ch629717@ohio.edu
In 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency banned Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong from the sport of cycling. They also revoked his seven Tour titles due to Armstrong's admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Performance enhancing drugs are substances (such as an anabolic steroid, human growth hormone, or erythropoietin) that are used illicitly to improve athletic performance.
Many are familiar with Armstrong--his success, his fight with cancer, and his fall from grace. Through Armstrong, it's easy for us to see the aftermath of the old warning: "Cheaters never win."
But in more airbrushed news, let's talk about Allan Detrich.
Never heard of him?
Detrich is a former Toledo Blade press photographer who was fired when it was discovered that he manipulated images which he published.
Detrich was then labeled a "serial digital manipulator," removing "unwanted elements," like people or tree branches from his photos.
A look at Facebook during my awkward introduction to photo-sharing will show that I, like many others, haven't resisted a swipe here, or tap there to erase my profile-shortcomings.
But a newspaper is a vessel that presents the world to readers: people and history in places I will probably never see. The paper-- with its black and white copy and grainy images--seems like the last place for the glamour of photo-editing.
But photo editing is everywhere. Photo-manipulation has become a part of our digital photography.
Simon Barnett, Newsweek's director of photography explains the evolution: "As digital technology has evolved, art directors at major magazines have forgotten how and when to say 'enough.' This tweaking and buffing and polishing down to the last pixel has frequently had the consequence of changing the photograph into something that at a minimum is plastic, and at worst inaccurate."
And inaccurate is unethical.
The National Press Photographer's Association's Code of Ethics includes: "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter the sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
So, back to the beginning: What does Alan Detrich have to do with Lance Armstrong? Both men broke the rules to go further in their fields
"I screwed up. I got caught," says Detrich.
Echoes Armstrong, "I couldn’t turn it off. I mean, huge mistake… Never should’ve taken it on, especially knowing what most of what they said was true…I knew the truth, but it’s tough to stop (lying) once you start.”
And with Detrich's at least 79 manipulated photos he submitted for publication, it seems it was tough for him to stop lying once he started, too.
Detrich, like Armstrong, was using prohibited tools to do his job.
But, unlike Armstrong, who is almost a household name synonymous with illegal drugs thanks to his Tour de France scandal, I only recently learned of Alan Detrich.
Lance Armstrong's career, arguably, is only educating his audience on the sport of cycling.
But newspapers, through photographers like Detrich, educate their audiences and have earned an amount of professional credibility far exceeding my Facebook photos.
Editing must maintain the integrity of the photo, and like other performance enhancement, it can snowball into unethical.
I think it's best, we, to echo Armstrong, "never take it on."
Leave press photographs untouched by computer software.
Can we resist, in our filtered, selfie-obsessed, "for the 'gram" world? For journalism's integrity, it's worth a shot.
 |
| Lance Armstrong | Credits: Slate.com |
In 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency banned Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong from the sport of cycling. They also revoked his seven Tour titles due to Armstrong's admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Performance enhancing drugs are substances (such as an anabolic steroid, human growth hormone, or erythropoietin) that are used illicitly to improve athletic performance.
Many are familiar with Armstrong--his success, his fight with cancer, and his fall from grace. Through Armstrong, it's easy for us to see the aftermath of the old warning: "Cheaters never win."
But in more airbrushed news, let's talk about Allan Detrich.
Never heard of him?
Detrich is a former Toledo Blade press photographer who was fired when it was discovered that he manipulated images which he published.
Detrich was then labeled a "serial digital manipulator," removing "unwanted elements," like people or tree branches from his photos.
A look at Facebook during my awkward introduction to photo-sharing will show that I, like many others, haven't resisted a swipe here, or tap there to erase my profile-shortcomings.
But a newspaper is a vessel that presents the world to readers: people and history in places I will probably never see. The paper-- with its black and white copy and grainy images--seems like the last place for the glamour of photo-editing.
 |
| Digital photo manipulation is part of photography. | Credits: Pixlr.com |
But photo editing is everywhere. Photo-manipulation has become a part of our digital photography.
Simon Barnett, Newsweek's director of photography explains the evolution: "As digital technology has evolved, art directors at major magazines have forgotten how and when to say 'enough.' This tweaking and buffing and polishing down to the last pixel has frequently had the consequence of changing the photograph into something that at a minimum is plastic, and at worst inaccurate."
And inaccurate is unethical.
The National Press Photographer's Association's Code of Ethics includes: "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter the sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
So, back to the beginning: What does Alan Detrich have to do with Lance Armstrong? Both men broke the rules to go further in their fields
"I screwed up. I got caught," says Detrich.
Echoes Armstrong, "I couldn’t turn it off. I mean, huge mistake… Never should’ve taken it on, especially knowing what most of what they said was true…I knew the truth, but it’s tough to stop (lying) once you start.”
And with Detrich's at least 79 manipulated photos he submitted for publication, it seems it was tough for him to stop lying once he started, too.
Detrich, like Armstrong, was using prohibited tools to do his job.
But, unlike Armstrong, who is almost a household name synonymous with illegal drugs thanks to his Tour de France scandal, I only recently learned of Alan Detrich.
Lance Armstrong's career, arguably, is only educating his audience on the sport of cycling.
But newspapers, through photographers like Detrich, educate their audiences and have earned an amount of professional credibility far exceeding my Facebook photos.
Editing must maintain the integrity of the photo, and like other performance enhancement, it can snowball into unethical.
I think it's best, we, to echo Armstrong, "never take it on."
Leave press photographs untouched by computer software.
Can we resist, in our filtered, selfie-obsessed, "for the 'gram" world? For journalism's integrity, it's worth a shot.
Wonderfully woven post Christy! :D I really enjoyed reading it, and the ways you brought together the different kinds of 'enhancements' that could be considered unethical. I liked your line, "a newspaper is a vessel that presents the world to readers". :) In this way, it seems one would want the photos to accurately represent that. With the kind of credibility behind newspapers, it's important that the information is not misleading. While some slight editing could be ok, removing or adding things to a photo could change its meaning.
ReplyDeleteReally well done!