jk960418@ohio.edu
As a conditioned visual communicator, I often find myself engaging
with the photo associated with a story before noticing the headline and
subsequent body copy. Historically, the image
has influenced my initial decision to read the story or not.
 |
| https://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-afghan-girl-critical-take-steve-mccurry-scandal/ |
I have admittedly placed a great deal of trust in media
imagery, and find it discouraging to think my trust has been taken for granted. It seems the public’s overall trust in visuals
has begun to wane, largely because of our interconnected global social media
network where a “Photoshop fail” can be circulated to millions of people in a
matter of minutes.
This problem seems to stretch far beyond traditional journalism. Advances in technology have allowed advertising,
public relations, and marketing sectors to utilize the power to photo editing
programs. The slightest airbrushing can
lead to the construction of a dangerous precedent, especially when the public’s
self-esteem and mental health are at stake.
 |
| https://www.marrerostylebook.com/target-photoshop-fail |
The editing and retouching practices that were once seemingly
confined to the world of fashion magazines and editorial pieces have bled into
other industries, including basic news reporting. I now find myself avoiding some of my favorite
publications all together, because I am simply unsure if I can trust their
content. This is especially poignant in
the context of war reporting, where the presentation of false (or edited)
information can be a detriment to the public’s true understanding of events.
Christine Haughney raises some notable points about this
dilemma in her article for the New York
Times called, “Who Can Improve on Nature? Magazine Editors”. Haughney (2012) explains, “As long as
magazines have retouched photos – as long as there have been magazines,
basically – there has been a debate about the line between improving an image
and outright manipulation” (para. 3).
As a viewer, it is one thing to notice an obvious, terribly
executed editing attempt, but what I find more alarming are all the edits
viewers miss because they are so carefully implemented. I would argue the most subtle, untraceable edits
are the most dishonest because they are designed to trick the viewer into
believing a manipulated version of reality.
A little airbrush here, a little there, and suddenly the entire image
can be manipulated to look nothing like its original, true state.
What do media organizations and photojournalists have to gain
by manipulating photos? If the news is holistically
under a microscope for unethical practices, why would organizations continue to
walk a fine line when it comes to truth in visuals?
I feel strongly that the only way to truly preserve the
integrity of photos is to leave them alone.
I know sometimes adjustments in lighting, color balance, etc. are necessary
to make the content of the photo more visible. However, this still feels like a white lie. Editing a photo separates it from its original,authentic form. There is no room for
versions of the truth in journalism.
If a photo is to be presented to the public as truth, the
content must not be altered. If it absolutely
must be edited or enhanced, the public deserves more than a small disclaimer
line on a completely different page.
Transparency is key in this regard.
If we do not retouch our words to make a story more enticing,
we should not retouch our photos for the same reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment