A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

Colleen Kennedy
ck293105@ohio.edu

A picture is worth a thousand words, sure. But those thousand words should be reserved to tell the story the photograph is illustrating, not the illustrating that went into the photograph. By manipulating photos, a news publication is essentially lowering itself to the level of a tabloid publication. Tabloids are expected to doctor photos and enhance stories. When a reader picks up a tabloid, the majority of the audience understands that what they read may not be entirely true. Conversely, when readers pick up a news source, they come in with the expectation that what they read and see within the source’s pages is entirely authentic. They often will not look for photo illustration explanations because they typically don’t have to. If the illustration isn’t obvious and is not labeled clearly, a reader would have no way to know.

Take Newsweek’s cover photo illustration of Martha Stewart or its cover with Bobbi McCaughey. As a reader, I don’t pay close attention to photographs and, therefore, would have never realized that Martha’s head had been pasted on a model’s body or that Bobbi’s teeth have been straightened. And I don’t think that I should have to question what I'm looking at. With each paper or magazine purchased, I'm entrusting my news source to find the most reliable news and report it honestly to me.

So it’s difficult to understand why a publication or a photojournalist would risk losing their creditability for something as simple as removing an undesirable item in a photograph. I don't want to see Hollywood on my news source's pages. I already know that the world is full of imperfections and I don't mind them in print at my breakfast table.