Photo "journalism?"

Courtney Hessenauer

ch416406@ohio.edu

I admit, whenever I read an article, whether it be online, in a newspaper or even a magazine, I look at the pictures first. It has never really dawned on me that the photos could be fake or altered in anyway, but as I read through this week's readings, it's amazing how easily it can be done. Photoshop is such a popular program now. Although it says in the article that it comes with a price (about $650), people can easily download the program through the Internet, most likely illegally. No matter where people get the software, my point is that it is easily accessible to anyone.

Sometimes I will only look at the pictures and read the captions because the brevity allows me to get the information I want out of the story. It's not a good habit as a journalist, but I'm sure I'm not the only one... In the National Press Photographers Association website, the past president writes, "For those showing still photographs accurate, correctly spelled caption information is still considered a must." Wait, what? When was it ever NOT considered a must? As a photojournalist, even though one must focus on the photo, I think the captions are equally important. It gives credibility. Spelling errors and misinformation will only make one less credible with the readers.

I found one blog called Starling Fitness, and the author had a post called, "Photoshopped Thin." In the post, it shows of picture of a popular model, and next to the original, it shows the exact same picture of the model but much thinner. What about tabloid magazines and entertainment features? Some pictures will show women as being...

• skinnier
• tanner
• flawless

Just to name a few... So is that considered photojournalism? Making someone look "good?" And who has the power to do that? One website I found has an article titled: "Fashion Photography: Making Amateur Models Look Good." It lists different ways to have models sit to make them look skinnier. In a way, I applaud this article because it uses the true lens of the camera and does not encourage editing. On the other hand, as a female, I find this article completely disgusting. However, I think it raises a point of where to draw the line with photojournalism. I consider photojournalism as a true photo, no editing, no corrections, just the picture. However, it seems so common to see altered photos that don't resemble the true scene.

I particularly liked the focus on war photos. I think they are the most powerful, but there is an ethical dilemma on whether or not to publish them. In a website War Is a Crime.org, I found a slew of uncensored photos from the Iraq War.

This one in particular stood out to me. It's intense, and real. Would this be something an editor would want published? Just like the article mentioned, there is a risk publishing images that would be hurtful to family and friends of loved ones fighting in the war. I think it reassures that there are real photos out there, but we need to decipher which ones are worthy of audience's eyes.