk. So you’ll find that the editor, or his sports department or a news editor will get to hear from a reporter that there’s images around, and suddenly it will have a momentum all of its own and everyone will be talking about it, you know, it’s on the net, fantastic picture. Everyone has got it in their mindset that they want to be using it on the front page and suddenly you’ve got to recover lost ground and say: “Hang on, how do we know this is a true image?” … The sourcing of a picture sometimes bypasses those very people that apply those litmus tests to pictures on a day-to-day basis.” Mr Moger said that when newspapers moved fully into digital image technology (with the purchase of digital cameras) they would have to be aware that they were taking a conscious decision to abandon even the existing checks and balances. On archiving, Mr Moger said he was trying to convince Times management to invest in a better image archiving system which would allow a greater number of digital images to be held in the data base. At the time of the interview, all images taken on negatives (from staff photographers and other sources) were archived: At the moment they are held for a month in a buffer zone prior to final archiving, and when they are finally archived they are there forever. And at that point various warnings are attached to them. Some of those warnings relate to digital manipulation [mostly they relate to costly photographs]. Among Times photographers, Paul Fieves said he hadn’t really thought about it, but on reflection archiving would be a real problem in the future when it came to integrity, and he said the legal problems resulting from this were a “minefield”: “I think the archiving is the most important thing.” Gill Allen said improvement in the technology on this issue must be imminent. Freelancer Robin Mayes said he was not particularly concerned about archiving problems, because he had always seen photography as an _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 196/282
interpretative medium anyway, and thought its claim to truth was overrated. Chris Harris said archiving might be a more difficult issue now, but “let’s face it, ethics is about trust and you have to be able to trust your photographers”. He said photographers using digital cameras would have to archive all their own photographs and it would be their responsibility to keep a record so as to protect themselves against claims of manipulation. Brenton Edwards said archiving was the biggest issue with digital cameras, from deciding which images to keep to the integrity of the storage process. At the Daily Mirror, picture editor Ron Morgan said he only had positive things to say about archiving under the new technology. He said the Mirror group and Today were far in advance of the Murdoch group in this area: I think it’s a major revolution … because of our move from Holborn to here four of five years ago now, we were able to put in lots of high tech because we had the opportunity. And one of the things we did very early in our move was digitise our library … so we have an electronic library now which is not here but which is accessed by a link to Watford. When asked how this library could guarantee the “original image” was the one saved, he replied: It happens in two ways: in a lot of instances it’s retrospective stuff anyway from the past so you’d probably have a negative anyway, or a transparency, print – either way it has been scanned for use and digitised, and once it has been digitised once it is the standard image; or it has been digitised by someone else and they have the original … since the technology came in, virtually everything is downloaded and virtually everything we get that’s worth anything gets put away. It’s a huge system actually. He said the newspaper was actively encouraging contributors to send pictures digitally by guaranteeing to consider all digital contributions. This meant he had to personally look at about 2000 pictures in a 17-hour day. When asked about his “authenticity test”, he replied that there were few guarantees other than common sense and trust of individuals: It’s almost impossible … although an expert can [tell a fake]. If someone has actually been manipulating a digital image, it leaves a trace which you can actually see. But it’s such an expert technique to be able to identify it, that unless it’s done very technically … I’ve been turned over a couple of times. Once a guy had actually straightened Steffi Graf’s nose and sent it to us as an image, and we really fell for it … We thought, blimey that’s a good one isn’t it, and it went in the paper of course immediately. We got sued, and as a result we are more aware of it now and watch for the possibility for it when it doesn’t look right … The other day we carried a semi-apology to Michael Jackson for a long-running dispute which began under the previous editorship where we used a close-up face … which showed his nose looking very different … and the story was about how he was virtually disfigured now with surgery, and Michael Jackson sued. Even though we knew the picture was true … they say we had actually manipulated the image. And we knew we didn’t. But in the end it was a standover because we had to apologise for … saying he was “disfigured” … so we lost the battle because we couldn’t prove that we didn’t do anything to the image because we _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 197/282
couldn’t disprove their claim that we used the technology … He said he believed the latest developments in the technology meant that newspapers were virtually on the verge of being able to develop new systems to guarantee the original image but through copyright demands, rather than the need to prove authenticity: “Copyright is a major issue in the industry because people feel they have less control of their image.” He said watermarking technology (digital mapping of the original image) would have real advantages in proving authenticity for verification purposes as well: “The pressure for it will come when people start losing money, rather than through any real quest for the truth.” Duncan Lovett said archiving was the only serious problem related to the new technology because of the time involved and difficulty in verifying an original image. Meanwhile Tim Anderson said he did not think negatives necessarily provided a better guarantee of reality than digital archiving systems: “The problem with negatives is that they are not a permanent thing.” He thought the digital image was a much better way of preserving a historical record. As for alterations: “No one is going to want to alter it, I can’t understand why you are making an issue of this.” A bigger problem was that important images might be lost by the editing process in digital cameras: “You edit them down to the ones you want to send.” The rest of the photographers interviewed at the Daily Mirror said they enjoyed working with digital cameras and did not believe they would cause problems. At Libération, head of the photography department Laurent Abadjian said he was not concerned by digital cameras or related archiving problems. He said as long as picture desk managers could have confidence in the photographer concerned, there should be no real problem in guaranteeing the veracity of images. However, he said he was not sure how verification of general Internet images could be improved. His deputy Luc Briand said the verification of digital images would not make any real difference to the newspaper because Libération had never had staff photographers, and negatives were the property of the photographer or agency in France rather than belonging to the newspaper. As a result, only prints had been kept in newspaper archives. Among Agence France Presse photographers, Vincent Amalvy said he had confidence in the agency’s ability to verify images, and that the originals were archived. The only real problem was that archiving capacity was not yet great enough to archive all the digital images taken, and from each assignment only three images were currently archived. He also said the fact that there was no way of storing an original image might be seen as a problem, and that all images were retouched to bring them up to publishable quality before they were stored in the digital archives. The other four photographers said they enjoyed working with digital cameras and were not concerned about the conservation of the original digital image because they had faith in their colleagues and in the agency’s archiving processes. At the Parisien, management and staff said the technology was not really relevant to them because it was not installed. Some digital photographs were now being used for long-distance and sports assignments, and _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 198/282
Vincent Lesage thought that this might present a future problem in terms of archiving images, although he did not think the new technology held any more guarantees than the former one. This view was echoed by the other three staff photographers, as well as by the agency photographers. At the LA Times, managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said he hoped digital archiving technology would improve to the extent where there were better guarantees that the image was an original one. Director of photography Larry Armstrong said he had strong concerns since the advent of digital cameras and archiving systems about how the newspaper might prove the veracity of its images in court. He said this was the biggest downside to the technology. The savings we make in using this stuff is great ... we paid off the digital cameras we had bought with the savings we had made in the first year ... But the bad thing is we automatically archive anything that is published in the paper, and then the photo editors will keep a few things out that they think is interesting … but it’s real burdensome for them to go through all that…Then the photographer also has an aesthetic decision to make: “If it’s a great photo I could win a contest” ... For the moment we are doing a combination of stuff and if it is great it goes into the library, and we save some stuff and they burn off everything into a CD. Well it’s still not a good way to do business. In my opinion there is a missing puzzle here, something we are not looking at. Maybe there is a program here where we edit, maybe everything is captured into sequences and those things get saved, but it is a real problem. Because before we could be a little lazy, you know, we edited five images, we put two in the paper, we took the other three hardcopy prints and put them in the library drawer and they either filed them or threw them away, but we always took the film and put it in an envelope and took it away somewhere, we could always come back. Those negatives locked away and almost, but not quite, forgotten, had produced some of history’s most memorable images, he said. These included photographs of former American president Richard Nixon used during his hearing and the now famous image of American president Bill Clinton greeting a young intern called Monica Lewinsky: The stuff went to Time after (the photographer) originally shot it, they picked what they wanted, they then sent everything to his agent, his agent goes through everything and what they don’t want they send back to him. And so one day after this whole thing broke, he went back and he started looking through all of the outtakes that the agency sent back (and there it was) because he thought she might have been there ... If that shot had been taken on a digital camera it would have been tossed because there was no reason to keep individual shots of 50 women hugging Clinton, you would never have thought at the time that one would be “Bingo!”. Among photographers, the biggest issues with digital cameras included fears of being beaten in a photography contest by a manipulated photograph, concerns in time spent archiving and having to discard most shots taken on an assignment as opposed to keeping the whole roll of film. Archiving emerged as a much more serious issue than quality or use of digital cameras, with five photographers (the only dissenter _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 199/282
being Kurt McKoy) citing concerns about how many images were thrown away as well as proving the image in court. At the San Jose Mercury News, assistant managing editor Brian Munroe said digitally archived pictures had to meet the same standards of proof as manually archived images. He said this could be assured by not using contributed or even agency pictures unless absolutely necessary. Likewise, director of photography Geri Migielicz said the best way of assuring image integrity was by obtaining pictures through reliable sources. She said even if freelance or Internet pictures were used, they were published with an accompanying caption referring the reader to the source: We try to credit the source so people know when they are looking at the material whether it is something we have produced ourselves, or it’s promotional, or from a record company or a movie. So we try to credit every single image … and we’ve also always been careful because of copyright. Ms Migielicz said that as far as she was aware the newspaper’s system of verifying images had failed only once (see Appendix A.4.4.2.). She said that as a result the newspaper had become very conscious of how images were archived and preserved, and even images which had not been used but which might be useful in the future were preserved: “We’re spending more and more time archiving, which is something you’ll hear from photographers that they hate. They liked to stick the film in an archive and never have to deal with it again. Digital is making them the archiver as well.” As for how the newspaper could prove its images were real in court, Ms Migielicz said there had been no thought given to whether the TIF, JPEG, or other form of the image should be archived because the newspaper was unlikely to end up in court over an issue related to veracity of images. The only photographer at this newspaper who did not like digital cameras per se was Luci Houston, who said it meant more people had control over her work. She also thought the lighting techniques were still very bad. The other five photographers all complained of problems with the archiving technology, with Rick Martin commenting that on the whole, digital technology was “better on the front end than the back end”. Proving image integrity was the major concern for Richard Koci-Hernandez, as well as Michael Malone, who offered a wish list: Given my druthers, I would like to see the manufacturers of the archiving technology find a way to make cameras that hold more and cost less, because I would like our photographers being able to come in and dump the entire contents of a shoot rather than editing out what they don’t intend to have published and then erasing the disk. For Michael Rondou and Gary Reyes, their biggest concern was with what was thrown away during the archiving process, with the former estimating that only 10 percent of images taken during one assignment _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 200/282
were saved for achiving. Michael Rondou also thought that not having a negative was “scary” from the point of view of the newspaper having legal proof that its images were real.
5.11. INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS Industrial concerns were strongest by far at the Daily Mirror and the Times where photographers were more likely to work as freelancers, and as such saw their main problem as having to invest in increasingly expensive technology without increasing financial rewards. At other newspapers, all photographers interviewed were working on the full-time staff of newspapers or agencies. Additional industrial issues included fears over journalists encroaching on photographers’ jobs, as well as increasing loss of control of their work to digital editors and designers, and a decline in the level of traditional photography skills. At the time of the interview, the Times employed a staff of four permanent staff photographers, with a pool of casuals ranging between 10 to 15 photographers. It was difficult to estimate the number of photographs taken by full-time staff or casual photographers as compared to those taken from other sources, but Times picture editor Andrew Moger estimated the ratio at around 50/50, with a large variation depending on the day in question. At the time of the interview there was only one woman (a full-time staff member) working in the newsroom, and all other full-time and casual photographers were men. Times deputy editor John Bryant said that apart from special foreign correspondent work, where a photographer/journalist had always been in demand, there was little call for multiskilling in the forseeable future. This was because writing and photography were two very different skills and it was rare that someone was professionally adept at both. On the other hand the technology was improving, and that meant it was easier to compromise when necessary: In general, we prefer it if we can send both a photographer and a journalist, because obviously it’s better if we can have one man concentrating on taking the photos and another ... However, there are occasions, quite clearly, when someone is going into a situation where you can’t get a photographer in there, somebody operating on their own, where it’s useful for them to stuff a camera into their pocket and we’ve got no problem with that ... [he gives the example of war correspondent Sam Kiley] ... These days cameras are so good that they can often turn a hack into a reasonable photographer. And I’ve got no problem with that at all, any more than I have if a photographer was in a war zone and helps the journalist on the desk to write the words. Picture editor Andrew Moger said he was not in favour of multiskilling and did not think the new technology would bring about industrial problems or de-skilling of photographers. Ultimately, whatever the technology provided, the media would still need image specialists. I don’t want an average photographer who will use digital technology in an average way. I want a photographer first of all to take the very best photograph … I would encourage _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 201/282
photographers to sacrifice all other areas for the sake of that photograph. However, he said that at the time of interview (June 1998), digital cameras were not “on the immediate agenda” and that he did not envisage a full change to digital cameras until 2003. He was not happy with the quality of the then current DCS5 camera, although it had its uses for rapid newsgathering. He sad none of the Times photographers had digital cameras, even though all scanned and transmitted their negatives digitally. He thought that it was inevitable that news organisations would be forced to rely increasingly on images from other sources (such as television grabs), but that authenticating the images would continue to be important: “It’s a question of guarantee.” He said one of the advantages of not buying digital cameras was that he could see the negatives of the shoot if there was any doubt about authenticity. He then paused to reflect on this, adding: “Mind you, the negs come in later, often after the paper is put out.” Staff photographer Simon Walker said he had no real fear of photographers being eradicated, and did not wish to be more involved in the digital imaging process, or to take on other skills like writing: “I don’t see in a serious newspaper or magazine anything other than there being a need for both skills … Try being a sports photographer and at the same time writing about it.” He said it was necessary for newspapers to invest in individual skills – writing, editing, photography, design – if they were serious about competing on the market with a quality product: “I don’t think there’s a journalist in this room who could do what I do.” He said he had no inferiority complex or any fear of being eradicated. I am happy with my lot at the newspaper … I have quite a lot of editorial input, I have (I hope) respect for the people I work for and with, which means at times I can turn round and say that’s going to work or that isn’t going to work and on an everyday level that means I can shoot pretty much how I want to shoot a story and I don’t have a problem most of the time with what I’m being asked to shoot … It is a job. I don’t have an independent income. If I had an independent income I would not be working for the Times. He also saw no real difference in the quality of the technology and that “they were all pretty much of a muchness”. He said some newspapers, namely the Daily Telegraph, had had digital cameras on the road for 18 months and were advanced to that extent. He said he thought the new Canon digital cameras were going to be ample quality for newspapers. He said this was most likely to cause industrial problems though if freelancers (many of whom worked five days a week anyway) were forced to use the cameras and buy their own. He said he had no problems with journalists taking “simple boring headshot pictures”, such as vox pops photographs. The problems associated with casual employment (particularly the onus on photographers to buy their own equipment, including expensive digital cameras) were by far the most commonly expressed industrial concern among photographers at the Times. Staff photographer Gill Allen said the major problem was the increasing tendency to outsource work to freelancers who often worked in an almost full-time capacity on _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 202/282
the newspaper and were expected to buy their own equipment. This would become particularly costly when they were expected to supply their own digital camera (12,000 pounds as opposed to 1000/1500 pounds for a conventional camera). As a result, she said photographers now needed more drive, energy and financial backing to compete than ever before. It won’t be long before picture editors are expecting us to have our own digital cameras ... the major agencies are now all transmitting digitally, and it’s just hard to beat …. It’s a huge cost and we are not financially rewarded for that … All it takes is for one photographer to buy a digital camera out of his own pocket to make the financial sacrifice because he wants the extra shoots and there’s going to be so much pressure on every one else to do that, to go out and spend 12,000 pounds just to satisfy the image you’re riding on …. There are so many of us, so many young kids out there. I don’t know where they get the money from, whether they have rich parents or are taking out loans to buy these cameras … but it’s becoming more and more competitive and the question is whether the other experienced freelancers are going to be able to keep pace. Nevertheless, Ms Allen said she hoped to continue working as a photojournalist for her whole career: “There’s nothing like opening up the newspaper the next morning and seeing your work in front of you.” Staff photographer Chris Harris said he would welcome multiskilling if it would allow him to do more writing, but he still didn’t think you could do both properly. He said he did not feel threatened by developments in new technology and would like to try new equipment. Similarly Brenton Edwards, who also had a secure job at the Times as part of a News Limited exchange training program, said he thought photographers should be open to keeping up with technology and developing more skills, such as reporting: “This can only be of value.” Freelance photographer Robin Mayes, who worked four days a week at the newspaper, said video stills cameras/new generation television/stills cameras would not particularly affect the job, although there would be more crossover in images supplied to each medium: “The newspapers have been steadily doing less news anyway – it’s much more lifestyle, much more featurey – I don’t think it will affect us all that much.” As for job security: “I don’t have any job security now so I don’t think it will make any difference.” He would eventually buy a computer and Photoshop for use at home, but this would mean a considerable financial sacrifice (he estimated about 3000 pounds) with no rewards: “I get paid 110 pounds a day…how many years, how many years does it take to recoup the money … That’s the great problem for freelancers.” Despite the rise in the cost of living and necessary equipment to do his job, he said his wage had hardly increased since he started work seven years earlier and was paid 99 pounds a day. He was also very unhappy about losing control to technicians, and said that their idea of colour was often very different to his. Ultimately, he did not think multiskilling would be very successful because it would be difficult to find people skilled in both photography and writing. Freelancer Paul Fieves, who worked two days a week at the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 203/282
Times, was happy with the mix of work he was able to achieve by working for different employers and said he preferred to work as a freelancer because it gave him more choice. The Daily Mirror had 15 permanent photographers on staff, most of whom visited the office only twice a week. They were equipped with digital cameras and were permitted to file on-the-job and at home due to the newspaper office’s distance from the centre of London. Picture editor Ron Morgan said that any additional images came from stringers and picture agencies. He said the new technology meant more freedom and choice for employees. Cheaper production costs were another advantage: Anyone with a telephone or modem can transmit to us an image … it’s revolutionised this business … prior to that an agency would ring you up (with a picture idea) … and you’d have an order fee, an expenses fee, if you’ve used it or if you don’t you still pay an upfront fee … for something you hadn’t even seen, it was blackmail. He saw the increasing competitiveness in the industry as another positive factor. Among photographers, the view was less positive. Picture desk editor Duncan Lovett said the pressures on freelancers for purchasing expensive digital equipment were now enormous: If it’s four o’clock in the afternoon and we’ve got two freelancers available and one has got a digital camera and the other hasn’t, we’re going to go for the digital guy because we’re going to get it quicker ... About two years ago when they first came out, about four or five people around the country bought digital cameras, and I’d say for at least the first year they got an awful lot more work because of it…it’s one of the things that costs an awful lot of money but it has to be done … when the DC6000 is out people will have a real advantage because the quality will be fantastic and people can shoot every single job on it and the colour will be fantastic. The other five photographers all mentioned the problems associated with the increasing cost of the equipment. Bob Powell, Emma Cattell, Denzil McNeelance and a freelance photographer who preferred to remain anonymous said that while the Daily Mirror was one of the leaders in digital technology and had invested heavily in the technology for its photographers, freelancers and their colleagues working on other newspapers were not so lucky. Tim Anderson had another concern – decreasing autonomy over his work. He thought the real advantage of being a freelancer was that photographers had more control over their work, at least in terms of copyright. However, he said he was not worried about the changes on a personal level, as he said he was always confident that if he did not like one job he could go and work for another employer. Another difficulty was the convergence developing between television and newspapers. He thought this was yet another threat for newspaper photographers, as video still cameras would become increasingly popular, and did not require the same levels of skill. Above all, he thought photographers needed to be proactive in anticipating the trends and learning new skills. He thought the competition among
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 204/282
photographers was probably a good way to weed out “the crappy people who are still making a good living”. The industrial concerns in French newspapers were partly influenced by the different industrial structure in the workforce. At Libération, the photo department consists of a staff of two – the head of photography, and his assistant editor. Because the assistant editor was occupied with the role of retouching and re-sizing photographs, he was counted as a photographer for the purposes of this study. However, the remaining five photographers were taken from the pool of Agence France Presse photographers. Similarly, at the Parisien, there were seven staff photographers (two of whom were women). However, since only four of these photographers were available for interview at the time of the study (due to others being absent covering regional events or on holiday), the remaining two were also taken from the Agence France Presse pool of agency photographers. At Agence France Presse: there was a permanent Paris staff of 20 photographers (two of whom were women), in addition to five editors and a chief of photography (see Section 7.2.). At Libération, head of the photography department Laurent Abadjian said he thought the convergence between television and photography might change the way news photographers operated, with increased speed of delivery and multiple images being important, but he thought there would always be a market for traditional photographic methods for news feature/feature photography. Luc Briand agreed that the newspaper was using increasing numbers of television and digital camera images, but he did not think this would lead to widespread industrial problems. He thought the new technology was likely to provoke legal rather than industrial problems in the future (with court battles over copyright and manipulation issues). Among the Agence France Presse photographers, the convergence between television and photography was seen as a cause for future industrial concern in terms of job security and retraining. Two said they were opposed to convergence of television and photography, three had mixed feelings, and one thought convergence could only be positive. Gabriel Bouys said that while he liked the flexibility of new technology, he dreaded a day where photographs were seen as obsolete: “Parce qu'une image, c’est une image. Une série d’images, c’est déjà plus qu'une image.” [Translation: “Because an image is an image, and once it becomes a series of images it is no longer an image.”] Gérard Leroux said he thought it would take 10 years for the conversion to take place, and that at the moment the agency’s clients were not interested in television images because the quality was not good enough: The day we get high definition television, then I don’t know what is going to happen … I think that in fact the newspapers will start making agreements with the private television stations which do international news … even now all the newspapers have their television partners, you know. [See Appendix A.5.14.] He hoped that the use of high-quality television images would simply provide another dimension in the image market, because if the photograph became obsolete, something special would be lost. Furthermore, it _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 205/282
would be an industrial catastrophe: “C’est le chomage organisé.” [Translation: “It’s organised unemployment.”] However, as a former television camera operator who moved over to photography later, Tomas Coex said he was very much in favour of increased cross-training, and cross-employment between the television and print news media industries. I think that in the future, with digital technology, photographers will work more in the same way as television camera operators … the professional definitions will become looser. We’re all going to have video film and multiple images … that’s the way I see it, and I’m looking forward to it. [See Appendix A.5.15.] At the Parisien, employees were less concerned about impending industrial problems related to new technology or convergence than their colleagues at Agence France Presse. There was a general confidence, running from head of the photographic department Emmanuel Pagnoud to the three staff photographers interviewed that the news photograph would probably always exist, because as Vincent Lesage commented, the skill was a very specific one and “une belle photo sera toujours une belle photo” [Translation: “a good photograph will always be a good photograph.”] Aurélie Audureau thought that her job might become more technical over the next 15 years, and thought it was possible that there might be one profession of image gatherers. She was not necessarily opposed to this, as she thought newspapers would always need to provide their audience with a different kind of style to television, and so her career was relatively assured. Philippe Desprès was opposed to any industrial change as a result of technological convergence, and said he would never be interested in gathering moving images because he was interested in capturing the instant. As such, he thought television and print image gatherers had very different jobs. Olivier Couron was also opposed to using television/video technology if it meant that traditional photographic skills would be lost. Among the Agence France Presse photographers, there was generally a more positive attitude to the idea of future industrial change, and the feeling that because it was in their agency’s interests to keep abreast of the technology, any need for cross-training among photographers would be satisfied. Eric Feferberg and Jack Cavez said they were not sure what form of cross-training they might undertake, and said that convergence would have to be carefully negotiated, but that they were positive about the prospect of change. As the former commented: “Si effectivement la télévision offre des images de qualité suffisante, bon pourquoi pas? C’est une question de réorganisation du travail, en fait.” [Translation: If television can eventually deliver images of sufficent quality, then why not? In fact, it is more a question of reorganisation of work.] There was little indication of industrial unrest relating to digital technology at the LA Times. Of the total of 55 staff photographers (25 of whom were based in the LA newsroom for the downtown edition) all said they had access to digital cameras should they wish to use them, and the preference for using staff photographs in the paper was supported by photographers. Photographers were not designated with specific rounds, but were rotated according to daily requirements and particular skills/interests. According to both _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 206/282
managers interviewed, the percentage of the staff photographer images used in the newspaper fluctuated. On some days the majority of the front news section images might come from the wire, other days it could be dominated by staff photos. The business section images were also largely from the wire. The rest of the newspaper was made up of predominantly staff images, except for the entertainment/Hollywood images, which were often contributed. A former directive to minimise handouts due to difficulty in controlling handouts had been over-ruled due to budget necessity. Photographers at the downtown edition were free to do most of their own pre-press imaging work if they wished, although they were encouraged to do the bare minimum in line with the newspaper’s “straight” news style. In the other editions of the newspaper, this was not really an option unless the photographers were specifically interested in Photoshop and wanted to do their own retouching, and photographers were required only to scan, crop and send images to the prepress department. They were also encouraged to write instructions about how they wanted the image to be handled. Managing editor of news Leo Wolinsky said there were no plans to multiskill photographers, but that if individual possessed dual talents then they were encouraged to explore them. Director of photography Larry Armstrong said he felt there was no real need to be concerned over the future of the profession, and that the new technology would not be a cause for industrial concern. He thought photographers were being given greater control over their work than ever before. Among photographers, Robert Gautier also felt that photographers were treated with respect and that he had good control over his images, and that he had access to further training if he wished. He said the pre-press department had just won an award for reproduction and that he had great confidence in the treatment of his images. The only industrial problems he could envisage were possible health concerns (such as cancer) over increasing use of technology and electro-magnetic fields. Paul Morse said he could not envisage why there would be industrial concerns related to the technology and that he enjoyed learning new skills. Mika Namir said the only industrial problem she could envisage was one that already existed: “There is a tendency here in foreign bureaux for the wife or husband of the bureau chief to take photos, and they are just awful. Either somebody has a little bit of knowledge and gets something reasonable, or they don’t.” Annie Wells said she liked the thought of multiskilling, but that was probably because she had come from a different background. She said she enjoyed learning about the new technology, and could not wait to be using sound equipment with her photos for the newspaper’s Internet pages: “For that reason I’m happy to diversify.” However she still valued traditional photography skills and thought the still image was more compelling than the moving one: “There’s something about having a picture you can ponder … I won’t be necessarily happy giving up my camera, but I still believe in documentary news, so if that’s what I have to do then that’s what I have to do.” Kurt McKoy was in favour of cross-training providing that it did not lead to diminishing talent in specific areas. He said that the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 207/282
technology had made great progress in the past five years, and that the next five years might bring considerable industrial change as television stations began providing more high-quality images to newspapers. Already there were opportunities for photographers and TV cameramen to be part of the same professional associations, and he thought their work and professional interests would continue to overlap. At the San Jose Mercury News there was less enthusiasm for convergence and multiskilling. Assistant manager of news Brian Munroe said he saw writing and photography as very separate skills, but that there were always individuals who happened to be equally talented at both and that these cases were considered as they arose. He did not see the new technology as leading to industrial problems. Director of photography Geri Migielicz said she was not looking forward to increasing convergence between television and film should it occur, and said the newspaper had made a deliberate effort to take its images “almost exclusively” from staff photographers so that image integrity could be better assured. In this way the film could still be edited to see if the sequence looked natural. She said she did not like the whole video culture, and thought they allowed too many set-up images: They shoot formula, and I just hope that the value for reality gets carried over. And at this place I know the most important thing we do is capture life as it is happening, and not as we want it to happen, and I hope we are always doing that, I can’t see us changing our core journalistic values and standards because we are going to another medium. This is more challenging. Among photographers, only Michael Rondou was immediately enthusiastic about future changes. While he was not attracted by multiskilling in areas like writing, he said he welcomed new video cameras and rejected the possibility of significant industrial problems. The new technology is exciting, I can hardly wait. There will always be a place for image gatherers and for that you will need separate skills…Even if there is someone watching on a monitor in the office and frame gathering as you shoot, you are still going to have to satisfy the editor back in the office by making nice images. I don’t think I’m afraid of seeing that change, but I know a lot of people are. Gary Reyes said he expected significant changes in the way he worked, and while he was not afraid of those changes he still preferred working with traditional methods. Richard Koci-Hernandez said he would welcome multiskilling if it would encourage flexibility for photographers to develop different talents. He said the only industrial problem he had was concern about how his images were treated by the pre-press department and loss of control over his images. He hoped that the future would make pre-press departments obsolete, giving photographic departments total control over images. This concern over loss of control over images was shared by both Rick Martin and Lucy Houston. The former also said he was concerned about multiskilling if it meant “just handing anyone a camera”, while the latter also pointed out that it was usually _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 208/282
pre-press people who understood less about photography and sometimes forgot to acknowledge photoillustrations. These concerns are compared and contrasted with those of Australian photographers and managers in the following chapter, where responses to the oral questionnaire and written questionaire have been correlated. At times, the differences between cultural groups of photographers are marked, while at other times they are minimal or non-existent. Chapter 6 distills the essence of the these distinctions following the same thematic structure as the previous results chapters and also provides additional comparative statistical analysis.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 209/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 210/282
6. AUSTRALIAN / OVERSEAS RESULTS COMPARISON A comparison of Australian results with the other three countries in which the survey was carried out unearthed substantial cultural differences in areas such as education levels, access to training, understandings of professionalism, and industrial concerns. This comparison also gave context to where Australian photographers could be placed on a international level in terms of their access to and attitudes towards the new technology, particularly with respect to professional ethical values.
6.1.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic differences divided fairly strongly along cultural lines in terms of educational standards, and even levels of experience, but not in terms of age. There was a remarkable difference between the educational levels of American photographers compared with their colleagues elsewhere. Even given the small survey size, American photographers were twice as likely to have been tertiary educated than their colleagues from other countries, including Australia, and almost all had received some formal training in photojournalism ethics. British and French photographers were less likely to have had a formal education in photography, and none had undertaken specific tertiary studies in photojournalism (and photojournalism ethics). Like their British colleagues, half the French photographers interviewed had tertiary degrees, although they were more likely to have studied another discipline first and to have received their photographic training during their military service or on-the-job. None of the French photographers had received tertiary training in photojournalism. By contrast, almost all the American photographers interviewed had not only received tertiary training in photography, but had studied journalism or photojournalism, including study of photojournalism ethics. Only one of the photographers at the Los Angeles Times had not studied photojournalism, having graduated from a degree in science writing, followed by an early career as a technical photographer. All photographers at the San Jose Mercury News had formal tertiary qualifications in photojournalism. Australian photographers were also slightly more likely to have undertaken tertiary education in photography than their British counterparts and more than twice as likely to have photography degrees than French colleagues. However, like the Europeans, almost none of the Australian photographers had received training in photojournalism ethics. As Table 6.1-1 shows, the majority of the photographers were aged in their thirties and forties. There was no remarkable difference between countries, with Australian photographers the youngest at an average of 34.6 years, followed by British photographers at 35.9 years, American photographers at 39.2 years, and French photographers were the oldest at 40.8 years. There was no significant relationship between country _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 211/282
and years spent in journalism, although French photographers were far more likely to have worked with the same employer for longer, with an average of more than 12 years at both newsrooms, followed by Australians, with an average history of more than eight years working for the same employer, compared to seven years in the United States and four years in Britain. When questioned on reasons for these differences in the oral interview, photographers cited more secure working arrangements in news organisations in France, compared to the preference for employing freelance photographers in Britain. In Australia, the majority of photographers were permanently employed, but the ratio was narrowing and newspaper managers acknowledged the employment trend was moving closer to the British model. In the United States, all photographers interviewed were permanent staff photographers, but tended to have worked on smaller regional newspapers after completing their tertiary studies, and the profession was generally more mobile than in France where there were fewer newspapers and most were centrally-based in Paris. Table 6.1-1: Comparison of photographer demographics by newspaper1 NEWSPAPER1
AUST
UK
FR
US
n=36
n=12
n=12
n=12
Mean years in journalism
14.1
13.1
17.5
12.9
Mean years at current newspaper
8.4
4.9
12.7
6.3
Mean age in years
34.6
35.9
40.8
39.2
Tertiary educated (%)
58
50
50
100
Tertiary educated in photography 2(%)
55.5
41.7
25
91.7
Tertiary educated in photojournalism ethics (%)
2.8
0
0
91.7
6.2.
ATTITUDES TO THE INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
In the written survey, American photographers were clearly most concerned about the implications of the new technology for journalism ethics. Among the other countries, almost half the French and Australian
1
This table discounts editors and managers of photo-departments on the basis that all editors and one photo manager came from a
word journalism background and none were currently taking photographs. 2
Tertiary educated is defined by at least one year in tertiary education, exiting with minimum diploma qualification.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 212/282
photographers said they were very concerned about the implications, but only 13.3 percent of British photographers ticked this category. However, two-thirds of British photographers still felt somewhat concerned, compared to 42.9 percent of French photographers who did not feel at all concerned (although this latter figure can probably be explained by the strict “no manipulation” ethos of the French photographic agency for which they worked). In the interview, newspaper editors and photo editors in Australia and Britain tended to be less concerned about the implications than photographers, whereas they were equally and sometimes more concerned than photographers in France and the United States. Cultural differences in attitudes to the introduction of the new technology were far more evident in the oral and qualitative responses to interview questions than in the quantitative written survey. About half the Australian photographers interviewed raised ethical concerns when asked whether the introduction of the technology had been positive or negative overall. British photographers saw the technology as positive overall, and their editors and photo editors were particularly enthusiastic. More than two-thirds of French photographers saw the new technology as a positive development in terms of efficiency, even if some (particularly photo editors) were worried about the ethical implications of digital retouching, though all said their agency or newspaper would not stoop to unethical use of the technology. American photographers and editors gave the most informed answers about the positive and negative impacts of the technology, with most saying they had mixed feelings about its introduction on ethical grounds. By contrast, American photographers were generally more positive about its use. Only four of the 12 American photographers interviewed spoke of the technology exclusively in terms of its advantage, with the rest expressing ethical and professional concerns. Table 6.2-1 : Level of concern about implications of technology in percentage NEWSPAPER
AUST
UK
FR
US
n=48
n=15
n=14
n=16
Very concerned
41.7
13.3
42.9
75
Somewhat concerned
47.9
66.6
14.3
25
Not concerned
10.4
6.7
42.9
0
Undecided
0
6.7
0
0
Insufficiently informed
0
6.7
0
0
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 213/282
6.3.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND NEW METHODS
The vast majority of Australian photographers, photo editors and editors said they thought photographic veracity had always been difficult to define and that while the technology might present some new challenges, the basic issues were the same. Some, like Australian editor Campbell Reid and picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen, said the new technology had highlighted old abuses, and that standards had probably improved. Only one editor, the Age’s Mike Gawenda, said the new technology brought distinct new ethical dilemmas. Photo editors did not think there was anything intrinsically different about the technology which would present new ethical dilemmas. On average, one-third of photographers said they thought the technology had brought new concerns. British photographers, photo editors and editors were largely unconcerned by the ethical implications of the new technology, pointing to manipulations which had regularly occurred in the past and stating that new retouching techniques were governed by the same general standards as were used in the darkroom. There was a commonly expressed concern that the volume of images flowing on to the picture editor’s desk made sourcing of the image and assuring its integrity a difficult matter. However, photo editor at the Times, Andy Moger, said he thought overall there was more interest in photographic ethics than before and that standards had improved. On the other hand, French photographers were more wary of the new technology and felt it could be dangerous in the hands of the unscrupulous. Interestingly, there was regular reference to their British colleagues when referring to examples of unethical use of the technology. Photo department managers and photo editors were among the most concerned about the impact of the new technology on ethics. Among photographers, those working at the Parisien, where the technology had not been introduced were far more negative in general about the ethical implications than those who used the technology extensively at Agence France-Presse. However, Agence France-Presse photographers acknowledged that their situation was slightly different in that agency photographs were rarely tampered with, and so they only saw the positive side of the technology in terms of convenience and efficiency gains. American photographers were the most concerned overall by the potential for new ethical abuses with Photoshop, pointing to problems in sourcing internet/freelance images, new archiving dilemmas and increased temptation to see the image as something constantly changing while losing reference to the original photograph. However editors and photo editors tended to see the dilemmas as essentially the same, even if the introduction of the new technology had made manipulation easier. LA Times news editor Leo Wolinsky was the most concerned about the new technology, saying that sourcing difficulties constituted a new ethical dilemma. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 214/282
6.4.
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEWSPAPERS
When photographers and managers were asked which newspapers in their own countries made most use of digital technology, many were confused as to whether the question referred to quality of reproduction, investment in and access to the technology, or unethical manipulation of photographs. Among Australian interviewees, there was almost universal agreement among Sydneysiders that the Australian Financial Review made most use of the technology, and while some expressed dislike for the abstract style of the images, few said they thought this was unethical. Melbourne newspaper photographers and editors tended to be more parochial, with the majority of Age and Herald Sun photographers saying they thought the Age made most use of the technology. One Herald Sun photographer and Age editor Mike Gawenda said they thought the tabloids made most use of the technology in an unethical way, while the Australian Financial Review used it most for innovation. British photographers and editors tended to point to the tabloids as making most overall use of the technology. Those interviewed at the Daily Mirror did not dispute this, and saw no shame in making use of the technology for amusement’s sake. Although they were asked which French newspapers made most use of the technology, the French photographers and managers interviewed were consistent in their comments that the French press made very little use of the technology compared to their British counterparts. Two Agence France-Presse photographers said they thought the Parisien tended to manipulate photographs slightly more than other French newspapers (even though digital technology had not been introduced in this newsroom), and many interviewees (including the photo editor and manager at Libération itself) thought that Libération used the technology to artistic effect in its feature photographs, although no one thought this was unethical. American photographers and managers thought there was generally very little difference in the quality and levels of manipulation in American newspapers.
6.5.
CODES AND REGULATION
At the time of interview, all three News Limited newspapers surveyed in Australia were ostensibly bound by the News Limited photo-manipulation policy, even if none of the employees interviewed were aware of its contents in any detail. The only newspaper to have developed its own relatively detailed code was the Herald Sun (although few of its photographers had seen the code, and none had received training in how to use it). Some photographers also mentioned that they were bound by the Australian Journalists’ Code of Ethics, although at the time of interview there was no specific clause dealing with digital manipulation of photographs. At the Fairfax newspapers, there was no detailed code at the Sydney Morning Herald or the Age, although the latter had a statement forbidding unethical digital manipulation. At the time of interview, _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 215/282
there were also plans to develop one very similar to the Herald Sun code, and it was published in 1999. The Australian Financial Review was unusual in that there was no code, but the editor and photo editor stressed that photographers should be given creative control over their photographs and should be trusted to make their own decisions on ethics. Where there was doubt, they were encouraged to discuss the problem individually with their photo editor. None of the overseas newspapers studied had a detailed code of ethics, although some mentioned a verbal code, while others pointed to some kind of short written editorial directive that photographs not be manipulated. The French newspapers studied did not have formal photographic codes, although Libération has a newspaper-wide ethics code. The American newspapers had no detailed policies, but both had short written statements forbidding unethical retouching in general terms directed at preserving the newspaper’s credibility. There was no code of ethics at either British newspaper, and the status of the general News Limited policy, and whether it applied to photographers at the Times, was unclear. Certainly, the only Times interviewee who was aware of the policy’s existence was an Australian photographer on exchange.
6.6.
PERCEPTIONS OF INTRA-ORGANISATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Those interviewed for the British study were least confident of shared views throughout the organisation, pointing to the wide range of casual staff used, the increasing number of internet images appearing in the newspaper, and what some photographers described as a lack of understanding of the photographic department by editorial management. However, the French and American interviewees were more confident of a general similarity of views throughout their organisation, although several American photographers mentioned a lack of confidence in art departments. Australian photographers were generally confident of a shared organisational view of photojournalism ethics, although doubts were stronger at the Melbourne papers (where an average of 50 percent of photographers said they thought there were considerable differences). Like the British photographers, Australian and French photographers also expressed doubts that their editors were well-informed about the photographic ethics. Only American photographers were confident that their editor was aware of the general ethical issues which could arise at the photo desk. However editors in all newspapers surveyed were confident that they had an understanding of photographic ethics, and that this was well communicated throughout the organisation.
6.7.
PHOTOGRAPHERS’ ATTITUDES TO THEIR JOB AS ART OR PROFESSION
Responses to this question were complex, and it was rare to find a photographer or manager who did not see their role as incorporating elements of the creative artist/craftsperson with elements of the professional _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 216/282
documenter of truth. As a means to distinguish between these values, the following percentages were compiled by dividing those photographers who placed professional values highest in the “professional” category, those who thought their job had a more artistic or craft base in the “art” category. And those who thought the values played a fairly equal role in the “mixed” category. As a cultural group, American interviewees were the most likely to define their job as a profession (81.3%) where documentary and truthtelling came first. Many mentioned art as being a very important part of the job, but only three (29.7%) defined this as being more important than professional documentary duties, defining their job instead as a fairly equal mix between profession and art. British interviewees, on the other hand, were much more likely to see artistic and professional values playing equal roles in the job (73.3%), with 20 percent preferring the description of profession, and 6.7 percent preferring to be categorised as an artist. French interviewees also placed a high value on art, with 64.3 percent preferring the mixed profession/art category. Of the remaining interviewees, 28.6 percent saw themselves as professionals first, and 7.1 percent as artists first. On the scale of responses, Australian interviewees also showed a high preference to be described as professionals first (62.5%) and combined artist/professionals (33.3%) second, with only 4.2 percent seeing themselves as artists first.
6.8.
PERCEPTIONS OF READERS’ ATTITUDES
There were significant country-based differences in the perception of readers’ attitudes towards image integrity. Interviewees in France (71.4%) and the United States (56.3%) were most likely to think their readers cared about accuracy in photographs, followed by the British (40%) and finally the Australians (39.6%). But whereas American photographers and managers thought readers wanted photographs to reflect reality as much as possible, their French colleagues thought readers would accept cosmetic touchups (such as improving skin problems) or artistic touches (such as colour enhancement), while still defining the photograph as an accurate portrayal of the truth. French photographers were most likely to think readers believed what they saw in photographs to be true, whereas American photographers thought that although the newspaper product was trusted as a whole, the public were becoming more cynical and readers no longer believed so completely in the integrity of photographs. Australian photographers were divided on the question of whether readers cared about complete accuracy, with 39.6 percent saying they did, 37.5 percent saying they didn’t, and 22.9 percent saying they did not know. Many of those who said readers expected accuracy in news images qualified their responses by saying that readers would accept more of an interpretive approach to feature photographs. There were substantial differences between newspapers. For example, none of the managers or photographers at the Australian Financial Review thought their readers expected complete accuracy in news images, whereas all _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 217/282
of those at the Age thought readers did want accurate representation. Some questioned whether readers thought about photographic accuracy at all unless an issue was brought directly to their attention. Nevertheless they thought the public was becoming increasingly cynical about the accuracy of images in newspapers. British interviewees (53.3%) were least likely to think their readers trusted the integrity of newspaper images, with one photographer (6.7%) saying he did not know what readers thought. At the same time, British managers and photographers thought their readers were the least likely to be disturbed by manipulation techniques. Almost one third (31.3%) of American respondents thought that readers were unlikely to expect complete accuracy in photographs, with the frequent comment that reader cynicism was increasing. This compared to 21.4 percent of French interviewees who thought readers did not expect complete accuracy.
6.9.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MANIPULATION OF IMAGES
As Table 6.9-1 shows, support for public acknowledgement of manipulation of images was strongest at both American newspapers, and weakest at European newspapers. However, it should be noted that of those respondents who did not choose the option of directly labelling these images, another method of acknowledgement was usually preferred. Those who preferred no acknowledgement usually stipulated that this was because the public would understand the ironic nature of the image. Table 6.9-2 indicates a high level of support from all those surveyed for acknowledgement of manipulated images, although there was no clear consensus on how this should be achieved, with responses divided between acknowledgement through general categories such as “photo-illustration” or “photo-montage”, and more specific captions detailing the manipulation which had taken place. Table 6.9-1 : When should photographs which manipulate the truth be acknowledged? Responses in percentage NEWSPAPER
AUST
UK
FR
US
n=48
n=15
n=14
N=16
Always
85.5
60
50
100
Never
0
0
0
0
Only if the manipulation is likely to deceive
12.5
20
42.9
0
Other
2
20
7.1
0
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 218/282
Table 6.9-2 : How should these photographs be acknowledged? Responses in percentage NEWSPAPER
AUST
UK
FR
US
n=48
n=15
n=14
n=16
Not at all
0
6.7
0
0
With a general symbol
0
0
0
0
With categories
79.2
53.3
50
56.3
With a precise caption
14.6
40
14.3
37.5
Other
6.3
0
35.7
6.3
As Table 6.9-3 shows, respondents at Australian and American newspapers were similar in their conservative attitudes towards using Photoshop techniques in news photographs compared to their British and French colleagues. However, when asked about their attitudes to feature photo manipulations, American photographers stayed at their same conservative approval rating, while Australian respondents joined the French in approving of more than one-third of possible manipulations, while the British respondents approved more than half. Intensifying colours was the most popular technique, but thereafter preferences varied. There was fairly widespread approval for all techniques in images marked as photo illustrations, with the exception of the French respondents, where total approval dropped to a relatively low rating of 61.9 percent. American photographers were also slightly lower in their approval (87.5%).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 219/282
Table 6.9-3 : Respondents’ approval of different types of photomanipulation (all countries, all photo categories) SITUATION
Feature Photo1
Photo Illustration1
AUS
UK
FR
US
AUS
UK
FR
US
AUS
UK
FR
US
n=48
n=15
n=14
n=16
n=48
n=15
n=14
n=16
n=48
n=15
n=14
n=16
1.
Remove distracting telephone poles/wires
2.1
40
21.4
0
37.5
53.3
14.3
6..3
97.9
93.3
57.1
75
2.
Move object closer to subject
4.2
6.7
0
6..3
8.3
20
7.1
12.5
87.5
73.3
50
93.8
3.
Stretch photo 10% to fit a layout
10.4
30
50
6..3
7.1
60
50
6..3
87.5
93.3
57.1
81.3
4.
Combine two people from two separate photos
4.2
6.7
35.7
0
14.6
33.3
42.9
0
89.6
93.3
64.3
87.5
5.
Blur a background to emphasise a subject
14.6
53.4
0
0
56.3
86.7
21.4
12.5
97.9
86.7
57.1
93.8
6.
Remove people from background who distract
2.1
13.3
64.3
0
25
40
14.3
0
93.9
86.7
57.1
81.3
7.
Intensify colours for graphic effect
27.1
4.7
64.3
6.3
72.9
93.3
78.6
25
97.9
100
78.6
87.5
8.
Extend a photo’s border by cloning elements
6..3
40
14.3
0
50
66.7
50
6..3
93.75
93.3
64.3
87.5
9.
Drop out the background
10.4
40
35.7
0
60.4
73.3
64.3
18.8
95.8
93.3
71.4
100
9
31.1
31.7
2.1
38.7
58.5
38.1
9.7
93.5
90.4
61.9
87.5
TOTAL (combined percentage of acceptable manipulation)
1
Spot News1
Multiple responses were allowed for each category of photograph
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 220/282
6.10. ATTITUDES TO DIGITAL CAMERAS French agency and American photographers tended to have more access to the technology than their British, Australian, or French newspaper-based colleagues. But whereas the former group cited few problems, the latter cited many. Australian photographers had more mixed feelings about using digital cameras, with the majority saying they preferred to use analogue cameras, but realised that use of digital cameras would inevitably increase because they were more practical and time-efficient. Each newsroom surveyed had digital cameras available for shared use, but only at one (the Australian Financial Review) were they universally popular and available for each photographer. In all countries surveyed, photographers and editors were far more concerned by difficulties (ethical and practical) associated with archiving digital images, than by issues of proof (whether the event actually took place). However, management were more concerned about tests of authenticity (particularly for contributed photographs) than their photographers. At the British newspapers, almost all referred to the high cost of the technology for freelance photographers, five thought archiving was the greatest concern, and one cited image integrity. The rest thought there were no real problems. Those working at French newsrooms (Libération and the Parisien) were least concerned about the ethical problems associated with digital cameras, but the former did not employ its own photographers, and the latter had not introduced the technology. The vast majority of Agence France-Presse photographers were happy with the introduction of the technology at their agency and were all using digital cameras more than analogue cameras citing versatility and time efficiencies as the primary reasons. Only one French photographer (a staff photographer at the Parisien) cited a problem with digital cameras (archiving). In the United States, one editor thought digital cameras would eventually provide increased guarantees of the authenticity of the image, while another thought there were no differences in this area between digital and analogue technologies. Among American photographers and photo editors, archiving emerged as a slightly more important concern than issues related to image manipulation and proof of authenticity. However overall, most American photographers were positive about the changeover to digital cameras, saying they still had great freedom to choose to use analogue cameras where they considered them more appropriate. British photographers were the most negative about digital cameras, saying it was unfair that the cost of equipment for freelancers had risen dramatically over the past decade whereas wages had remained static. French photographers were either unfamiliar with the technology, or using it consistently and happily in agency work where it was provided by the employer. Australian photographers were remarkably consistent in citing archiving difficulties as the greatest problem with digital cameras, along with inferior quality (although in the 12 months between the Australian and American surveys, new generation cameras meant
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 221/282
this had become less of a problem). Australian photographers were also more concerned than their international colleagues about issues of proof and the demise of the photographic negative.
6.11. INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS Industrial concerns were most marked in the UK, where photographers were more likely to work as freelancers, and were responsible for keeping up with new technology, including buying latest model digital cameras and computers. There was no increase in the casual award pay rate to compensate for these new demands, and many photographers were depressed about their ability to keep up with equipment in a highly competitive environment. Other industrial concerns included fears that journalists would encroach on photographers’ jobs, increasing loss of control over photographs to digital editors and designers, and a decline in traditional photography skills without training in the new technology. Australian photographers also had strong industrial concerns, which is logical given the UK freelance model which is proposed for News Limited newspapers there. Photographers were least concerned in France, where employment conditions and job security were better, although in one of the interview sites, the Parisien, the technology had not been introduced. French newspaper photographers were generally less aware of potential industrial threats than their overseas colleagues, whereas French agency photographers were more aware of potential changes and feelings were mixed about whether these changes would be positive or negative. Like their French colleagues, American photographers were largely happy with their current work conditions. In addition, the idea that news photography was a profession which would continue without cross-over into television or other visual media was strongest in the United States. Several photographers expressed concern that the increasing use of digital cameras would signal an erosion of traditional photographic skills, but none said they felt their staff jobs were in danger, or that training requirements would not be met. There were mixed feelings about whether multi-skilling would be a positive development. Only two American photographers surveyed said they feared loss of control over their images as the technology evolved, and only one of the interviewees (San Jose Mercury News director of photography Geri Migielicz) said she saw convergence of television and print media as a real threat to photojournalism. These fears, along with other concerns about potential changes to photojournalists’ ways of working, prompted the addition of another phase in the research – that of additional interviews with specialists in archiving, image protection or cryptology. Anecdotal comment about how some sections in newspapers, particularly sport, took more liberties with image manipulation techniques than other sections, also prompted additional research. Finally, the number of references throughout the Australian and Overseas results chapter to “purer” photo delivery systems at international news agencies also demanded verification _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 222/282
from the source itself. The following chapter groups these interviews under thematic headings and explores how these areas impact on the newsroom debate on digital manipulation of images.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 223/282
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 224/282
7. ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS Where important issues or future concerns arose outside the expertise of the originally selected photo desk employees and their managers, additional interviews were sought. These included employees at international photographic agencies, an archiving professional, an online news service, and researchers on image integrity and copyright. In answer to comments from photographers at the Times newspaper on changes effected to photographs by the sports desk, and additional interview was also sought with a sports section editor to ask why some sections may have different standards on image manipulation to other sections.
7.1.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS AGENCIES
Interviews were carried out at the French Government-owned Agence France Presse in France and at the London office of Associated Press to investigate whether policies on digital photo ethics differed from those at newspaper-specific photo desks. Agence France Presse director of photography Gill Tucker, who managed 20 full-time photographers at the Paris office, said there was no need to provide a code for employees stipulating that photos should not be manipulated, because the ethos was well-understood already. However, she recalled that there may have been a memo to this effect once, but she could not remember when: We are very, very straight here and very strict about what we would allow people to do … we believe there should never be any doubt about the veracity of what we are showing … because it is deceiving the public … We just don’t have any trouble at all getting that message across, the understanding is very clear … It’s not a written code. As far as manipulation is concerned, and I think we might have had a memo round at some point to explain that we mustn’t do anything on Photoshop that we wouldn’t normally do in a darkroom just to enhance – just enhancing the contrast perhaps, or colour correction. [Enhancement] might be done on a quality level, but never ever to interfere with content. Ms Tucker said she did not believe that this ethos would change with time as photographers and the public became more familiar with digital techniques. She said it was up to photo agencies to be careful about the integrity of the people they hired. On reflection, she added that it was nevertheless true that photographers at the agency had differing views on what constituted acceptable retouching for reproduction purposes. While she did not personally agree some photographers thought it was acceptable to remove unsightly wires from their photographs, or to call out to a subject to make them turn around. She also thought that page editors had little understanding of photographic ethics. Overall, she said the importance of photographic veracity was well conveyed at the agency. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 225/282
Because Agence France Presse employes a majority of casual staff in locations around the world (around half of photographs each day come from casuals), Ms Tucker said ethical pratice had to be based on trust. She was not aware of whether contracts for casual photographers stipulated that photographs must not be manipulated, although she thought this was well communicated and understood verbally. Nevertheless, she thought agencies needed to be increasingly concerned about the veracity of their images: It’s something we have to think about more and more … if someone comes in and says “I was in this place at this time”, well, when it’s a negative you can look at it and say this has probably not been manipulated, even if you don’t know the person you can happily buy the pictures and use them. The truth is that should someone come in with a zip disk … we’d have to look at ways of verifying that. In the end, she said trusting images came back to the issue of whether you could trust the source. For example, she said the agency refused to publish internet pictures of the car crash which killed Princess Diana and her companion Dodi Al-Fayed in 1998. It not only decided not to publish the photos, but also to report the story that the photos were in existence. Later, when it was established that the photographs had been manipulated, she said the agency’s ethical stance on the issue had been vindicated. On the issue of cultural differences in photo ethics, she said this did not affect the agency because its reputation relied on producing photographs that were as representative of reality as possible. However, she said cultural differences in photography were obvious, and she openly disapproved of the British practice of setting up news photographs: “In the UK there is a mentality to say that it is perfectly acceptable to give somebody a prop … when it’s obviously a posed situation that’s one thing, but when it is a news event that is something else.” Where digital manipulated pictures were used and acknowledged as such, she said she had no objection, and that the new freedom of photographic expression was positive. She said the agency was currently exploring whether it would look at ways of marketing digitial art photographs. However, she said that the whole point of agency photos was that people trusted them, so she would not be in favour of anything which might erode this reputation. For example, she thought the issue of archiving in the digital era was “absolutely frightening”. Ms Tucker said the whole electronic archiving system (film and digital images) was transferred on line at the end of 1996. However, she said the cost of digital space meant that not every image was archived. And when transmitted images from digital cameras and film were archived, there was no mechanism in place to retain the original image. Again, she said that this had not been considered a serious problem because of the ethos that agency sources were trustworthy: “We’ve never really addressed this problem … because, sure, we feel the images themselves are not really being manipulated.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 226/282
Veteran Vietnam War photographer Horst Faas has been working as a photographer for news agencies since 1951, and for Associated Press since 1956. In 1998, he published a book Requiem on photographers killed in Vietnam, and was referred to by several photographers at other London newsrooms as a “legend” in the industry who was reputed for his sense of public duty and compassion as well as for award-winning photographs. He is one of only four Associated Press photographers based in London (down from 10 in the mid-80s when the British newspaper industry was twice the size), but the agency also has an affiliation with the Press Association which employs 16 full-time photographers. Mr Faas said the consequences of manipulating photographs, even in jest, were immediate: “Here the consequences are very easy: if anybody changes a photograph as a joke or to make it more effective, he loses his job.” He said there was no code apart from a book on good practice published in 1989 (see below), but there had been emails circulated from New York, and the ethos against manipulation had been tightened over the years. He said the the new technology had certainly made manipulating more tempting, but credibility was essential, and this was one of the reasons that Associated Press forbids posing photos as well. It was a different story for newspapers. He said once British newspapers bought the photos from the agency, they often retouched them (including removing backgrounds or distracting elements), and there was little the agency could do to prevent this. You can’t compare us to the newspapers, because we are different. We are the mass producers, and so we don’t have to package things in the same way. When you see things being doctored around, it’s a mixture of being upset and being amused. But it doesn’t happen very often any more. If you want to prove how often it happens, you are going to have a hard time. It’s more that today colours are manipulated to great effect. He said the public did not care about small manipulations, only if they felt they were being cheated of the truth: “People get a bit upset when they are considered fools.” All Associated Press casuals and staff members now came to the agency with prior tertiary training and work experience, and the ability to use Photoshop and scan and transmit photographs. He was not aware of any written advice they were given that photographs should not be posed or manipulated in any way beyond making them acceptable quality for publishing: “Word quickly gets around”, he said. He said he was sorry some of the old skills (such as making a colour print) had now been lost from the industry, but since Associated Press had closed its London darkroom in 1995, his life had never been so easy. He did not believe the technological changes had compromised photojournalism: Now we have great photographers who have never in their lives made a print. It’s not the camera, it’s the journalism and the eye. It’s like art. Compassion comes in, education comes in, ideas come in, and being smart comes in, and all this is necessary … For us a computer is primarily a tool to process a photo, and convey and distribute it, not much more. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 227/282
Mr Faas said that he believed only about five percent of the potential for manipulation in Photoshop was used by press photographers. And just as journalists didn’t waste time writing limericks with their words, photographers didn’t waste time making jokes out of their images. The only area where he thought the work was dramatically different was in terms of the time allowed for photographing a story. Whereas now a photographer covering a revolution in Africa might be sent for one week, 30 years ago he or she could have spent months or years covering just one story. It was ironic, Mr Faas concluded, that the increasing credibility of agency photos was changing the photojournalism “class system”, and that agency photographers who had once been the least respected because of their rapid and less creative role, were now being seen as having the most trustworthy images. Industry changes and global mass markets also meant that agency photos were being used more than ever before, and taking up more newspaper space. He thought the problems related to archiving digital images had consequences for ethics, and pictures could now make no greater claim to veracity than words. However, he said that even if there was a way to register and store original images, there would not be time to administer the archives. An Agence France Presse photographer could generate hundreds of images in one day, with up to 15 digital camera disks for one shoot. At $US 600 per disk, it would be far too expensive to store the disk. So each photographer had a series of disks with his name written on them, and at the end of each shoot, a selected number of images were stored by the editor, and the disks were then erased and sent back to the photographer.
7.2.
ARCHIVING
The library at the LA Times was used as a case study of how major newspapers were dealing operationally with the challenges of storing digital images.
Librarian Mildred Simpson said the newspaper had
introduced an image database in the mid-1990s called Media Sphere. The technology was designed by the British company Cascade, which was recognised as the world leader and used by the majority of British newspaper companies. Media Sphere functions as both a text and image database, but the LA Times was already using a database for text which it had introduced with pagination in 1985, and so it chose to use the image database separately. With Media Sphere, she said there was little difference in the archiving of digital and traditional photographs. The only real difference is that the photographers, when archiving their images, typed “colour neg film” or “digital camera” into the relevant field, and this alerted the news desk and the library to the difference. Because digital cameras store the original image on a disk inside the camera, and because these disks were re-usable and too expensive to keep, the digital images which were to be kept were burned on to a CD for archiving purposes, and all were currently stored in the database as well. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 228/282
Digitised images could be stored in either the original TIF version (where the image is downloaded straight from the camera) or as a JPEG (where photographers had the chance to use Photoshop techniques to upgrade the photograph to publishable standard). But because the TIF version did not allow librarians to store text with the photographs, photographers were actively encouraged to store their images as JPEGs. She said she believed the only way to ensure the veracity of the image via the technology was to save the digital camera disks themselves, and that option was too expensive for newspaper companies. You would almost have to save the medium that they take the picture on. I thought that’s what we would be doing at first, but then I found out how much they cost, and of course we are not going to be doing that. So they convert them to JPEGs and they move them to CD. There are still some TIFs sometimes, though. Photographers were instructed not to tamper too much with their JPEGs on Photoshop because this might interfere with the pre-press process. In the end, if an image was published in the newspaper, it was usually only this version which was stored. Ms Simpson said that this was largely because the public wanted to buy the image used in the paper, and it would be both expensive and confusing to save all variations in the editing process. Ms Simpson said that in an ideal world every image would be saved, but for a newspaper in a competitive marketplace that was not possible. Also, if too much was saved, newspapers would be confronted with having to choose between too much material, and editors typing in keywords would bring up an unmanageably large selection of material: “You just can’t save everything forever, you just can’t. The world would sink … There has to be at some point a culling, a selection of things.” Ms Simpson said that ethical concerns were a rare issue. Often the images being discarded were those related to advertising, or assignments where it was not important to keep a record of every frame. They take pictures for new products … and because these are not assignments where you really want to keep any more than just one image of what you shot, you really don’t want six differing views of this. In the old system, after a year we literally would have thrown it away, it would have gone in the trash. But we no longer do that, or we haven’t had to so far. We see how it goes … We ‘ll probably move it to near-line or off-line storage. She said the greatest probem in archiving digital photography was being able to supply the growing market for images rather than ethics. Because the library now supplied magazines and other off-shoot publications for the newspaper, as well as selling images to outside sources, the demand for variety in available images was growing, and this was particularly a problem when only a few images were stored from a digital assignment that later proved popular.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 229/282
The other difficulty was that, despite management promises, storing the images was just as labour-intensive as traditional archiving methods, if not more so. She said photographers were constantly complaining that they were obliged to do more work than before in downloading images and preparing them for pre-press and archiving purposes. Nevertheless, once the image was stored, it was easier to handle, and there was little risk of losing it. She said she did not miss the previous era when wire photos were filed as three sheets of different coloured paper. Sometimes one would be lost, or not transmitted until the following week. Despite the workload to store images properly from the start, the real advantage of digital archiving systems was that images did not get lost, misfiled or stolen. It doesn’t take less than, I’m sorry management, it doesn’t take fewer people to do these things, but what you have is such an improvement over what there was. Take the old wire server, for example, in those days, a colour wire photo consisted of three pieces of paper stapled together, and you’d better be sure you had one cyan, and one magenta and one yellow paper, otherwise you wouldn’t have a photo. So just the idea of capturing the wire digitally was wonderful … we used to have paper stacks like this (points to the ceiling). And the difference between the product that you had between those ugly, nasty, flimsy wire photos and having a digital wire photo in colour already, you don’t have to do anything to make it colour, to me it is just an immense improvement. And all this has happened in 13 years. The other advantage of digital storage, was that material could be accessed through a variety of keywords, rather than the old system of filing negatives under just one label. If you have a picture of five people in a row, you can find it under the name of any of the five people, whereas in hard copy, unless you want to go through a very elaborate crossreferencing system which most news libraries don’t have time to do, you would file that picture in one place, probably under the name of the person whose picture was most usable. In terms of storing outside images, and marking any manipulations, the database contained sourcing information, such as whether the image had been downloaded from the internet, or provided by a Hollywood film company. In some cases she said the librarians scanned and stored images provided from outside sources in case they proved useful in the future, but that the source was always clearly marked in the relevant field. She said this information acted like a “red flag” to editors that the image was not necessarily truthful, and that that was why it was important for the newspaper to acknowledge the source of the image in the byline so that readers were also alerted. Another difficulty was that there was currently no way for editors working in different newspaper sections to know whether the same image would appear on the same day in a different part of the newspaper: “The problem with digital news is that you can find things. From their point of view, the access is almost too good,” said Ms Simpson. On the possibility of confusing image sources, Ms Simpson said that although photo-illustrations and real photographs were stored in the same database, there was little risk of confusion because of the text that accompanied the images which notified the editor of any manipulation. She said separate data bases would _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 230/282
not be practical: “That’s because a photo-illustration could be a really wide range of things. It can even be a straight photograph, except that it’s been set up, and it’s not obvious it’s been set up. So they call that a photo-illustration.”
7.3.
ON-LINE NEWS SERVICES
MSNBC, a partnership between the television network NBC and Microsoft Corporation, began its on-line news service in 1997. The majority of images used are gathered from outside sources such as agencies, still frames from television (primarily NBC), or taken from internet sources. Photographers working in the newsroom are often office-based and working largely on screen gathering and editing images. By the end of 1998, the website had one million visits daily, and management expected this figure to increase to 10 million by the end of 2001. For director of photography Brian Storm, there were enormous advantages to being at the forefront of a new technology in news delivery. But the ethical battles in this new climate were also substantial. Many of those employed in the new industry had no traditional news background, much less an appreciation of photojournalism ethics. His own training in traditional photojournalism at the University of Missouri had led him to favour the employment of graduate photographers from core photojournalism schools with a “high standard” of views on image ethics. Yet he said he often fought a losing battle with other departments at MSNBC where ethics was concerned. He said he was particularly concerned with text being superimposed over photographs, or with phototeasers used as a general introduction with no caption as invitations for viewers to “click to find out more”. Colour was another problem, for example, the art and design department could be found making Asian skin more yellow to improve contrast, or carrying out similar abuses to ostensibly make pages more attractive. I think the way we use type here is a big ethical issue. When I first started off here, we were doing things like blending the backgrounds so that the type popped out more. I mean, that’s a red flag for me … No, that’s not going to happen at this site, I’m going to go crazy … To me, the basic idea that you don’t manipulate a picture, that’s just obvious. Mr Storm said that unlike other internet competitors, he was trying to concentrate on presenting the best of traditional photojournalism – hard news, photo essays, special assignments – through a new medium. He said his personal challenge was to deliver to one million people the kind of specialist photojournalism usually seen only in specialist magazines: “Why preach to the converted, what’s the point of that? To me, this is a vehicle, and it’s a powerful one.” But it also meant that his values were compromised sometimes when he was powerless to stop the designers and art editors from interfering. In the end, he said, the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 231/282
important thing was not always winning, but having influence over how the medium developed: “My power might be limited, but I’m really loud and cranky,” he said. On assuring the integrity of sources, Mr Storm said that the majority of contributions came from freelancer photographers and news agencies, but that he always had to be convinced of the veracity of the photograph before publishing. The consequences of making a mistake and publishing a manipulated image which deceived the public would be severe: “If we make one mistake, we are going to get nailed for it.” He acknowledged that skilled Photoshop users could manipulate the truth in their images, and that the only way to ensure the veracity of the photograph was to use trusted sources: “AP, for instance, you know their stuff is real … You have, I believe, the ability to decide what level of credibility you want as a publication.” It was, however, frustrating to be working in a new industry where the values of photojournalism were sometimes not understood or appreciated: People at the top looking at the bottom line are saying: “Hmm, I can send one person to Russia for a week to cover the economic crisis, or I can send two. I can send one person who can write, who can kind of shoot, who can gather some audio and do all of this, or I can send that same person and a photographer.” What are you going to do? If you are responsible for the budget … We don’t have the money, really, to be doing what we should be doing. We are not doing it right yet. You would think that a publication that has 500 million dollars in seed money would be about doing it right, but we are not, in a lot of cases. I mean, there are certainly things that we do really really well, but things like a reporter shooting pictures … it’s age old, but I don’t dig it. He said strictly formulated codes of ethics, like union rules, would be ridiculous in a nascent medium: “To me, ethics are a bit like the 10 commandments, they’re obvious, all you’ve got to do is think about it, and that’s what we should do. We shouldn’t make an Asian guy more yellow.” The essential values of ethical photojournalism might be the same, but Mr Storm said he had “loosened up a little” on more minor points since leaving The University of Missouri’s journalism school. He said this was partly because of the changes occuring in the technology, and the soul-searching about public expections about photojournalism, and he wondered how long it would take for photojournalism educators to change their minds about whether it was really unethical to move distracting elements, such as overhead wires, from photographs. The general public can buy a digital camera at 100 bucks. It’s over. Film is dead and film is going to become, like, art. And that’s a good thing in my opinion because (news photography) is going to become more valuable, like art. So now you have got this mass community of people who don’t have ethics, who don’t care about ethics, who wind up saying: I wish I hadn’t put that tree right in his head like that when I was at Yellowstone, I _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 232/282
mean, take it out, piece of cake. On the issue of labelling manipulated images, Mr Storm said he had yet to win the argument that photomontages and collages should be acknowledged. At the moment, it was very rare for an image to be labelled a photo-illustration. And although he had written a company mission statement prohibiting manipulation techniques which went further than standard retouching for publication, he said he could only enforce it in his department, and not throughout the company.
7.4.
IMAGE INTEGRITY AND COPYRIGHT RESEARCH
To establish current and future technological capabilities for protection of image integrity, three experts were interviewed at Microsoft Research. At the time, the company was looking at protection devices for visual images, and had a particular interest in protecting the copyright of images generated by its television studios. However, senior researcher John Manferdelli said the mathematical fields of cryptography and cryptology could be employed to safeguard veracity of any kind of digital image, be it a photograph or a moving image. Mr Manferdelli explained there were two basic encrypting devices which could help establish the veracity of images: watermarking and fingerprinting. Watermarking was an encryption only detectable by a compatible device, and any changes to the watermark would mean the reading device would not recognise the code and would be denied access. Fingerprinting was a means of assigning each pixel in an image with a code so that if pixels were changed, they would show up as manipulated. This form of the technology was designed to trace who had used the image, and how it had been changed. Although both techniques are a means of ensuring copyright and protecting the integrity of the image, Mr Manferdelli said they solved very different problems. Whereas a watermark was designed to resist change and would show the same watermark after the product had been considerably altered, a fingerprint (sometimes known as a key signature) guaranteed that no change had occurred. Or, in the words of fellow cryptographer Josh Benaloh, a watermark was used as a kind of copyright notice before an image could be used, whereas a fingerprint could be used to detect fraud (or in the case of images, manipulation) after it had been accessed. According to Microsoft cryptographer Yacov Yacobi, if the goal was to protect the integrity of photographs, these techniques could be used separately or in combination. The advantage of a very good watermark is that it is pretty much resistant to all kinds of manipulation. You’d practically have to destroy the image to destroy the watermark to change the image and that is very difficult. Whereas with a signature [a fingerprint] ... you are effectively signing every pixel, and if you change one pixel one iota, then the digital _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 233/282
signature will not match. Mr Benaloh said watermark technology would be particularly useful in implanting protection devices within digital cameras so that the original image would be marked as such. In this way it would be a record of what took place in front of the camera in much the same way that a traditional negative was an imprint of reality. And while the cost of embedding each camera with a watermarking device had possibly been too expensive to implement in the early days of digital cameras, it was now increasingly affordable: The technology is there, I’ve never seen it put into practice, but it’s there … It’s not even expensive, that’s the irony of it. The technology could be embedded in the camera for probably two or three dollars. I would expect that there would be a market for this, and I’m surprised that Canon and Nikon and others haven’t come out with it ... Maybe it has been somewhat unattractive in terms of cost before, but we’re crossing the threshold now where it becomes more and more practical in terms of both dollars and time to do it. However, the three researchers agreed that fingerprinting (or digital signature) technology might be more useful if the ultimate goal of newsrooms or law enforcers was to track the changes in an image. They said fingerprinting technology had been in use in various industries for the past 20 years, and was particularly renowned for its protective role in the European credit card chip. Applied to a digital camera, it would mean that a short string of around 20 characters could be embedded in each pixel of each image as it was being formed so manipulations could be traced. Watermarking was the more recent technology, and was described as the “big hope” of television studios in ensuring copyright and preventing fraud. However at the moment there were very few watermark algorithms which could not be broken (through pirating or leaking at the manufacturing process). Manferdelli, Benaloh and Yakobi all agreed that they could see no reason why camera companies could not implant a watermark on the original image and track any changes through fingerprint. Mr Manferdelli also believed the cost of using a combined form of the technologies would not be prohibitive for newspaper companies: It wouldn’t be horribly expensive … The manufacturer of the camera would embed a secret in the camera, and in principle they could store that secret and not tell anybody, unless someone came to me with a court order, and then I’m going to give that to a trusted party, someone I know won’t leak the secret. I’ll tell them that secret and then they can know whether this image came from this camera, and maybe you can also mark other information there, like the date it was taken, for example … In principle you could do that, in fact, I don’t see any problem with doing that ... Ultimately, Mr Manferdelli concluded, the cost of integrity for newspapers would be “purely an administrative thing”, and that digital images may in the future have more claim to veracity than negatives ever did. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 234/282
When there was no digital technology at all it was hard to alter the image … But there are ways to ensure integrity, and in fact they are more reliable. It’s a question of how much infrastructure you want to put in place, and who is going to pay for it. Mr Benaloh said he did not believe the cost of the technology (including the extra archiving costs in storing the original image as well as the published one) would be prohibitive, especially given the cost of digital storage was halving annually: even if a newspaper was storing and archiving 3000 images a day (even at high quality level of 100 kilobytes), the bill for digital space would be in the vicinity of $US 10 a day, he said.
7.5.
SPORTS DESK
Night sports editor at the Times, Peter Dixon, said some manipulations of photographs without public acknowledgement were acceptable, depending on the circumstances: “I’d be lying if I said we don’t manipulate pictures,” he said. He said this usually extended to improving the quality of the photo, but that sometimes objects were also moved if they improved the photograph’s composition: “For the most part our pics are honest. Our most heinous crime is moving a ball, and that is about as far as it would go.” However, what now occurred digitally was no different to what had always occurred at even the most reputable British newspapers. As an example, he explained that photographers had often placed a cut out ball on a photograph in the darkroom when a photographer had not been able to capture the fast-moving ball in the shot. He said that he did not see that this was deceiving the public in any serious way, particularly since the ball would have been in the frame a split-second before or after. He said he was not in favour of labels explaining manipulations that were obvious to the reader, or which did not change to any signififant degree what had happened in front of the camera: “We don’t need to insult the reader’s intelligence.” It was understood by tabloid readers in Britain that photographs were sometimes altered to make the images more amusing, and explanations of imagery that was obviously ironic would be ridiculous: “The problem only comes when you are suggesting something is fact,” he said. Mr Dixon thought that the sports desk was possibly more prone to using the technology than other sections of the newspaper due to the technical difficulties of action shots, as well as demand to create exciting photo collages or amusing images. However, he thought that the lack of labelling on pictures after they had been altered might cause a problem for achiving, especially given that manipulated images were used in some sections more than others: “There is a danger that mistakes will be made, and will be perpetrated.” He also
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 235/282
thought that familiarity with the technology led to an increase in unethical use: “One of the biggest problems is that once you’ve used it, you’re tempted to use it again.” The Australian and Overseas studies have been presented in Chapters 4 and 5, and compared in Chapter 6, and additional issues addressed through the interviews in Chapter 7. These findings will now be analysed together in Chapter 8’s discussion of results.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 236/282
8. DISCUSSION 8.1.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Age, work experience and newspaper styles (for example, tabloids versus broadsheets) were found to have little or no bearing on digital photography ethics. The majority of photographers interviewed were aged in their thirties or forties, and their managers were usually not notably older. In Australia, as in Britain and the United States, many had worked for several newspapers operating in different newspaper markets, and so could not be said to have attitudes conforming to a certain culture of ethics. Where employment longevity was concerned, the average Australian photographer had worked in her or his current newsroom for more than eight years (second only to the France where photographers had worked an average of more than 12 years for their current newsroom). Australian photographers were very likely to be permanent employees, but the ratio was narrowing and managers acknowledged that the employment trend was moving closer to the British model where the vast majority of photographers worked as freelancers (even if they were working exclusively for one newspaper). The long duration of French photographers with one employer was due to the more secure working arrangements in news organisations in France. This compared to the preference for employing freelance photographers in Britain, and the resulting employment period that was more than three times shorter than in France. In the United States, all photographers interviewed were permanent staff photographers but tended to have worked on smaller regional newspapers after completing their tertiary studies. This mobility, along with the general progression from small regional to large metropolitan newspapers, meant the profession was generally more mobile than in France or Australia. In all, American photographers were only slightly more likely to have stayed with their current employers than their British colleagues (six years versus five years), although their conditions of employment were much more secure. On the issue of training, there were few differences within Australian newspapers, and those differences that existed tended to reflect company policies rather than newspaper styles. For example, almost all Fairfax photographers had been offered short-course training in Photoshop (those who refused had usually received training at university), as opposed to News Limited where relatively few photographers had been offered company training. However, Australian photographers had not received training in photojournalism ethics or journalism ethics (with the exception of one Herald Sun photographer who had begun her career as a journalist). Where general university training was concerned, the Australians were slightly more likely to be university educated than their European colleagues, with more than half having trained at university (the vast majority _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 237/282
of these in news or art photography courses). But it is the examination of the American results which divides training differences more sharply along cultural lines. All American photographers interviewed had attended university, and almost all had received education in photojournalism and photojournalism ethics. This was more than twice the likelihood of tertiary education in photography in the Britain and France, and almost twice the rate in Australia. Like their British colleagues, half the French photographers interviewed had tertiary degrees, although they were more likely to have studied another discipline first and to have received their photographic training during their military service or on-the-job. None of the French photographers had received tertiary training in photojournalism. When it came to specific training in photojournalism ethics, the Americans were remarkably consistent. Only one of the photographers at the Los Angeles Times had not studied photojournalism, having graduated from a degree in science writing, followed by an early career as a technical photographer. All photographers at the San Jose Mercury News had formal tertiary qualifications in photojournalism. On cross-organisational differences, survey numbers were too limited to provide any reliable statistics on whether photographers had more or less formal training in ethics than their word journalism colleagues, managers or editors. As the only word journalists interviewed were at editor level (or news editor level in the British and French studies, and at the Sydney Morning Herald), the sample size was too small to be useful in this analysis. However, it is interesting to note that one journalist who began as a word journalist and switched to photography (namely Lucy Swinstead at the Herald Sun in Melbourne) had received training in a general journalists’ code of ethics during her original cadet classes. None of her colleagues had received any training either in general journalism ethics nor in photojournalism ethics.
8.2.
ATTITUDES TO THE INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
In their oral interviews, Australian photographers saw the new technology as positive on the whole, but thought the ethical and archiving concerns were somewhat negative. There was a different emphasis in the written survey, where most of these photographers said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned by the implications of the technology (with the exception of the Age and the Herald Sun where one-third and one-quarter of respondents respectively said they were not concerned – a result for which there was no obvious explanation). There were no obvious differences between tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, or between newspaper companies. However, the different approach to photo-imaging taken by the Australian Financial Review was ultimately reflected in the results, with photographers and managers universally supporting the new technology (although two photographers later questioned whether the ethical safeguards were sufficient).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 238/282
In the international study, responses to the written survey indicated that it was American photographers who were clearly most concerned about the implications of the new technology for journalism ethics. Among the other respondents, almost half the French and Australian photographers said they were very concerned about the implications, with very minimal interest from British photographers. However, twothirds of British photographers still felt somewhat concerned, compared to almost half the French photographers who did not feel at all concerned (although this could possibly be explained by the strict “no manipulation” ethos of the French photographic agency for which they worked). In the interviews, newspaper editors and photo editors in Australia and Britain tended to be less concerned about the implications than photographers, whereas they were equally and sometimes more concerned than photographers in France and the United States. Cultural differences in attitudes to the introduction of the new technology were far more evident in the oral and qualitative responses to interview questions than in the quantitative written survey. About half the Australian photographers interviewed raised ethical concerns when asked whether the introduction of the technology had been positive or negative overall. This contrasted with the responses of British photographers who had few ethical concerns and saw the technology as positive overall, and their editors and photo editors were particularly enthusiastic. In France, the reaction was more mixed. More than two-thirds of French photographers saw the new technology as a positive development in terms of efficiency, even if some (particularly photo editors) were worried about the ethical implications of digital retouching. However, all French photographers said their agency or newspaper would not stoop to unethical use of the technology. American photographers and editors gave the most informed answers about the positive and negative impacts of the technology, with most saying they had mixed feelings about its introduction on ethical grounds. Only four of the 12 American photographers interviewed spoke of the technology exclusively in terms of its advantage, with the rest expressing ethical and professional concerns. Yet their ethical concerns did not impinge on their acceptance and enthusiasm for the changes, and while many said they missed the darkroom, none advocated a return to the past. The high level of articulation found among many American compared to other interviewees might be linked not only to their educational backgrounds in photojournalism, but also in the degree to which such discussions were encouraged in the newsroom.
8.3.
DIFFERENCE IN ETHICAL DILEMMAS BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND NEW METHODS
With a few exceptions, the consensus in all newspapers surveyed was that the new technology had made traditional manipulations easier, faster, and far less obvious than with traditional analogue photography tools. Whether this, in itself, constituted a new ethical dilemma was a subject of dissent. While it is difficult to pinpoint distinct cultural differences on this issue, it is possible to define some general tendencies and _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 239/282
individual comments that help to clarify this debate. As Section 6.3. shows, the American and French photographers were most likely to speak of the technology as constituting a new ethical dilemma that required a new ethical debate. For those at American newsrooms, the speed and ease of the new technology, along with sourcing difficulties for images obtained from the Internet, were all regularly cited as new ethical concerns. What was particularly interesting about the American responses was that editors and photo editors shared the concerns of their photographers on these issues, as opposed to some stark differences between these groups at other newspapers (a trend particularly evident at the Australian newspapers). When discussing French concerns about the technology’s potential to create new ethical dilemmas, it should be pointed out that at one of these French newspapers (the Parisien) Photoshop had not been introduced, and at the other (Libération) no photographers were employed and all photographs were either contributed by freelancers or purchased from agencies. In addition, the photographers used to supplement this survey in France worked at an agency where, as Section 7.1. points out, the aim is to produce photographs in the most pure documentary form possible. Given the different starting points, it is difficult to make direct comparisons on these issues between French photographers and others, but it is interesting to note the consistent criticism from French photographers of the manipulation techniques used in British newspapers, and the view that such photographs would not be appropriate for a French market which was more interested in document. Yet it must be pointed out that this view is somewhat at odds with the more traditionally “artistic” traditions of French documentary photography (see Section 2.2.3.) where legendary documentary photographers such as Pierre Boulat are known to have manipulated news photographs to tell stories in more sophisticated and humourous ways. And the artistic approach to photographs in Libération, particularly in the use of colouration techniques, photo-montage and super-imposition of text over photographs, sits oddly with the opposition of its editors to computer enhancement techniques. This paradox can possibly be explained by returning to the cultural differences where it is possible to pinpoint a more liberal approach to expression of truth in documentary photography. For according to Libération’s photo editors, Photoshop techniques had not had an impact on the style of the newspaper’s photographs. British photographers, on the other hand, were convinced that while the technology might have changed the tools available, there were no new ethical issues to consider. This view was largely reflected in Australian newsrooms, although one third of photographers thought the technology had brought new concerns, in that the technology tempted Photoshop users to go further in their manipulations than before. The majority of British and Australian editors and photo editors said they saw no new ethical issues except perhaps in the increased difficulty of sourcing contributed images (see Times picture editor Andrew Moger’s comments), but some went further. It is interesting to note that at the Australian, a newspaper known for its ethical transgressions over the Martin Bryant photo (see Appendix A.4.1.3.), former editor Campbell Reid and _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 240/282
picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen said they thought the technology had served only to improve ethical standards. This was attributed partly to the transfer of control of image reproduction from photographers to editors and designers who did not have the same interest in “improving” them, and partly to the fact that former unethical practices could no longer be hidden in darkrooms. Only one Australian editor (the Age’s Mike Gawenda) thought the speed, ease and perfection of the new techniques constituted new ethical dilemmas, and Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden thought that if there were new ethical issues, this did not matter because the newspaper’s watchdogs made sure standards met public expectations. There were no notable differences based on newspaper ownership or styles, other than the approval of the techniques at the Australian Financial Review, where three of the six photographers interviewed came from an art/commercial photography background and were generally less concerned by traditional standards of new photography ethics. At all newspapers studied, there was one thing in common: almost without exception, interviewees alluded to the vast array of traditional manipulation techniques ranging from posing photographs, using various lenses and filters, writing misleading captions, darkroom techniques and even the misinterpretations which could occur in reader’s minds when they regarded a documentary photograph. While reiterating that few photographers were interested in deception, there was a broad consensus that the capacity of traditional manipulation techniques had been overlooked, and that any concern about new technology needed to be carefully considered in this context.
8.4.
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEWSPAPERS
From the beginning of this study, the question of which newspaper made most use of the technology was a confusing one for interviewees. Often they asked for clarification on whether the question was directed at manipulations, or best practice. They were told that they should reply to both, as the answers were often inter-related. This was certainly the case in Australia, where the Australian Financial Review inevitably surfaced as the newspaper which made most use of the technology in its deliberate use of photo illustrations. On the question of whether this use was desirable, views varied from minorities who thought the use was unethical, to those who admired it, and a majority who saw the newspaper’s style as catering to a certain public, but not desirable at their own newspapers. The only broad variation in this response came from Melbourne photographers where they made local rather than national-scale comparisons (with the exception of the Age’s photo editor and editor, who cited the Australian Financial Review), where the Age came out on top as making best use of the technology. Where the response varied from the Australian Financial Review, interviewees invariably chose their own newspaper as the leader in best practice (possibly out of loyalty), or said there was no real difference between newspapers in use of the technology. Above all, what surfaced from the Australian results on this question was the debate over what might _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 241/282
constitute best practice in the use of the technology – whether, in fact, using the technology to create a new medium of artistic images could be a positive development, or whether it led to increases in abuses. In the end, the consensus among Australian photographers towards the use of images at the Australian Financial Review was “each to their own”. The development was usually seen positively as long as there was seen to be no effect on other more documentary-image-oriented newspapers. The notable exception here was the Sydney Morning Herald, where both photographers and managers expressed disapproval of their sister paper’s artistic tendencies, for the reason that liberal attitude towards Photoshop techniques, as well as actual images from shared archives, could infect their own paper. There was less interest in this question at newspapers in Britain, France and the United States. In Britain, tabloids were seen as making most use of the technology, and this was predicably seen as positive by tabloid photographers, and more negative by their broadsheet colleagues. At its best, this was seen as improving the tabloid’s traditional claims to being a semi-humourous medium, designed more to entertain than inform. At its worst, Times photographers cited cases where the technology had been abused and fake photographs led to misinformation, distress and sometimes court action. Overall, the reaction, including from broadsheet photographers, was one of tolerance for the tabloids’ use of the technology, possibly because there had always been a culture of fun, irony, and “reader beware” at British newspapers (see Section 2.3.3.). However, it is interesting to analyse the remark by Times picture editor Andrew Moger that British newspapers probably used Photoshop techniques such as dodging and burning more than those in other countries, and acknowledgement that “sometimes they overdo it”. He did not include his own newspaper in this acknowledgement on the basis that his photographers were kept too busy to have much time to think of manipulating their images, and that they usually surrendered their images for others to work on. However, this rationale does not tally with comments made by night sports editor Peter Dixon (see Section 7.5.) who said objects, such as balls, were regularly moved by editors to “improve” photo composition. Mr Moger later agreed, but said that the battle between his department and the sports section was an ongoing one, and that values of documentary photographer were easier to enforce in the other news sections of the paper. Therefore while the British tabloids might make more overt use of the technology, it would seem that dubious, if less obvious, techniques may be employed regularly at broadsheets as well. By contrast, the French photographers and managers interviewed were adamant that the French industry made little use of the technology other than for purposes of improving technical quality for reproduction purposes. This can possibly be explained by the high reliance of the French industry on agency photographs, and the fact that Libération has no staff or permanent casual photographers. While four interviewees pointed to the Parisien as the newspaper most likely to manipulate photos, all agreed that this was very rare (it must also be remembered here that the Parisien had not implemented Photoshop at the time of this study). Indeed, French interviewees consistently referred to magazines as making most _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 242/282
(including the most unethical) use of the technology. Certainly, the smaller audience for newspapers, as well as the preference for quality press, should be taken into account when debating this issue, as in some ways, magazines might be considered the French equivalent of the British tabloid. However, it is also interesting to note that no photographers or editors made note of Libération’s extensive use of Photoshop in its art-based approach to photography – something which can possibly be explained by the newspaper’s traditionally artistic approach to its images since its establishment in 1968. In America, the strong culture of documentary photography, combined with an absence of an internationally comparable tabloid market, meant that photographers could point to few examples of newspapers using the technology in an ethically dubious way. In terms of best practice, they did not see any newspaper as performing above competitors, although several mentioned that agencies were “ahead” in the race to become 100 percent digital, if such a transition could be seen as ultimately desirable (there was a strong feeling that darkrooms should be retained at newspapers to allow for greater variety in photography styles). San Jose Mercury News photographer Richard Koci-Hernandez’s comment that all American newspapers were now using the technology as a tool and not to manipulate photographs was typical of the response at both American newspapers.
8.5.
CODES AND REGULATION
There were no detailed codes of photo-imaging ethics at any of the Australian newspapers studied, and although the written warnings against manipulation were a step ahead of ethics management in France and Britain, it was the American newspaper anti-manipulation statements which contained the most detailed written guidelines (see Appendix A.3.4.). At the Herald Sun, the Herald and Weekly Times Professional Practice Policy cautioned against manipulating photographs for anything other than reproductive purposes, but there were no specific instructions on how to go about this. At the time of the study, managers at the Age were promising to implement a similar policy to replace its statement prohibiting manipulation (introduced later that year, see Appendix A.3.1.4.), and News Limited was in the process of devising a company-wide professional conduct policy which would incorporate digital imaging guidelines (see Appendix A.3.1.3.). Nevertheless, there was a statement warning against manipulation of photographs at the Australian, and a News Limitedwide statement covering the Daily Telegraph. However, photographers, picture editors and editors seemed unclear about the existence of these codes. For example, former editor of the Australian, Campbell Reid, thought the newspaper was governed by the Herald Sun Professional Practice Policy, and made no mention of the News Limited statement, and picture manager Lyndon Mechielsen was also unclear on this, initially responding that the code was a verbal one. Fairfax newspapers were not governed by a company-wide _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 243/282
code, although the two managers and three of the photographers at the Sydney Morning Herald made reference to an “unwritten code”, and their practice of hiring people who they believed would possess a level of integrity compatible with the company’s standards. Interestingly, managers at the newspaper which most favoured Photoshop techniques in Australia, the Australian Financial Review, were not in favour of codes on the basis that specific regulation would be impossible. Rather, they advocated that any concerns should be resolved in discussion with supervisors (a view which was not largely supported by photographers). The Age had issued its written one-sentence warning to photographers not to manipulate photographs after the dubious manipulation techniques were exposed on national television in 1996 (see Appendix A.4.1.4.), but was in the process of re-writing a new company-wide Professional Practice Code, published in October 1998 (see Appendix A.3.1.4.). Managers gave assurances that photojournalism ethics would be covered under that code. In the international comparative study, the American newspapers provided their photographers with more guidance than in other countries. Both newspapers surveyed had provided their photographers and designers with a two to three-page statement (far longer than the statements at any other newspapers surveyed in Australia , France or Britain) on how the digital technology should be handled (see Appendices A.3.4.2. and A.3.4.3.). Even so, more than half of those interviewed in the American study spoke of the need to improve these codes, or, more particularly, to create discussion groups to debate techniques which could not be covered by hard-and-fast rules. American photographers and managers were also a case apart in that interviewees were universally aware of the existence of their newspapers’ anti-manipulation policies. There were no written interdictions against unethical manipulation of photographs in Britain or France, although Libération had its own ethical charter stressing a duty to truth and accuracy (see Appendix A.3.3.2.), and Times picture editor Andrew Moger said he would be prepared to consider devising a code. However, it is interesting to note that the greatest level of support for an international code of photojournalism ethics came from the French respondents, with others citing a fear of international regulations, or a fear that such regulation could not work in practice. The only managers who were in favour of a more detailed code than the formal or informal rules in place were those at the Age and both French newspapers. The preference by managers at all other newspapers for no codes or informal ones was accompanied by various explanations. These included: that photography ethics were built up on a case-bycase basis and defied rule-making; that there was already a general understanding of ethics in the newsrooms; and/or that the only solution for unethical photographers was dismissal. If photographers were generally more in favour of codes than their photo editors or editors, they were positively enthusiastic about the idea of training. In Australia, the higher levels of training at Fairfax _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 244/282
newspapers were a subject of discontent for News Limited photographs, who also had less control over their photographs and therefore a diminished claim to technical training. However, this same argument (that basic Photoshop image reproduction techniques required little training) was also used by Sydney Morning Herald picture manager Michael Young. In Britain, Times picture editor Andrew Moger went even further, saying that he was not in favour of training because it would be counter-productive to ethics to educate photographers further in Photoshop, and there was already a relatively good understanding of the ethical issues at stake. At the Daily Mirror, where designers were responsible for retouching images with Photoshop, training in ethical or technical issues was viewed as unnecessary, and photographers raised no objections. Most French managers and photographers favoured an international code, and therefore did not see the necessity for the newspaper to devise its training programs on ethics. This was because they did not think French newspaper photographers were the source of ethical problems because most were agencybased and felt sure of their understanding of documentary photo ethics. At American newspapers there was a feeling among managers that training was adequate – an attitude not always shared by photographers. There was also a view at both newspapers that while technical training had been adequate, more discussion on ethical issues, rather than a rule-based code, would be welcomed. Some employees in Australia, Britain and the United States were aligned to unions or professional associations with codes addressing photojournalism ethics (for an explanation, see Section 2.5.1.). However, given there was little knowledge of the content of these codes, and they could not be seen as effective ethical tools in the workplace, they should not be examined in detail in a discussion of these results.
8.6.
PERCEPTIONS OF INTRA-ORGANISATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Australian photographers, particularly those working at the three News Limited newspapers, exhibited a particularly strong discontent with the handling of their images by art/design departments and their loss of control over their photographs after scanning the negative. The vast majority trusted their colleagues, but were not convinced of homogeneous views throughout the organisation. A number mentioned feeling as though photo ethics were not understood by editors and managers, and felt it was not right for photographers not to be involved in the more advanced stages of the production process. Not surprisingly, the majority of Australian managers saw views on photo ethics as homogeneous, and only Age editor Mike Gawenda and Daily Telegraph picture editor Julian Zakaris thought there could be considerable differences of opinion on ethical issues. One interesting exception to this was at the newspaper which made most controversial use of digital images (the Australian Financial Review). Here, differences did not occur so much on ethical differences on the basis of deception, but rather on the intentional style of the newspaper and its extensive use of digitally-manipulated images. This disagreement about whether the newspaper _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 245/282
should use such techniques were evident both between and within management layers. Such was the reputation of the newspaper’s artistic photographic style that even media mogul Rupert Murdoch let it be known that he did not approve of the digital techniques used for the serious news pages, and many photographers, editors and managers at other Australian newspapers also made spontaneous mention of their approval or disapproval of such images (some on ethical grounds, but most on taste or on adherence to traditional values) and described the newspaper as an exception to usual photojournalistic practice. However, of those who disapproved (through all management layers) more appropriate labelling of the images was seen as one way of improving the newspaper’s ethical standing on image manipulation. By comparison, British interviewees also thought there were significant attitudinal differences within their organisations. However, they differed from their Australian colleagues in being far more resolved in their acceptance of these differences – a factor which can possibly be attributed to their precarious employment status, rather than an ingrained cultural difference. The high proportion of casual employees at the Times, combined with a highly competitive environment, fostered an atmosphere of suspicion both between and within departments, and only deputy editor John Bryant and two photographers thought there was a similar understanding of acceptable limits to retouching of photographs. The mistrust exhibited by picture editor Andrew Moger towards other departments in his organisation, and, in turn, the mistrust of him by his photographers (on the grounds that he was from a word journalism background with no understanding of photographs) showed stronger organisational differences than at any other newspaper. Views were more homogeneous at the Daily Mirror, where half the photographers interviewed worked casually or freelance. Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that management at the organisation encouraged a liberal approach to retouching of photographs, and photographers largely accepted that they lost control of their images to editors and designers after scanning the raw image. There were few signs of strong intra-organisational differences at American or French newspapers. In France, this was because photographic departments at the two newspapers surveyed were given total control over the ethical issues at stake (although it should be remembered that Photoshop was not used at the Parisien, and Libération did not employ photographers). Agence France-Presse photographers also thought there was a clear consensus on ethics throughout their organisation, as did their manager (see Section 7.1) although one photographer very pertinently pointed out that the agency lost complete control of its image ethics the moment a photograph was sold to a news outlet, and he said photographers were regularly disappointed with the results. There were occasional comments to this effect in the American study, but here photographers generally felt they could trust their art/design department to reproduce their photographs according to ethical principles and there were only occasional problems with colourations. When it came to management layers, the Americans said they felt there were fairly homogeneous ideas on image ethics in general throughout the organisation, and only three (photographers) of the total 16 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 246/282
interviewed thought ideas on ethics between photographers or departments could vary to any substantial degree.
8.7.
PHOTOGRAPHERS’ ATTITUDES TO THEIR JOB AS ART OR PROFESSION
In all newspapers surveyed, photographers working in hard news images tended to see themselves as news professionals before artists. However, it is not surprising to find that (with two exceptions) features photographers were more aligned to the artistic side of the job, and either described themselves as belonging to a job with a mix of artistic and professional values, or as artists. It was a rare exception to find a photographer who did not see the job as a mix of the two groups of values in some way. Many of those interviewed made the distinction between newspaper sections, saying a news section photograph was more “news” oriented, whereas a feature photograph could be more artistic or creative. There was no discernible pattern of responses according to newspaper ownership between the two Australian groups, or at organisational level in all countries surveyed. Cultural differences in this area were particularly illuminating, with Australian interviewees emerging as second only to their American colleagues in the strength of their professional documentary values. The Europeans saw things differently, with only one fifth of British and one quarter of French photographers defining themselves as professionals first. The remainder saw their job as combining elements in both categories, or occasionally as a job with more claims to art than profession. This was not unexpected from British photographers, where researchers have long noted the history of news photography as a craft, aligned to artistic and trade traditions rather than professional ones (see Section 2.2.3.). Even in the Australian study, it was the two interviewees from British backgrounds (photographer Sachlan Hayes and picture manager Michael Young) who preferred the word “craft” to describe their job rather than profession or art form. Indeed, the distinction in the questionnaire between these words was not always interpreted as intended, and Mr Young, a former photography art critic in Britain, equated the word “craft” with being a technical skill, and opposed to the American idea of the photojournalist as artist. Therefore, it is necessary to warn against reading too much into these descriptions of the job without further exploring the entomological distinctions between the terminology in each country. This said, it is interesting to find that French respondents gave very similar responses to their British colleagues, and thought their work required equal doses of art and technical news professionalism. It is even more surprising given that eight of the 12 photographers interviewed worked for a news agency dealing primarily in documentary images. Perhaps the answers to this conundrum can be found in the historical debate around photography in France, where documentary has always been considered as art, as _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 247/282
opposed to the United States where the two forms of photography have had more distinct paths (see Section 2.2.3.). In Australia, there was no intra-organisational pattern of responses, and managers at the same newspaper were sometimes at odds with each other. For example, at the Sydney Morning Herald, picture editor Gary McLean thought the style of the newspaper was changing to become increasingly artistic, while picture manager Michael Young said the opposite trend was occurring and the job was becoming increasingly more professionally-oriented.
8.8.
PERCEPTIONS OF READERS’ ATTITUDES
Interviewees at all newspapers in Australia and overseas thought that readers were becoming more cynical about whether photographs represented reality. The majority attributed this to the introduction of the new technology, although some spoke of increasing public scepticism about the media in general, urged on by a new appetite for media criticism in the media itself. More than a third of those interviewed said readers did not care about the accuracy of photographs, although all thought they would care if they were being deliberately deceived to a significant degree. Interviewees at all newspapers in the Australian study thought the public had a right to expect truth in newspaper photographs with the exception of Sydney Morning Herald picture manager Michael Young, who saw newspaper photographs as a “fake representation of the world” and essentially untrue. However, Mr Young also came from a different educational background, and had worked previously as an art and documentary photography critic. He had never worked as a photographer. Australian Financial Review managers and photographers also thought that photographs with illustrative qualities were still accepted as true by the public because they often gave a more truthful account of a news story than a photograph which captured the pure event. This view was also given some support by Sydney Morning Herald picture editor Gary McLean, who thought that readers preferred “interpretations of the event” to bland reality. Levels of public scepticism were perceived highest in Australia and Britain, but this must also be compared against cultural expectations in general, and against the demographics of certain communities in particular. For example, public cynicism about image integrity was described as very high at the San Jose Mercury News, but as director of photography Geri Migielicz pointed out, the newspaper’s Silicon Valley readership was well acquainted with Photoshop and the program’s capacity for deception. Therefore, while readers in this region were most likely to care about accuracy, the high level of computer literacy also meant they were most likely to be on their guard against deception.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 248/282
Public expectation of accuracy in photographs was also seen to be very high in France, with interviewees asserting that readers would assume that the photographs published were exact representations unless otherwise stated. However, it must be remembered that at the time of the study very few newspapers in France were using Photoshop technology, and some (for example, the Parisien) had not introduced pagination. Cultural factors, namely the links between art and photography in some countries, must also be taken into account here, and French interviewees working at the Parisien were the most likely to think that artistic or cosmetic touch-ups would be acceptable to readers without compromising the degree of truth in the photograph. Two French interviewees also attributed their perceived high level of reader trust to the delay in introducing the technology into the French newspaper industry. Another issue to be considered in appraisal of expectations about accuracy was the audience demographic. This was particularly striking in the Australian study, where those working at the Australian Financial Review referred to a willingness by their audience to consider abstract portrayals and photo illustrations as showing a non-representational veracity. The particular computer literacy of the San Jose Mercury News audience cited above is also indicative of the effect of demographic factors in expectations of accuracy.
8.9.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MANIPULATION OF IMAGES
In this part of the interview, managers and editors were asked whether manipulated images should be acknowledged to the reader: if not, why not; and if so, how? This question was also followed up in the written survey, as it was one of the areas where fairly simple direct comparative data could be produced. However, what was most interesting in the comparison of the quantitative and qualitative data was the variation of responses to the same question in interview and survey form. For example, on many occasions, a photographer who had responded in the written survey that all manipulations should be publicly acknowledged would contradict him or herself during the interview. And on two occasions (one in Australia and one in France), a photographer who supported full disclosure in the questionnaire answered questions in the interview while removing elements from photographs (a pimple on one occasion and a telegraph wire on another) which he said would not be acknowledged. Therefore, the qualitative results are probably more reliable sources of information in this area, although the written survey was useful in giving an indication of cultural attitudes to acknowledgement of Photoshop techniques in general. In the Australian study, slight attitudinal differences according to newspaper ownership could be detected in the responses to the survey, with almost total support for acknowledgement of untruthful images at Fairfax newspapers (with a slight move away from this at the Age), as opposed to three-quarters support at the News Limited publications. The Fairfax titles with an orientation towards more traditional news photography (the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald) were also less likely to approve of using _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 249/282
enhancement techniques in news photographs than their News Limited counterparts. However, those working at the Australian Financial Review were typically consistent in their increased tolerance for intensifying colours for graphic effect (with 50 percent approval in news photographs), blurring backgrounds and stretching photographs (with more than one-third approval in news photographs). Trends based on differences in newspaper ownership were difficult to isolate in the feature photo and photoillustration categories, although the same two Fairfax titles tended to show more conservative attitudes to using the technology in features. Interestingly, respondents at all Fairfax titles were slightly more likely to approve of the techniques in photo-illustrations. Given that these images would be acknowledged as illustrations, it is difficult to understand the slight reticence of News Limited photographers to use the techniques, and the response can possibly be explained by unfamiliarity with labelling of such images, or with the technology in general, by the particular respondents concerned. Any findings ascertained from the written survey must be questioned given the sometimes opposing views emerging during the interview. For example, where Fairfax photographers and managers showed a wide variation of attitudes on which kind of manipulations should be acknowledged. This was particularly evident at the Australian Financial Review, where photographers cited several recent examples of manipulated “art” images that had appeared without acknowledgement. Much of the confusion at all these newspapers centered on perceptions of what might constitute truth as opposed to deception, and what the public might reasonably be expected to understand as an ironic or illustrative image as opposed to a real news event taking place in front of the lens. Photographers at the other five Australian newspapers, regardless of company ownership or organisational levels, were relatively consistent on their views that an image should be acknowledged as soon as it crossed the line of traditional darkroom standards. That this “standard” in itself might constitute a sometimes serious abuse of the truth was rarely considered. However, another inconsistency between the written survey and the interview in the Australian study highlighted a significant difference in attitudes according to organisational level. In the survey, it was managers who were more likely to reply that photographs should be acknowledged only if the manipulation was of a substantial nature, whereas photographers favoured labelling. But in the interviews, it was photographers rather than their managers who expressed distaste for labelling. Many expressed distaste for labelling terms, or used contradictory arguments. For example, although regularly equating “going too far” with computer techniques as “adding or subtracting elements”, many photographers said they would oppose a “photo illustration” label for a photograph where distracting elements, such as telephone wires or poles, had been removed. And only one photographer, the Australian’s Paul Burston, mentioned opposition to removing elements such as power lines in a news photograph. Although this question was not asked specifically, relying on interviewees to bring it up, it does indicate a contrast with the low approval ratings for such techniques in the written survey. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 250/282
In the international comparative study, support for “always” publicly acknowledging photographs which manipulated the truth was strongest in the United States, followed by Australia, followed by the UK, followed by France (see Table 6.9-1). Nevertheless, there was relatively high support in France and Britain for only publicly acknowledging those manipulations likely to deceive, or taking other options (such as not running the photographs at all). No respondents said they thought these images should “never” be acknowledged. It is difficult to see these results as providing any concrete proof of ethical practice. Indeed, they could be seen to demonstrate a more thoughtful or realistic attitude among British and French photographers which would take into account not only a more complex appreciation of image integrity issues, but also consideration of public expectations of disclosure. For example, it might not be necessary to disclose that a pimple had been removed from a subject’s face, or a telephone wire had been taken out of a background if such admissions would look ridiculously trivial to the newspaper’s readers, and not compromise the essential integrity of the image. Given the high levels of support for acknowledging such images, respondents were then asked what form this acknowledgement should take. As Table 6.9-2 shows, there was no consensus on how this should be achieved. Nevertheless, the support for categories (such as “photo montage”, “photo illustration”) was high in Australia with eight out of 10 supporting this form of acknowledgement. At least half the respondents in other countries also preferred this option. The remainder tended to prefer a precise caption (such as “Photograph by X. Imaging of background colours by Y). Those who marked “other” usually preferred a more complex labelling process, such as combining captions and categories. This choice was most popular in France, where one third of respondents marked this option. Since this would be the most detailed description, it might be concluded that French photographers were in favour of the greatest transparency possible (a finding that sits oddly with their relatively low preference for “always” acknowledging manipulated images in Table 6.9-1). However, it should again be remembered that the Parisien photographers interviewed for this study were not familiar with Photoshop, and the remainder of photographers were agency-based and unused to employing the technology to any graphic or artistic effect. The only respondent who thought manipulated images should not be acknowledged at all was British, but this respondent qualified their answer by saying the photograph should be accompanied by an ordinary caption written in an ironic tone, so that readers would not take the photograph at face value. This response was particularly interesting, and was repeated by several other British photographers and managers during their interview when views on this issue were discussed at a deeper level. In indicating approval for specific manipulation techniques, responses from British, American and Australian respondents were reasonably consistent with the interview and the rest of the study, in that Americans showed greatest reluctance to use the techniques in news and feature photographs other than for pure reproduction purposes. Australians were also particularly conservative in using these techniques on _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 251/282
news photographs, but were far more likely to approve of these techniques in feature photographs. As might have been expected, the British had relatively high rates of acceptance for these techniques in both news (one-third) and features (more than half). The most favoured technique was manipulation of colour to graphic effect, blurring backgrounds, stretching, and removing small distracting elements. The only real surprise was the lack of consistency in the French results in this survey. Support was high (almost twothirds) for techniques such as removing people from the background and intensifying colours for graphic effect in news photographs, and more than a third thought it was probably acceptable to employ the very controversial technique of combining two people from separate images into one news photograph. Even taking into account the lack of experience with Photoshop at the Parisien, this result was particularly unexpected given that two-thirds of the total number of photographers interviewed worked at a news agency. It was also surprising, therefore, to find that French respondents were the most unlikely to use Photoshop techniques in publicly acknowledged photo illustrations. In all countries surveyed, a number of issues arose in the interviews that illuminated, contradicted or added new dimensions to the written survey. When it came to distinguishing at what point an image stopped being a photograph and became a photo-illustration, managers and photographers almost universally gave a standard response: when the Photoshop techniques used surpassed traditional “darkroom standards”. When it was pointed out by the interviewer that darkrooms could produce manipulated photographs, the interviewees characteristically amended their response to define a manipulated photo as one which went beyond basic enhancement. Again and again, they said they drew the line at “adding or subtracting elements”. Only one photographer, Chris Harris at the Times, brought up the issue of younger photographers coming into the industry who had never trained in the darkroom who would have difficulty applying such standards. Again and again, interviewees said that “crossing the line” with computer enhancement between a photo and an illustration came down to instinct, or as the San Jose Mercury News imaging policy put it, a “gut” feeling (see Appendix A.3.4.3.). In analysing this issue further, it is interesting to consider the comments of MSNBC director of photography Brian Storm, who acknowledged that the increased level of new technology in an on-line newspaper, along with the absence of a darkroom tradition or culture, had inevitably loosened standards of acceptable manipulation. He said that even when the photography department attempted to uphold these standards, photojournalism ethics was not well understood or appreciated by other parts of the organisation (see Section 7.3.). This prompted the question of whether traditional newspapers will encounter the same dilemmas as the technology develops further and newspapers increase their relationships with television and on-line media. When it came to labelling of manipulated photographs, the American newspapers, like the Australian Fairfax titles, preferred categories. However, the British Times newspaper had a policy of giving a combined by-line to the photographer and the imager, so readers would be aware that the photograph had _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 252/282
been digitally altered. Acknowledgement policies at the News Limited newspapers in Australia were somewhat sporadic, but managers also indicated a preference for the kind of acknowledgement used by the Times. Yet fomer editor of the Australian newspaper, Campbell Reid, also said that he thought definitions of honesty came down to “common sense”, and that feature photographs taken with special lenses did not have a label, so why should photo illustrations be any different unless the image was seriously misleading? Similarly, managers at the British Daily Mirror said they preferred to use straight news photographs or photographs which were so obviously manipulated that there was no need for labelling. Libération head of photography Laurent Abadjian said labelling was virtually non-existent at the newspaper, because the only real distinction in photographs was between straight news photographs and the “art” photographs in the features section and the back page, and that readers were well aware of the style of the newspaper and the difference between the two kinds of photographs. Managers at the Parisien said the issue of labelling was irrelevant, as the technology had not been introduced.
8.10. ATTITUDES TO DIGITAL CAMERAS Support for digital cameras in the Australian study was varied, while there were no significant differences between newspaper organisations, or management layers, in attitudes to the ethical implications on the demise of the negative. The vast majority of photographers (at all Australian newspapers) had not thought about legal issues associated with proof, and it was the prompting about this issue in the questionnaire that was responsible for any findings at all in this area. Although around two-thirds of those interviewed said they thought the demise of the negative could lead to legal or ethical problems, photographers and photomanagers were far more concerned by the potential for future archiving problems. Non-photographer managers and editors showed less concern for, and knowledge about, archiving issues than photographers at both newspaper groups. When asked generally about attitudes towards digital cameras, significant cultural differences among interviewees emerged. But it is difficult to say whether these attitudes stemmed more from differences in newsroom practice (for instance, preferences for darkrooms over computers), concerns about ethical standards, or could be attributed instead to industrial issues such as access to cameras, training, and the degree of control over images. The two groups with greatest access to the technology, American and French agency photographers, had quite contrasting views, and the difference is best described in terms of attitudes to ethical concerns. None of the agency photographers, who were all using digital cameras, cited ethical problems and all praised the speed and quality of the technology. Indeed, the only French photographer to cite an ethical problem (archiving) worked at the Parisien where no digital cameras were used. American photographers were the group most likely to raise ethical concerns (particularly in the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 253/282
archiving area), but also accepted the technology as simply another tool for their work. However, they stressed the importance of having a choice of which camera they used (which all of them had). One of the most surprising issues to emerge in this study was the level of confusion and ignorance surrounding digital developments. An extreme example was Times deputy editor John Bryant, whose response when asked whether he was concerned about the demise of the negative was: “But there will always be a negative”. No photographer, manager or even Los Angeles Times archivist Mildred Simpson (see Section 7.2.) was able to immediately specify which version of an image was saved from the moment it was captured in the camera, with photographers understanding the first part of the process, and editors and archivists the last. Neither side possessed a complete appreciation of the issues surrounding the digital recording and preservation of news events. Industrial issues were most important for British newspapers, with constant references (even by the four staff photographers) to the high cost of the technology for freelance photographers. Overall, British photographers were the most negative about digital cameras, saying it was unfair that the cost of equipment for freelancers had risen dramatically over the past decade whereas wages had remained static. Australian photographers as a group were also concerned by what they saw as the inferior quality of digital images, although in the months between the Australian and international surveys, new generation cameras meant this had become less of a problem. In all countries, photographers and editors were far more concerned by difficulties (ethical and practical) associated with archiving digital images, than by issues of proof (whether the event actually took place). However, management at all newspapers were more concerned about tests of authenticity (notably for Internet images and contributed photographs) than their photographers. Times picture editor Andrew Moger was particularly nervous about potential court action if the newspaper was found to be using deceptive practices and for the credibility of the title in general. Yet it was interesting to find that one American editor thought digital cameras would eventually provide increased guarantees of the authenticity of the image. His views were borne out by the three cryptography experts interviewed at Microsoft Research, who confirmed that the technology for guaranteeing image technology had existed for several years and that implementation was simply a question of demand and cost (see Section 7.4.).
8.11. INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS A marked difference between photographers at the two Australian newspaper groups emerged in attitudes to changing industrial conditions. At the Fairfax group, photographers felt they not only had more control over their images, but were also relatively contented with their access to training, and felt more empowered to choose their own destinies when it came to issues such as multi-skilling. This was particularly the case at _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 254/282
Australian Financial Review, where photographers felt they were treated as “equals” to their word journalism counterparts (a rare comment in this study), and felt positive about multi-skilling, and being able to express their individual creative styles in their photography. All had access to digital cameras, but were also given the choice of using analogue equipment if time permitted. At the other Fairfax newspapers, managers and photographers felt that multi-skilling in their newsrooms would be an unlikely development (except to give more creative licence to a multi-talented few) and that the quality of the newspaper would suffer should this occur. By comparison, News Limited photographers were more suspicious of the changes ahead. Mooted changes (confirmed by management) included phasing out analogue technology completely and fully digitising newsrooms, sending word journalists on “simple” photo-assignments and thus cutting staffing requirements in half, and following the British model of drastically cutting the number of permanent staff and increasing the number of casual photographers employed. Two News Limited editors and one picture editor warmly welcomed these developments as improvements in efficiency and an encouragement to those with more than one talent. However, Australian picture editor Lyndon Mechielsen thought that the industrial concerns held by photographers in the organisation were valid ones, while his Herald Sun counterpart, Bruce Howard, said that such a development would be a “hideous thing”. These developments were proving very unpopular with staff. For example, only two News Limited photographers (one at the Australian and one former word journalist photographer at the Herald Sun) saw multiskilling as a potentially positive development. All News Limited photographers, and some photo-managers, were opposed to increasing casual staff at the expense of permanent jobs. In the international study, working conditions for photographers in Britain provided an extreme example of how technological change can become a catalyst for industrial unrest. Photographers had increasingly lost the stability of full-time jobs with all daily newspapers preferring to keep only a skeleton staff of full-time photographers (four at the Times and three at the Daily Mirror). They were particularly concerned about having to finance the cost of expensive digital cameras themselves without any increase in pay rates. This compared to good industrial conditions in France and the United States, where the majority of newsrooms employed full-time staff photographers. The fact that Australian photographers at the News Limited newspapers were concerned about encountering industrial problems should the proposed UK model of outsourcing photography work proceed provided further evidence of the relationship between working conditions and attitudes to using the technology. Apart from the cost of the equipment, the other major industrial concern among photographers (particularly in Britain and Australia) was the fear that diminishing skills would lead to a de-professionalisation of their jobs. In addition, newspaper managements might look at sending word journalists out to assignments to _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 255/282
take digital images as well. Another perceived consequence of deskilling was that the increasing mergers between newspaper image technology and television image technology, accompanied by image sharing deals between newspaper and television, would mean that one image specialist would be sent to assignments on behalf of two or more news outlets. An extreme outcome would be a greatly diminished number of photographers or camera operators to cover assignments, leading to decreased sources of information and choice for readers – a consequence that would inevitably lead to ethical concerns. From the one interview conducted in an on-line newsroom, it seems that these fears may be not completely farfetched. Indeed, MSNBC director of photography Brian Storm cited his dismay at job sharing between reporters and photographers, as well as the potential for sharing of news between MSNBC and its “big sister” company, the cable channel NBC, when resources were scarce. Another issue related to deskilling was Age photographer Craig Abraham’s point about Photoshop breeding bad habits. He argued that photographers who are adept at using technology to modify their images after the photograph had been taken risked becoming “lazy” and would not be so motivated to capture the best possible photograph in the camera if they had the option of improving on the image later. This fear was echoed at all newspapers in different ways, with photographers often commenting that a new generation of digitally trained photographers may take less care in capturing an original image. Would they bother to take a step to the left to remove a telegraph pole from the frame when they had the option to remove it digitally? When questioned about whether this mattered if the end result was basically the same, these photographers all responded that it did, although they had difficulty in clearly articulating why this might matter. This discussion of the results gathered in the Australian and Overseas studies brings up substantial comparative analsysis on professional and ethical issues for photojournalism. But which of them provide key insights into the debate on digital images, and which of them help determine significant areas for future research? With this question, this research will conclude, at the same time flagging new questions that have arisen from this work.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 256/282
9. CONCLUSION 9.1.
THIS RESEARCH
It is inevitable, perhaps, that a study dealing in new technology will have an end point that is difficult to predict. For this reason, several of the hypotheses became irrelevant, or simply less interesting, by the end of this study. New technologies emerged, work structures changed, intra- and inter-organisational cultures moved closer together, and the initial state of resistance to the technology moved to a greater acceptance of change. Furthermore, what was possibly the most interesting finding – the problem of adequate archiving systems for digital images – only emerged clearly in the course of the research. However, this issue was rarely (if ever) alluded to in existing research studied for the literature review, and was therefore not included in the hypotheses. It was only during the oral interview, when respondents were given the opportunity to talk about other problems, that concerns over archiving emerged to the extent where they even overtook other ethical concerns. In concluding the analysis of this research, the original hypotheses will be considered first, and the additional (albeit sometimes central) concerns will be addressed under the fourth “developmental challenges” hypothesis. This study found mixed support for the first of the hypotheses: 1a “That photographers are exposed to less formal training in ethics than their word journalist colleagues”. This was due to inconsistencies in the comparative figures, and the rapid change in levels of education of journalists and photojournalists in all countries in the study. For example, Henningham’s research (1996) showed that 39 percent of Australian journalists surveyed possessed university degrees, compared with 58 percent of photojournalists in this study. Meanwhile Griffin’s research (1994) found that 35 percent of Australian word journalists possessed degrees, in comparison with 5.2 percent of Australian photographers. The difference in these figures when compared to the survey undertaken for this study was ultimately too great to make for useful comparison. Part of this discrepancy might be explained by the recognition of many technical photography diplomas as full university degrees in Australia during the 1990s. However, the difference is still puzzling given the relatively large sample size of the studies, and that they are separated by only four to six years. Indeed, even the assumption that there is a relationship between education levels and evidence of high ethical values is questioned in Henningham’s study (1996: 215) which found an inverse relationship between these two factors (i.e. better educated journalists were “less ethical”). These qualifications aside, other studies support the hypothesis. In her a photojournalism specific study concentrating on American newspapers, Reaves found a strong correlation between education levels and professional
ethics. In this research, those photo editors showing least tolerance towards computer
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 257/282
alterations of photographs tended to have a college degree, a background in photojournalism, and generally participated more in professional development activities (Reaves, 1993: 152). Other comparisons can also be drawn from studies on the training of word and photo journalists, which become particularly interesting when compared across national cultures (see Section 2.3.). In 1997, Bertrand (1997: 42-82) found that 69 percent of French journalists had university degrees, compared with this study’s finding of only 50 percent of French photojournalists. In the UK, 73.6 percent of word journalists had university degrees (Delano, 2001: email)., compared to 50 percent of photographers in this study. However, in the United States, photojournalists interviewed for this research were more likely to have tertiary degrees (100%) than the combined journalist and photojournalist population (82%) interviewed for Wilhoit and Weaver’s study (1996: 29), although the difference here might be explained by the small sample size of American photographers in this study, as well as by the time gap between this research and that of Wihhoit and Weaver. Nevertheless, the cross-cultural research undertaken here found strong evidence that while word journalists were likely to have had some exposure to journalism ethics through cadet classes or tertiary journalism courses, photojournalists had received negligible training in ethics (between 0 and 2.8 percent). The dramatic cultural exception to this finding were American photographers, of whom 91.7 percent had received tertiary training in photojournalism ethics. Therefore, American photographers were not only around twice as likely to be tertiary educated compared to their colleagues elsewhere, but were more than nine times as likely to have received tertiary training in the job-related ethics (see Section 2.3. and 6.1.). What this proves about differences in access to ethical training between word and photo journalists within individual newsrooms is relatively little, particularly given the limitations of scope in this study and comparative journalist training figures. However, one useful insight was the anecdotal evidence of a Herald Sun photographer who had been trained in ethics during her word journalism cadet classes, but had had no access to such training when she switched to a career in photojournalism at the same newspaper. This view is also backed up in Griffin’s research (1996), where he refers to ambivalent attitudes among Australian photographers to training, as well as an Australian industry preference for following a British rather than American training model and what sometimes amounted to an aversion to formal professional and ethical education values in favour of a craft-style work model (see Section 2.3.). The second of part of this hypotheses tested differences in organisational hierarchy: 1b “That those in editorial management often have a different understanding of photo-imaging ethics compared with the photographers they direct.” This question was addressed specifically in the oral interview, where each respondent was asked about perceptions of imaging ethics. As discussed in Section 8.6., these findings sometimes differed substantially from the responses given to the cases of ethical dilemmas in the written _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 258/282
questionnaire. These differences considered, there was clearly a different understanding of ethical considerations within management levels at Australian newspapers, with Age editor Mike Gawenda openly acknowledging that management at the newspaper needed to give more attention to photojournalism ethics at the newspaper. While other editors might have been keen to give the impression of ethical solidarity in their newspaper, their photography department staff often differed, and were more likely to point to differences in organisational understandings of ethics than differences within professional photojournalist ranks. The issue of written codes or professional practice policies was a particularly fascinating one. Where they did exist, the majority of photographers, and even sometimes management, were either not aware of them or could not describe their contents. And while the majority of editors, photo editors and photographers said images should not be “altered” unless clearly labelled as something other than a photograph, responses to the retouching limits in the written questionnaire varied substantially at Australian newspapers. However, the greatest differences were not between photographers working for different newspapers, but rather between editors and their photographer staff, with one editor advocating the contravention of a principle in a code he claimed to have helped write. In all, the evidence at Australian newspapers supported the hypothesis that there were different understandings of photographic ethics, or more specifically, a lack of understanding of ethical issues in photojouralism by editors. Photo editors, on the other hand, showed an understanding of the issues at stake that was in usually in keeping with photographers’ views, but were generally closer to editors’ views in their response on ethical solidarity between organisational layers at the newspaper. Where differences between photography and art/design departments were concerned, Fairfax photographers were less likely to cite discontentment than their News Limited colleagues. When asked to explain their unease, News Limited photographers consistently cited the loss of control over their images since the introduction of computer technology in the newsroom, and anger at being compelled to hand over their scanned images in very raw format. However, at Fairfax newsrooms, photographers were encouraged to work on their own photographs with Photoshop technology, after which they were encouraged to consult with the imaging department to ensure images which were as “true” to the original intention of the photograph as possible. There was little evidence of strong inter-organisational differences at American or French newspapers (although French photographers were more likely to cite editors’ lack of knowledge about photojournalism ethics, and American photographers were more likely to be discontented with their art/design departments). Again, control of the image past the initial scanning stage became a crucial issue, with American, and to a lesser degree French, photographers possessing more control over the final image product than their
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 259/282
Australian counterparts1.
American and French photographers were also far more likely than
photographers in Australia or Britain to believe there were consistent views throughout management levels on photojournalism ethics, and most considered their management well-informed on the issues at stake. This contrasted strongly with the situation at British newspapers, where photographers pointed to differing views between and within the organisational levels on photojournalism ethics. Yet again, control of the image was a substantial factor in shaping this view. The more these photographers felt they were being denied responsibility for the final product, the more distrustful they became of the others handling their images. There was also a relationship between stability of employment and perceptions of ethical control: those working for the newspapers with a large proportion of casual employees (the Times and the Daily Mirror) were most likely to cite inter-organisational differences in ethics. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that in the country where employees had the least contact with their office environment, perceptions of ethical differences both within photographer ranks and between organisational layers, were the greatest. The issue of codes became irrelevant for the British and French study, where codified rules or principles for photojournalists were either not in existence or not officially recognised by the organisation. By contrast, at the American newspapers surveyed, the existence, recognition, and understanding of these principles were relatively high. Therefore, it can be concluded that differences were perceived as greatest in Britain followed by Australia, perceived as more homogeneous in France, and most homogeneous in the United States. The first of the cross-demographic hypotheses: 2a “That News Limited has been more pro-active than Fairfax in providing Australian staff with ethical guidelines to deal with the new technology” was substantiated by the research undertaken. As detailed in Section 4.5. and discussed in Section 8.5., the News Limited newspapers were more likely to have adopted, or be in the process of adopting, written guidelines on image manipulation than their Fairfax competitors. Indeed, News Limited had already published one guideline in its company journal, and was in the process of adopting a company-wide
1
French photographers ultimately had less control over their images than American photographers for two
reasons which could not be related to organisational structures surveyed in other countries: firstly, because photographers at the Parisien were not using digital imaging technology at all and worked in traditional darkroom circumstances with full control; secondly, because the photographic department at the Parisien and Libération had been given almost full autonomy over their departments and the ethics governing their images. However, it could be argued that photographers surveyed for Agence France Presse had less control than at any other newspaper in the survey because their images were sold to newspapers outside their organisation with few embedded protections against manipulation. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 260/282
Professional Practice Policy (see Appendix A.3.1.3.), which was published in 1999. By contrast, the only Fairfax newspaper in the study with any written guideline was the Age, which had a brief statement forbidding undue manipulation of photographs (introduced after digital techniques on one photograph came to public attention). At the time of the study, the Age was in the process of putting together a new Professional Practice Policy under the guidance of the same manager who had formerly instituted the process at the Herald Sun. This policy was later adopted in 1998 (see Appendix A.3.1.4.). At the time of the study, the other two Fairfax newspapers had no written policies, and managers were not in favour of codified principles on the grounds that they were too rigid, or unnecessary given the already adequate communication of ethical expectations in their photographic departments. However, this view was not widely supported by photographers working at these newspapers, a significant majority of whom (eight of 12) said they believed written guidelines would help them to resolve difficult ethical decisions. Of the remaining Fairfax photographers, only one (a Sydney Morning Herald photographer) spoke against codified principles, and the others (all at the Australian Financial Review) said they did not feel written guidelines would make any difference to the way they worked. In light of this difference between management and photographers in 1998, it is interesting to note that in August 2001, at the time this research was submitted, a new Sydney Morning Herald Professional Practice Policy was due to be released, with the possibility of extending it to all Fairfax titles (see Section 2.5.1.). Yet it is in the correlation of results from the oral interview and the written questionnaire rather than by linear analysis of responses that this understanding of the results is both complicated and deepened. As the comparison of sections 4.9 and 5.9. showed, responses to the written questionnaire on tolerance of image manipulation techniques showed no identifiable relationship between codes or guidelines and ethical behaviour. Indeed, it could well be argued that the reverse was sometimes the case. For example, at the Sydney Morning Herald, there were no formal guidelines but this was the newspaper which showed the lowest combined tolerance for manipulation techniques on spot news or feature photographs. On the other hand, the newspaper with the most detailed written code warning against manipulation (the Herald Sun) had one of the highest approval ratings for digital manipulation in these categories. This would appear to justify the view of the Australian Financial Review’s former editor-in-chief Greg Hywood (in Section 4.5.) that institutional culture and on-the-job training had more impact on ethics than written codes or guidelines. Yet, another factor should also be taken into consideration that further complicates these findings. At all Australian newspapers with codes or written guidelines in place, staff and managers had little knowledge of the detail of the principles, and were often not aware of the written guideline at all or were confused by its application. For example, the Australian’s former editor, Campbell Reid, thought the Herald and Weekly Times Professional Practice Policy governed his newspaper, whereas none of his photographers were aware of this. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 261/282
Finally, it is relevant to point out that in newspapers where there were both written guidelines and knowledge of these guidelines by photographers and managers – notably at the two American newspapers surveyed – the rate of acceptance of digital manipulation techniques was the lowest in the entire study (see sections 5.9. and 8.9.). Therefore, this research showed that written codes combined with an advanced sense of professional ethics in the institutional culture is the best way to minimise unethical manipulation. However, in the absence of this combination, the institutional culture appeared to have a greater influence on organisational ethics than written, but badly communicated, guidelines. The second of the cross-demographic hypotheses: 2b
That so-called 'quality'
newspapers are more likely to use (and abuse) photo-imaging
technology. Differences between them are due to industrial agreements giving every photographer access to training, scanning and greater control over the image; also, these 'quality' photographers have more time to spend perfecting their images. was substantiated in part by the results of this study, certain findings here were among the most striking in the study. Certainly, there was one outstanding Australian quality newspaper example (the Australian Financial Review) which was cited by all its competitors as making the most extensive use of the technology, but this did not mean it was seen as unethical (see Sections 4.4. and 8.4.). Rather, although the newspaper’s employees were more likely to approve of certain manipulation techniques in spot news, feature and photo illustration categories, they were less likely to engage in more questionable techniques such as adding or subtracting elements than their colleagues at tabloids the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph. From this example alone, it can be concluded that greater use of the technology did not constitute proof of greater temptations to abuse. Nevertheless, the interviews on this issue in both the Australian and international study revealed that managers of photographers, and some photographers themselves (notably at News Limited newspapers) believed that limiting access to Photoshop training and newsroom usage would decrease the likelihood of unethical manipulation of images (see Sections 4.4., 5.4. and 8.4.). The second part of this hypothesis also raises the question of whether photographers at quality newspapers had more time to spend perfecting their images, thus being more likely to be tempted to manipulate their images. On this, results showed that tabloid photographers and managers were slightly more likely to see available time as a factor in instances of unethical manipulations, but overall photographers at all newspapers did not believe available time played any large role in manipulation, arguing instead that it was institutional culture and on-the-job training which played by far the biggest role (see Sections 4.4., 5.4. and 8.4.). Running counter to this was the almost universal view among photographers that creative and technical control of their image – from the beginning of the image-capturing process to the end of the _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 262/282
reproduction process – was an important (and often essential) professional value. They also expressed the view that when this control was absent ethical problems were more likely to occur. Certainly, the majority of examples of well-known image manipulations in this study were effected by the keystrokes of other editorial staff rather than the photographer concerned (see Appendix A.4.). As photographers pointed out regularly during their interviews, rather than setting out to deceive they were often the first to complain about manipulation of their photographs. They also noted that many of these infringements on image veracity occurred not through explicit intent, but because the images were being dealt with by word journalists or technical staff without adequate training in photojournalism. In other words, the further removed the image became from the photographer in the reproduction process, the more likely it was that technical mistakes would occur. Therefore, the overriding evidence showed that control of images by photographers was more likely to have a positive, rather than a negative, impact on ethics (see Sections 4.3., 4.4., 5.3., 5.4., 6.3. and 6.4.). The cross-cultural hypothesis: 3 “That understandings of truth in photojournalism are universal and not subject to cultural differences” was not substantiated in this study. Indeed, the comparisons of crosscultural characteristics made for some of the more interesting findings in this work. Although this hypothesis was formulated in the negative to make it easier to pinpoint subtle contradictions, the review of literature (see Section 2.) unearthed differences in all cross-cultural categories in the relationship between photography and truth from the beginning of the research. However, these examples, from philosophy and media practice, were not substantial enough to constitute conclusions in themselves. Moreover, although general trends of cultural divergence could be identified, they were sometimes contradicted by individual instances. Qualifications aside, the literature review unearthed understandings of truth which were more influenced by historical change (for example, the advent of Marxism or Postmodernism) than culture (see Section 2.1.2.). However, when it comes to photojournalism, it is possible to identify certain cultural differences (or at least cultural trends) within these broader historical frameworks. For example, at the beginning of the 19th Century, France was leading the merger between photography and art at a time when the British were more interested in photography as an evidentiary force and the Americans were spearheading the documentary movement through “New Deal” photojournalism (see Section 2.2.3.). In the survey and interviews, these trends toward cultural differences in understandings of truth were reinforced. If we accept the premise that professional values are more likely to incorporate truth than artistic values (see Section 2.2.2.2.), then the results on the interview question pertaining to professional values are particularly illuminating. Section 6.7. shows that American respondents were the most strongly aligned to professional documentary values (81.3 %), compared to 62.5 percent of Australians, and only 28.6 percent of French and 20 percent of percent of British photographers when asked whether they saw themselves as an artist or a professional _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 263/282
Section 8.8. also shows cultural differences in readers’ expectations of image veracity (as according to photojournalists). For instance, French photographers took the view that there was a certain level of public acceptance of the use of artistic and cosmetic touch-up techniques in news photographs, so long as the idea conveyed by the photo (its intrinsic truth) was not compromised. Examples of this style was particularly prevalent in the newspaper Libération, where heavy artistic techniques were used in both news and portrait photographs. The anecdotes collected at British newspapers showed a more casual attitude to portraying truth, particularly in news that appeared in features or sections. For example, Sections 5.9. and 7.5. detail the extents to which balls were regularly moved in sports photographs in Britain. By contrast, American photographers thought their public would be very intolerant of artistic or cosmetic touch-up techniques. Interestingly enough, perceptions of increasing public cynicism about photographic veracity did not appear to affect these expectations. Even at the San Jose Mercury News, where readers were reported to be more sceptical than at any other newspaper in the study, photographers thought their readers would have high expectations that photographs should tell the truth. Sections 4.9, 5.9, 6.9 and 8.9. show that cultural differences also emerged in the interpretation of what may or may not constitute image veracity and acceptable reproduction techniques. These differences could typically be traced back to historical ideas of truth in photography and truth in general. For example, French photographers were more likely to accept cosmetic touch-ups (such as removing blemishes on skin) in the production of a more beautiful or perfect image. British photographers were more likely to accept manipulation of images for ironic or political purposes. Australian photographers were more conservative than their European counterparts when it came to re-touching or manipulating their images, but not as strict as their American colleagues, who were by far the most opposed to changes for anything but technical reproduction purposes. When it came to labelling these photographs, the American and Australian (Fairfax) respondents favoured the “category” measures (e.g. photo-montage, photo illustration). However, the Australian (News Limited) and British newspapers were less likely to wish to identify such images with labels, especially if it could be assumed readers would understand the manipulation had occurred. The French respondents opted for the most detailed acknowledgement measures, such as full written explanations of how the image had been altered. However, it should be pointed out that French photographers interviewed worked for either Agence France Presse (where photographs were reproduced in the ‘rawest’ form possible) or the Parisien newspaper (where Photoshop and other digital technology had not been introduced), so their levels of experience in dealing with these issues might be questionable. The developmental challenges hypothesis: 4 “That developments in photographic technologies have increased the problematic relationship between news photography and truth” was confirmed only in part. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 264/282
From the results of the study, it becomes evident that cultural differences in perceptions of truth, at least as they apply to photojournalism, have been intensified by the introduction not only of digital imaging and digital camera technology, but also in electronic archiving systems and internet image delivery. When it comes to the last two categories – archiving and the internet – the problems have not been created by the development of the technologies themselves so much as the problems in the media’s ability to deal with the ethical dilemmas which have since emerged. These issues were not originally encompassed in the scope of the study, but emerged in the course of interviews to the extent where it quickly became obvious that they constituted ethical concerns which were possibly more important than the original issues surrounding digital imaging and digital cameras. Archiving emerged as a significant legal and ethical problem when it became evident that, unlike analogue systems where a photographic negative had been stored, digital systems were typically storing only the digital image which appears in the final version of the newspaper (see Sections 7.2., 7.4., 8.10. and 8.11.). While negatives of analogue cameras were still being stored, there were was no digital camera or archiving systems with capacity to store an original version of the image at any newspaper participating in the study. Not only does this pose ethical problems in the institutional memory of the original image (allowing for increasing “minor” retouching of new versions leading to a final product very different from the original), but it also leaves newspapers vulnerable to legal action (in issues of authenticity and copyright). Given that the technology already exists to address these difficulties – at least in part – there appears to have been little investigation of such technical “solutions”, possibly due to cost or administration load concerns (see Sections 4.10., 5.10., 7.4., and 8.10). As Section 8.10. points out, photographers and editors in all countries, with the possible exception of France, were far more concerned by archiving issues (both ethical and practical) than by issues of proof. Archiving problems were not seen as a significant problem in France, but more because digital systems had not been introduced (as at the Parisien) or because photographs were stored in a raw version form (as at Agence France Presse), than because respondents rated this issue unimportant for newsooms generally. The other important and unforeseen issue to emerge was that of sourcing. Respondents at all newspapers studied mentioned the difficulties emerging with verification of images sourced outside the photography department, either from internet or freelance sources. However, this was more likely to be seen as a problem for managers in Australia, the UK and France, whereas it concerned both photographers and managers at American newspapers (see Sections 7.1, 7.3, 8.3 and 8.10.). Perceived methods of managing this difficulty also varied from country to country, although all editors and photo managers mentioned wariness of using these images. British newspapers relied most heavily on outside sources, with higher rates of casual employment and use of images gathered outside the newsroom. British managers said they had become sophisticated in applying tests of authenticity, although they acknowledged the occasional _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 265/282
possibility of being fooled. Meanwhile, American respondents said they preferred to deal with this problem at their newspapers by almost exclusive use of news images from their own photography department, known freelancers, or trusted news agencies. Occasionally these checks and balances failed (such as the fake photograph published as a news photograph by the San Jose Mercury News in 1998: see Appendix A.4.4.2.). However, the only real area where this practice was seen as fallible was in entertainment sections. For example, the Los Angeles Times respondents said they faced the choice of either using “digitally improved” images of Hollywood stars or not publishing the image at all. Overall, respondents in all countries were more likely to approve of lapses in “sections” than in the general news pages (see Sections 5.3., 5.9. and 5.10.). In terms of the digital imaging systems, notably Photoshop and digital cameras, Sections 6.3. and 8.3. show that American and French photographers were most likely to believe Photoshop technology had brought a new ethical dimension to photojournalism ethics (see Section 8.10.). But although American respondents tended to be concerned with issues such as proof, French photographers were the least concerned, possibly because the technology was either not used or used in a raw form (see Section 8.10.). On the other hand, Australian and British respondents were more likely to endorse the “evolution not revolution” theory that all digital technologies were simply new tools which could be superimposed on the old ethical mechanisms. As such, they were less likely to think that the technologies constituted new ethical dilemmas in themselves, and felt the existing professional values of photojournalists would be adequate to resolve any arising ethical issues. Where digital cameras were concerned, Australian and British photographers were far more likely to be worried about access to this equipment than the ethical questions which might surround them (see Sections 4.10., 4.11., 5.10. and 5.11.). Finally, as the interview with an on-line newspaper photo editor shows (see Section 7.3.), the issue of convergence between print and other media will continue to complicate the complex relationships between photojournalism and truth. In a medium that promotes interactivity, design and multiple sources, it will be difficult to maintain assurances of image veracity even at current levels. That these dilemmas are arising in the United States, where photojournalism ethics was shown to be strongest in almost all categories tested in this study, provides reason for concern that the ethical challenges surrounding image veracity and authentification will only increase as the technology evolves.
9.2.
FUTURE RESEARCH
This research has focussed on photographers’ ethical and professional values with respect to image manipulation, investigating at the same time the cultural variations that might occur within those parameters. But while this work has incorporated the expectations which photographers have of readers’ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 266/282
attitudes concerning veracity of images in newspapers (see Section 8.8.), there was no capacity in this study to explore readers’ views directly. Therefore, investigation of reader views is the most obvious step for research following on from this work. It should be noted that in the third quarter of 2001, about two months after this thesis was submitted for examination, an American researcher Edgar Shaohua Huang published a research based on his doctoral thesis relating to readers reactions to and concerns surrounding digital alteration of documentary images. A summary of this research has now been added to Section 2.5.2 of this research dealing with public responses to digital manipulation. However, while the research found that readers were intolerant of altering news images and that they valued professional notions of truthfulness, the reasons for their disapproval were varied and need more detailed exploration and analysis. Additional research into public expectations would help not only to verify whether photographers are correct in their assumptions about readers, but would also bridge a crucial gap which, from the review of literature, appears to have been ignored. For if the question can be answered of what readers want and expect from news images, perhaps there is a real chance of defining what might constitute an “acceptable” manipulation and designing codes and educational programs around these limits – for photojournalists, their managers and their publics. Should public concern or confusion in these areas be significant enough to warrant further investigation, researchers might also explore whether current mechanisms for dealing with photo-imaging ethics are adequate or even appropriate. For, if we are to believe America’s media ethics guru Clifford Christians in Section 2.6.4.3., the new technology has overtaken the medium of photojournalism to such an extent that new sociological tools are needed to redress the ethical balance. Out with the old safeguards of codes, individual ethics and institutional learning; in with serious weapons like legislation, public policy and public ownership. Christians’ ideas on the subject might seem extreme by comparison to other media ethics counterparts. Nevertheless, his arguments that the complexity of the new tools, their convergence with other technologies, and the difficulty in tracking the path of the media product, lead to very evident questions about the usefulness of codes of ethics and other more linear measures in an increasingly interactive and convergent media where the idea of an ethical “gatekeeper” is fast becoming irrelevant. Other researchers offer more immediate responses. Indeed, Kelly and Nace (in Sections 2.2.2.1) and Bridger and Reaves (in Section 2.5.1) have already argued that the public do not necessarily expect images to be exact representations of an event, but do want to make their own judgements on images on an educated basis (see also the discussion of results in Sections 8.8 and 8.9). However, whether they prefer to make such judgements through categorisation of images through labelling or sybols, or by making implicit judgements on the newspaper’s credibility, style, or the tone of the captions used, is still open to debate and merits new exploration from the public perspective. Another important area for future work into newsroom practices is the analysis of sourcing images, including the problems of losing the original image through _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 267/282
digital archiving processes in newspapers, and in verifying the original source of information, particularly when the image is delivered by internet or other sources outside the newspaper (see Sections 2.6.1, 2.6.3 and 8.3). This leads to the fourth area of future research to emerge from this work is the ethical dimensions of new technical advances: the development of archiving and cryptological systems which might afford the same protections to the new digital image technology as the negative once did for the photograph. Of course, to some extent, the assumption that the development of such protections would ever be achievable is a naïve one. Public trust in images has already been eroded, and regaining “camera never lies” innocence would probably be impossible even with amazing advances in image veracity technology. Many would argue we should even thank the technology for bringing to light that fact that photographs were never exact representations, but by nature approximate and arbitrary (see Section 2.2.). Nevertheless, as pointed out in Section 7.4., scientists have already made significant advances in image integrity, archiving and copyright protection to the extent where it would not only be possible to retain a copy of the original image stored in a digital camera, but also to keep subsequent copies and track those who access or modify them. This technology already is available and the cost does not appear to be excessive (see Sections 7.4. and 8.10.). Given the ethical and (some would argue even more important) legal issues at stake, the next obvious question is: why are they not being taken up by camera and digital archiving systems companies? Would such systems be too cumbersome in terms of usage and data retrieval? Do media companies prefer to invest in professional education rather than technical safeguards? Is the demand created by legal and ethical concerns too insignificant to warrant their development? Or are newspaper company managers simply not demanding the development of ethical and legal solutions? Whatever the next generation of research might entail, the new world visual journalism explorer will need patience to reconstitute all the layers involved: from digital cameras to digital imaging; from news gathering to news sourcing via the internet; from archiving to proof of authenticity; from photography to image veracity. For creating a comprehensive but coherent approach to media ethics is likely to require ethical and technical thinking as polymorphous as the new technologies themselves.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 268/282
10.
REFERENCES
“Alan B. Shepard: 1923-1998.” (1998), San Jose Mercury News. October 20: 1. Allen, B. (1993), Truth in Philosophy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Altschull, J. Herbert (1995), Agents of Power. 2nd ed. White Plains, New York: Longmann. Ameral, K. (1995), “The Digital Imaging Revolution: Legal Implications and Possible Solutions.” Date accessed: April 23, 1997. www.amassd.edu/public/people/Kamaral. Anderson, W.T. (1996), ed. The Fontana Post-Modernism Reader. London: Harper Collins (Fontana). Association Nouvelle des Journalistes-Reporters, Photographes et Cinéastes (2001), website. Date accessed : July 28. www.anjrp.free.fr. Australian Press Council Annual Report (1994), 18. Sydney, June 30. Australian Press Council (1998), “General Press Release No. 220: Alteration of Pictures.” June 26. “Aye lad, I’m right middle class, me.” (1996), Evening Standard. April 12: 4. “Bank managers a different breed out in the bush.” (1996), The Age: Business. September 23: C1. Barthes, R. (1981), Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang. Becker, E. (1996), “The fragile fiction.” in The Fontana Post-Modernism Reader. Ed. Anderson, W.T. London: Harper Collins (Fontana). Becker, K.E. (1991), “`To control our image: photojournalism and the new technology.” Media, Culture and Society 13: 381-397. Benjamin, W (1973), “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” in Illuminations. Trans. H. Zohn. London: Fontana. Bertrand, C-J. (1997), La déontologie des médias. St Germain: Presses Universitaires de France (Que saisje?). Bertrand, C-J. (1998), Professor of Journalism, Université de Paris II. Personal interview. Paris. April 16.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 269/282
Bird, S.E. (1992), For Enquiring Minds: A Cultural Study of Supermarket Tabloids. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Bok, S. (1989), Lying. 2nd ed. New York: Random House. Bonnefoy, Y. (1980), foreword to Henri Cartier-Bresson. 3rd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Bourges, H. (1998), “Le défi de la mondialisation et de l’affirmation des cultures.” Médias Pouvoirs 2(1): 52-59. Bourges, H. (1999), “Déontologie et nouveaux médias.” Opening address at the 31st Assembly of Francophone Press by Hervé Bourges, Special Advisor to the French President on the Audiovisual Matters. August 22. Accessed March 20, 2001. www.cooperation.gouv.fr/francophonie/mocton/bourges.html . Bowman, D. (1988), The Captive Press. Ringwood: Penguin. Bradshaw, D. (1996), “Prattle of Hastings: How Tory press toady cheated to make John Prescott look like a champagne socialist.” Evening Standard. April 17: 3. Bridger, E. (1995), “Photojournalism in America.” The Australian Photojournalist 2(3): 6-9. Bridger, E. (1996), “The development of an effective code of ethics.” The Australian Photojournalist 3(2): 5-8. Bridger, E. (1997), “ From the ridiculous to the sublime: stereotypes of photojournalists in the movies.” The Australian Photojournalist 4(1): 4-13. Bridger, E. (1999), Founder, Australian Photojournalists’ Association. Personal interview. Brisbane, Queensland College of Arts. March 4. Brown, L. (1974), The Reluctant Reformation: On Criticising the Press in America. New York: David McKay Company. Burton, T. (2001), Executive editor, Sydney Morning Herald. Email. August 13. Caccia, F. (1998), “Enjeux et perspectives de la syndication en France.” Médias Pouvoirs 2(1): 107-116. Campos, J-F. (1998), personal interview. Paris. September 30. Caujolle, C. (1998), “Aux rencontres d’Arles: Leurres de la photographie virtuelle.” Le Monde Diplomatique. July: 26. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 270/282
“Ceci n'est pas une pipe” (1998), Eurostarmagazine. March 23: 23-25. Chadwick, P. (1996), “Media and Port Arthur.” The Alliance. June: 4-7. Chalaby, J. (1996), “Journalism as an Anglo-American Invention.” European Journal of Communication 11(3): 303-326. Chomsky, N. (1995), “A postscript to Chomsky’s Australian tour.” Opinion-Analysis. The Age. June 22, home ed.: 13. Christians, C.G., M. Fackler and K.B.Rotzoll (1995), Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. 4th ed. New York: Longman. Christians, C.G. (1998), Foreword, guest editor for special issue: “New Media Technologies”. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13 (2): 67-70. “Clarification” (1996), The Australian. May 1: 1. Craig, G. (1993), “Press photography, pixel technology and questions of representation.” The Australian Communication Association. Conference paper. Melbourne: July: no page. Coleman, A.D. (1998), The Digital Evolution. Tucson: Nnazraeli. “Comment on manipule les images” (1997), Marianne. July 7. www.marianne-en-ligne.fr/97-07-07/dessusc.htm. Comstock, G. and M.E. McCombs (1981), “Survey Research.”
in Reseach Methods in Mass
Communication. Ed. G.H. Stempel III, B.H. Westley. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Cooper, S. (1998), “Making movies”, British Journal of Photography. March 27: 16-17. Cooper, T. (1998), “New technology effects inventory: forty leading ethical issues.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13(2): 71-92. Costemalle,
O.
(2000),
“Il
faut
changer
le
statut
de
l’AFP.”
Libération.
October
4.
www.liberation.fr/quotidien/debats/octobre00/200010041.html. Craig, G. (1993), “Press photography, pixel technology and questions of representation.” The Australian Communication Association. Conference paper. Melbourne: July.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 271/282
Cronau, P. (1995), “Chomsky and the fake Age photo.” Reportage 5. Date accessed: February 5, 1998. www.acij.uts.edu.au/reportage5/R5Chom_photo.html. Currie, G. (1997), “Traces of the Real: On the Nature of Documentary.” Perth: Flinders University. Unpublished paper: 1-9. Daniel, A. (1990), “Public ratings of Journalists.” in Issues In Australian Journalism. Ed. J.P. Henningham. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. 102-110. Dassonville, A. (1998), “La photo de “Match” était trop belle.” Libération. April 17: 36. Delano, T. (2001), Britsh Photographers’ professional and ethical values. PhD thesis (draft). Email. June 11. Dunn, P. (1988), Press Photography. Somerset: Oxford Illustrated Press. “Egypt’s desert of promise” (1982), National Geographic 161(2): cover image. Eiler, T.E. (1995), “Digital ethics on American newspapers.” The Australian Photojournalist 2 (2): 4-5. Elliott, D., ed. (1986), Responsible Journalism. Beverley Hills: Sage. Encyclopédie Microsoft® Encarta® (1997), Redbank: Microsoft Corporation. 1993-1996. CD-ROM. Ettinger, J.M. (1998), “Steganalysis and game equilibria.” Preliminary Proceedings of the Second International Information Hiding Workshop. Portland, Oregon. April 15-17: 1-13. Evans, H. (1987), Pictures on a Page: Photo-journalism, Graphics and Picture Editing. 2nd ed. London: Heinemann. “Face of a killer.” (1996), The Australian. April 30: 1: cover image. Fallesen, G. (1998), “Doing digital.” News Photographer 53(5): 26-34. Feldman, F. (1978), Introductory Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. “Fictions Intimes” (1998), Exhibition at the George Pompidou Centre/ Fondation Electricité de France, Espace Electra, November 5, 1998-January 17, 1999. Programme notes. Paris: Publications de la Centre national d’art et culture Georges Pompidou. Foss, K. (1994), “Digital imaging: is it really the death knell for credibility?” PANPA Bulletin. February: 49-53. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 272/282
Foucault, M. (1996), “Strategies of Power.” in The Fontana Post-Modernism Reader. Ed. W.T. Anderson. London: Harper Collins (Fontana). Gaita, R. (1997), “Truth and the idea of a university.” Australian Universities Review 40(2): 13-18. Galbraith,
R.
(1998),
“Rob’s
Diginews.”
Date
published
and
accessed:
February
16.
www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/index2.html. Galbraith, R. (1999), “Kodak DCS 620 unveiled!” Date published and accessed: February 18. www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/index2.html. Gilmore G. and R. Root (1988), Media in Society - Readings in Mass Communication. Ed. C.J. Deming, S.L. Becker. United States: Scott, Foresman and Company. Gladney, G.A. and M.C. Ehrlich (1996), “Cross-media response to digital manipulation of still and moving images.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 40 (4): 496-508. Glasser, T. (1992), “Professionalism and the derision of diversity: the case of the education of journalists.” Journal of Communication, 42 (2): 131-140. Goodwin, H.E. (1987), Groping for Ethics in Journalism. 2nd ed. Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Grace, D. (1998), “A strange outbreak of rocks in the head.” Sydney Morning Herald. January 21: 13. Griffin, G. (1992), “Dances with digitals: the electronic revolution in Australian press photography.” Australian Studies in Journalism 1: 87-100. Griffin, G. (1994), A Study of Australian Press Photographers. PhD thesis. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Griffin, G. (1995), “No more surveys – please! Rediscovering journalists: a new direction for postgraduate teaching and research.” Beyond 2000: Future Directions in Journalism Education. Ed. J. Tully. Proceedings from the Journalism Education Association annual conference December 6-8. Christchurch: University of Canterbury. Griffin, G. (1998), “Theorising photojournalism”, in Journalism Theory and Practice. Ed. M. Breen. Paddington: Mcleay: 301-332. Guerrin, M (1998), “L’art de rapprocher Caroline de Monaco et Ernst de Hanovre.” Le Monde. April 13: 1.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 273/282
Hall, S.
(1973) “The determinations of news photographs.” in Cohen, S and Young J. (eds) The
Manufacture of News. London: Constable. Harris, B (1998), “No Cannes Do”, British Journal of Photography May 27: 12-13. Harris, P. (1996), “The day that Prescott the ex-deck hand upgraded to club class.” Daily Mail. April 1: 5. Hartley, J. (1996), Popular Reality: Journalism, Modernity and Popular Culture. London: Arnold. Henningham, J. (1990), “Is journalism a profession?” in Issues In Australian Journalism.
Ed. J.
Henningham. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. 129-162. Henningham, J. (1996), “Australian journalists’ professional and ethical values.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterley 73(1): 206-218. “Heroes: the most moving stories; the most amazing pictures” (1994), The New Weekly. January 24: cover image. Holderness, M. (1996), “Standard loses bottle.” Freelance May 31. National Union of Journalists. Date accessed: May 15, 2000. www.gn.apc.org/media/9605mani.html. Holderness, M. (1997), “What's wrong with this picture?” Freelance. August 31. National Union of Journalists. Date accessed: May 15, 2000. www.gn.apc.org/media/j-manip.html. Horton, B. (1989), The Picture: An Associated Press Guide to Good News Photography. New York: Associated Press. Huang, E.S. (2001), “Readers’ Perception of Digital Alteration in Photojournalism.” Journalism Communication Monographs 3(3) : 148-182). Hurst, J. and S.A. White (1994), Ethics and the Australian News Media. South Melbourne: Macmillan. International Federation of Journalists (1986), “IFJ Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists.” Adopted by 1954 World Congress of the IFJ. Amended by the 1986 World Congress. Jones, B. (1982), Sleepers Wake: Technology and the Future of Work. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Jones, J.C. (1980), Mass Media Codes of Ethics and Councils: A Comparative International Study on Professional Standards. Paris: UNESCO Press.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 274/282
Kahan, R.S. (1964), “Magazine photography begins: an editorial negative.” Journalism Quarterly 42(1): 53-59. Keene, M. (1993), Practical Photojournalism: A Professional Guide. Oxford: Reed. Kelly, J.D. and D. Nace (1994), “Digital imaging & believing photos,” Visual Communication Quarterly 4(5): 18. Keowen, M. (1998), “Take the PC tether off digital cameras.” Electronic Engineering Times 1020: 61. Kerns, R. (1980), Photojournalism – Photography with a Purpose. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Khalip, A. (1997), “Russian artists say forging evidence is kids stuff.” Reuters: wire service. Moscow. January 12. Knightley, Phillip (1998), “The Moment of Deceit.” Weekend Australian: Review. August 29-30: 4-6. Krauss, R (1990), “A note on photography and the simulcral.” in The Critical Image: Essays on Contemporary Photography. Ed. Carol Squiers. Seattle: Bay Press. Lach, J, W.H. Mangione-Smith and M. Potkonjak (1998), “Fingerprinting digital circuits in programmable hardware.” Preliminary Proceedings of the Second International Information Hiding Workshop. Portland, Oregon. April 15-17: 1-16. Laitila, T. (1995), “Journalistic codes of ethics in Europe.” European Journal of Communication, 10(4): 527-544. Larousse du XXe Siècle 1-6 (1934), 6th rev. ed. Paris: Librarie Larousse. “Le choc des fausses photos.” (1998) Le Canard Echainé. April 22: 15. Date accessed: 18 July, 2001. www.electriccafe.org/Canard/CC980422.html. Lecky, W.E.H. (1911), History of European Morals: From Augustus to Charlemagne. London: Watts and Company. Lester, P. (1995), “The role of photojournalism in mass communications education.” Panel discussion for the Visual Communication division of the AEJMC annual conference. August 15. Lester, P. (1998), Images that Injure. Seminar on photojournalism ethics. European Journalism Centre, Maastricht. Group Discussion. August 1. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 275/282
Lester, P. (1999a), “Photojournalism changes into visual reporting.” COMM 319: Photojournalism. California State University, Fullerton. http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/courses/319.html. Lester, P. (1999b), “Juggling journalism and humanism.” A chapter in the web version of the same author’s book:
Photojournalism
An
Ethical
Approach
(1991),
New
Jersey:
Lawrence
Erlbaum.
http://comfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter8.html. Lester, P. (1999c), Visual Communication: Images with Messages. New York: Wadsworth. Lewis, B. (1996), “Self-censorship by French scribblers.” British Journalism Review 7(3): 36-41. “Line up the beeries … We’ve won a series.” (1998), The Sun. August 17: 30. Libération (1993), “La charte de Libération.” 2nd revision. Company booklet: May. Lloyd, C. (1985), Profession: Journalist. Sydney: Southwood (Hale and Iremonger). Lodge, D. ed. (1972), 20th Century Literary Criticism: A Reader. London: Longman. Loosley, A.E. (1970), The Business of Photojournalism. London: Focal Press. Los Angeles Times (1998), “Los Angeles Times Photo Policy.” Company memo: May. McLuhan, M. (1964), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. ARK ed. 1987. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. McLuhan, M. and B. Powers (1989), The Global Village, Transformations in the World Life and Culture in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press. McQuail, D. (1994), Mass Communication Theory. 3rd ed. London: Sage. “Man Ray” (1998), Madame Figaro. Cahier National no 4, in Figaro du Samedi. May 2: 23. “Man Ray, la photographie a l'envers” (1998), exhibition at the Centre Georges-Pompidou aux Galeries nationales du Grand Palais. May 29-June 29. Catalogue sous la direction d'Emmanuelle de l'Ecotais et Alain Sayag. Editions du Centre Georges-Pompidou, Seuil. Manchester, W., ed. (1989), In Our Time: The World as Seen By Magnum Photographers. 2nd ed. London: Andre Deutsch. Manne, R. (1995), “A Cambodian view for the intellectuals.” Opinion-Analysis. The Age. January 25, home ed.: 11. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 276/282
Martin, E. (1987), “Against photographic deception.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 2(2): 49-59. Marvel, L and C. Boncelet, C.T. Retter (1998), “Reliable Blind Information Hiding for Images.” Preliminary Proceedings of the Second International Information Hiding Workshop. Portland, Oregon. April 15-17: 1-11. Mason, T. (1996), “MP seeks crackdown on media pictures.” Press Association Parliamentary Chief Reporter. Westminster, London. March 30: no page. Matthews, R. (1993), “When seeing is not believing.” New Scientist. 16 October: 13-15. Mayer, H. (1994), Mayer on the Media: Issues and Arguments. Ed. R. Tiffen. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin. Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Ethics Review Committee (1993), Issues Paper December 1993. Sydney: MEAA. Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Ethics Review Committee (1997), Ethics in Journalism. Report of the Ethics Review Committee, Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Australian Journalists' Association Section. Carlton South: Melbourne University Press. Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (1999), “(AJA) Journalists’ Code of Ethics”. 3rd revision. Minutes. MEAA Federal Council. Sydney. Media Watch (1996a), ABC TV. Sydney. May 8. Media Watch (1996b), ABC TV. Sydney. November 11. Merrill, J.C., and R.D. Barney, eds. (1975), Ethics and the Press: Readings in Mass Media Morality. New York: Hastings House. Midgley, C. (1998), “Football’s clash with the snappers goes to extra time.” The Times. November 20: 43. Miglielicz, G. (1998), Director of Photography, San Jose Mercury News. Personal interview. December 17. Mills, H. (1994a), “Manipulating images: the legal and ethical problems.” Communications Update 100: 13-15. Mills, H. (1994b), “Photo manipulation threatens credibility of ethics, says media watchdog.” PANPA Bulletin. June: 57. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 277/282
Mitchell, W.J. (1992) The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Mitchell, W.J. (1995), “When is seeing believing?” Scientific American. February: 111-119. Moger, A. (1998), Times photographic editor. Personal interview. London. May 4. Montclos, V. de (1998), “Quand la photo est trop bonne, ‘France-Soir’ prend des risques.” Marianne. March 23-29: 3 Morison, A. (1995), Age cadet trainer. Personal interview. Melbourne. June 23. Moss, M.J., (1994), “Lost among pixels: who’s minding the store.” News Photographer. February: 10. Murdoch, I. (1992), Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals. London: Chatto and Windus. National Press Photographers Association (2000), “NPPA Code of Ethics.” 3rd revision. Email. “National Union of Journalists policy on photomanipulation” (1996), The (UK and Ireland) National Union of Journalists. October 3. Date accessed: November 20, 1987. www.gn.apc.org/media/manipmot.html. National Union of Journalists (1998), “NUJ Code of Conduct.” Date accessed: July 3, 2001. The (UK and Ireland) National Union of Journalists. www.gn.apc.org/media/nujcode.html. News Limited (1999), “News Limited Professional Conduct Policy.” Company memo: February. Newsnight (1998), BBC2. Presentor: Kirsty Wark. August 18. Newton, J.H. (1998), “The burden of visual truth: the role of photojournalism in mediating reality.” Visual Communication Quarterly 5 (4): 4-9. O' Donnell, P. (1997), Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Assistant Secretary. Personal interview. Melbourne. September 14. Occhiminuti, R and N. Auschitzky (1998), “Modernisation et internationalisation galopantes: l’industry de l’information.” Médias Pouvoirs 2(1): 34-39. “Officiel: Ernst reçu à Monaco.” Paris Match 2550: cover image. Ong, P. (1994), “The whole truth and nothing but the truth.” PANPA Bulletin. September: 43-47.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 278/282
Osiel, M.J. (1986), “The professionalization of journalism: Impetus or impediment to a watchdog press.” Sociological Inquiry 56(2): 163-189. “Paparazzi” (1998), A. Berberain (producer), Rigolo Films/Canal + co-production. France. April 29. “Paris Match: le choc des fausses photos.” (1998), Marianne. Date published and accessed: April 4. www.marianne-en-ligne.fr/98-04-20/e_d1.htm. Parker, D. (1988), “Ethical implications of electronic still cameras and computer digital imaging in the print media.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 3(2): 47-59. Paroissien, L. (1982), “Provincialism, pluralism and professionalism.” Australian Art Review: 7-10. Petitcolas, F.A, R.J. Anderson and M.G.Kuhn (1998), “Attacks on copyright marketing systems.” Preliminary Proceedings of the Second International Information Hiding Workshop. Portland, Oregon. April 15-17: 1-20. “Photo et vérité.” (1998), Paris Match 2552: 98-99. “Pierre Boulat” (1998), Exhibition. Espace Pierre Boulat, Couvent des Minimes. Visa Pour L’Image Perpignan International Photojournalism Festival. Perpignon, France: October 29–September 13. “Prince Charles has a cunning plan to save endangered vegetables.” (1995), Today. July 22: 7: Image. Rainbolt, W. (1997),
“The Internet Moment and Past Moments.” Email list. October 14. owner-
[email protected]. University of Albany (SUNY). Ray, M. (1937), La photographie n’est pas l’art. Paris: GLM. Ray, M. (1998), Ce que je suis et autres textes. Essays published after his death. Paris: Hoebke. Reaves, S. (1987), “Digital retouching: is there a place for it in newspaper photography?” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 2(2): 40-48. Reaves, S. (1993), “What's wrong with this picture? Daily newspaper photo editors' attitudes and their tolerance toward digital manipulation.” Newspaper Research Journal 13(4): 131-153. Reaves, S. (1995a), “Magazines vs. Newspapers: Editors have different ethical standards on the digital manipulation of photographs,” Visual Communicaton Quarterly 1: 4-7.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 279/282
Reaves, S. (1995b), “The vulnerable image: categories of photos as predictor of digital manipulation.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72(3): 706-715. Reed, R. (1991), “Intra-organisational strategies of professionalism: Age journalists.” Media Information Australia 61: 42-49. Rhode, R.B. and F.H. McCall (1961), Press Photography. New York: Macmillan. Ritchin, F. (1993), “Digital imaging.” Art In America: 2-3. Rollat, A. (1998), “A propos d’images parlantes.” Le Monde: Médias. April 14: 8. Rosett, J.M. (1997), “Photojournalists -- visionaries who have changed our vision.” Media Studies Journal 11(2): 39-58. Ross, W.D. (1939), Foundations of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Russial, J. (1995), “Pagination and digital imaging: a contrarian approach.” Newspaper Research Journal 16(4): 42-56. Russial, J. and W. Wanta (1998), “Digital imaging skills and the hiring and training of photojournalists.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75(3): 593-605. “Russians ‘tortured’ Chechens to death.” (2001), The Australian: World News. March 7: 9. Ryan, M. (1997), “ Kodak adjusts digital focus.” Electronic Engineering Times 984: 29-30. San Jose Mercury News (1995), “Image Manuipulation and Electronic Ethics.” Company memo: November 3. Schneier, B. (1996), Applied Cryptography. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Schultz (1994), Not Just Any Other Business: Journalists, Citizens and the Media. Sydney: Pluto Press. Seiler, K. (1998), “Photo school forecast 1998: the future is out there.” American Photo 6: 24-25. Simpson, L. (1993), “The lying eye. A new technology in photography which can alter reality and create images that don't exist.” Sydney Morning Herald: Good Weekend. July 31: 18-22. Smith, A. (1980), Goodbye Gutenberg: The Newspaper Revolution of the 1980s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 280/282
Smith, Z. (1996), “McCarthyism.” Date accessed: December 13, 1987. www.bytor.engr.wisc.edu/zac/writings/paper-mccarthyism.html. “Sondage: les Français et les médias.” (2001), Télérama. January 27-February 2: 8-15. Sontag, S. (1977), On Photography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. “Sos Droite”, (1997), L’Evénement Du Jeudi. Number 657. June 5: 24: Image. Squiers, C. (1990), The Critical Image: Essays on Contemporary Photography. Ed. C. Squiers. Seattle: Bay Press. Steele, R. and J. Black (1999), “Media ethics codes and beyond.” American Society of Newspaper Editors. Date accessed: September 11, 2000. www.usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0401/ijge/gj09.htm. Stephens, M. (1997), “Expanding the language of photographs.” Media Studies Journal 11(2): 145-148. Syndicat national des journalistes (1998), “La Déontologie.” Date accessed : June 30, 2001. www.globenet.org/snj/deontologie.html. Syndicat national des journalistes (1971), “Déclaration des devoirs et des droits.” Munich conference: November. Tagg, J. (1988), The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Los Angeles: Macmillan. Tester, K. (1995), “Moral solidarity and the technological reproduction of images.” Media, Culture and Society 17: 469-482. The Age (1998), “The Age Code of Conduct.” Company memo: October. “The force of evidence.” (1989), Porcile, F. (writer), Zucca, P. (director). Videocassette. Reporting 1. France. 56 min. “The most talentless commander in Russia.” (1995), The Sunday Age: World. January 8: 10. “The rage of a simple loner.” (1996), The Courier-Mail. April 30: 1: cover image. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973), Ed. W. Little, H.W. Fowler and J. Coulson, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tillich, P. (1968), The Person in a Technological Society. London: SCM Press. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 281/282
Time-Life Editors (1972), Photojournalism. Netherland: Time-Life International. Traver, J. (1994), “NPPA’s past presidents keep working.” News Photographer 49(6): 6-8. Tuchman, G. (1972), “Objectivity as a strategic ritual: an examination of newsmen's notions of objectivity.” American Journal of Sociology 77: 660-679. Tuchman, G. (1978), Making News: A Study in the Construction of Realism. New York: Free Press. Tunstall, J. (1996), Newspaper power: the new national press in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Turner, G. (1995), “A quantitative approach to quality in Australian newspapers.” Gazette 55: 131-144. Vallaeys, F. (1998), “Ethical issues concerning digital photography.” Stanford University project. Date accessed: April 15. www.vallaeys.com/photoethics. Waters, D. (1999), Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Industrial Officer. Personal interview. Brisbane. March 18. Weaver, D.H. and G.C. Wilhoit (1996), The American Journalist in the 1990s. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wilson, B. (1999), Public relations officer, National Press Photographers’ Association. Email. February 2. Woodstra, J. (1995), Personal interview. June 28. Woodstra, J. (1997), Personal interview. October 29. Zavoina, S. and T.Reichert (2000), “Media convergence/management change: the evolving workflow for visual journalists.” Journal of Media Economics 13(2): 143-151. “Zoek de verschillen.” (1998), Het Parool August 24: 20. Zöllner, J. and H.Federrath, H. Klimant, A. Pfitzmann, R. Piotraschke, A. Westfield, G. Wicke, G. Wolf (1998), “Modeling the security of steganographic systems.” Preliminary Proceedings of the Second International Information Hiding Workshop. Portland, Oregon. April 15-17: 1-15.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Truth and the photojournalist: the ethical issues at the heart of the debate on digital images.
Page 282/282
