How much Editing is too Much?

Samantha Skvarek

Photo by Photo Shop Lady

Technology is advancing every single day. It is amazing to see where we are at with technology. The children growing up are accustomed to technology. They are born into it so the use of technology and software is readily at their finger tips. With the era that we are currently in, photo manipulation is at an all-time high. With the advanced technology this is more software to allow people to manipulate photos. Photo manipulation is everywhere from the internet, to magazines, billboards, they list goes on. Photo manipulation can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. If photographers are using software for a positive reason can be good. Photographers using software for a negative reason poses a problem especially to society.

Photographers can use software such as Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom to manipulate their photos. When it comes to portraits of family and friends, photographers’ use these programs to retouch the photos. Retouching can be anything from eliminating some backgrounds, adjusting a person’s blemishes, but what is it truly saying about today’s society. I think it can be acceptable as long it does not get out of hand. I would not want to get my wedding photos back and have awful spots, blemishes, and overall quality to be bad.

Photo manipulation is used in a negative way when it comes to advertising. The designers think what they are putting out is sparking peoples’ interest. The unfortunate thing being that they are setting a bad image. Specifically when we look at magazines, we see these actors, actresses, and models looking so fabulous. The thing is, they don’t actually look like that. Advertisers are manipulating the photos in order to make their product look better. The down side to this is that men, women and even children believe they should look that way. This accounts for unhealthy habits in people.

When we talk about the unhealthiness of photo manipulation, we have to explain it comes down to self-image. Teenagers are seeing these photos that have been altered. These teenagers believe they should look like the people in these photos. I can speak from experience that when I see a magazine specifically a fitness or health magazine, I find myself saying, “man I wish I had that abdomen.” It could be any feature, but then I think about it. Then I go on these healthy food diets or in the past fad diets that were not healthy. These teenagers should not have to see that.

I also think photo manipulation is a negative outreach for sports. There are times where an image is altered to prove a point. Whether it be a foul in basketball and altering where the ball is, even in football altering where the line of scrimmage was in a photo. It just simply looks bad on all parties. Most importantly it tries to prove a point on behalf of those leagues and in return makes them look like the officials cannot do their job. It’s a shame people have to manipulate photos to gain something, and not take everything for what it is.

A New Headline for the Same Photo

jd922016@ohio.edu
Jessica Deyo

My first year of college, I agreed to participate in a research-study that required me to sit in front of a computer and decide whether or not a variety of social media posts, resembling Facebook posts, were true or fake. In my opinion, a photo can be interpreted just as falsely and an article.

I signed up for the study because I felt that as a student writer, I had a pretty good idea of what types of headlines and photo combinations were ridiculous -- I was wrong. Needless to say, there was not a single headline that I could confidently place into a true or fake news category. However, there was one type of story that was definitely more challenging than others: politics.

I believe a politician will do anything to get ahead, and some of the true stories I come across still seem like they should be fake, but that doesn't mean they should actually be fake. Today, there are a number of reasons behind fake news being published alongside an image: an agenda, a bias, trolling and other personal motivations. Regardless of the reasoning, these posts are further decreasing trust in the media and the spread of this trend is rapid.

According to a Buzzfeed analysis, hyper-partisan Facebook pages are constantly sharing fake, absurd news with millions of followers who, in turn, share it to their own pages. When considering politics, 19% of the posts from hyper partisan left-wing pages were a mixture of true and false or mostly false, and as much as 38% of hyper partisan right-wing pages had the same mixture. Essentially, we are seeing what could be true or false news, paired with an image that may not have any correlation with that story. This leaves readers beyond confused about what to believe.

These numbers are huge, and with a platform as widely-used as Facebook, the false news travels fast until it is something we become used to seeing. After realizing this, I started to make connections about why I struggled to identify false news -- it is so riddled throughout every scroll I make, especially regarding the Trump administration (though I am well aware of false accusations of fake news, too) and other political figures. What was once fake news is now just becoming a normal cutline.

So, what do we do?

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bxh6oZgg2ql/

Obviously, politics isn't the only realm of incredibly prominent fake news reports- especially when they are twisting the meanings of photos. There is much to be changed in every category of reporting. Just recently, Selena Gomez was reportedly getting married to Bill Murray, when he was only whispering in her ear, and she was only joking about it on her Instagram post. Even good, innocent fun can be twisted into a fake news report. While the biggest changes need to come from politics, I believe the news published about celebrities, amongst other subjects, is just as ridiculous and change needs to come fast.

The first solution comes from my own suggestions, and it is that as reporters, we start following the main rule in almost every code of ethics: be honest. Stop twisting images, like the photo of Selena Gomez and her coworker. While this was only one example of a photo taken the completely wrong way, we see photos twisted and turned into entirely new stories all the time. Especially with politics, a picture of the president speaking could mean anything when someone is imagining what was said without being there. It is also seen in almost every magazine image of a person, with sculpted abs or a perfect complexion. That is lying, too.

Stop writing blatantly false information to push an agenda that only hurts the public. To me, I take great pride in the social service that reporting serves as. Reporters are the only reason people are informed, and the people who are posting fake content are destroying trust and setting absurd expectations, while also damaging reputations.

Another solution, while less conventional, comes from this article from the IEEE Computer Society, where there is even a complicated mathematical equation to solving fake news that helps to determine if it is even financially worth it to be posting it in the first place. This rationale may at least help limit the posts that are used to generate money, especially if they realize they won't make the profit they assumed they would from posting a fake story.

In short, don't take advantage of society by posting false information on photos that leaves people, like myself, sitting in a chair, in front of a screen, wondering what the difference is between the truth and a pile of lies. We can do better, and it all starts with sharing truthful information.

WARNING: Graphic Media Ahead

Hayley Love

hl303314@ohio.edu

How many times have you seen an article about another mass shooting, or another mass murder? The answer: probably too many. In the past 10 years we have seen more gun violence than ever in the United States. We are witnesses to mass shootings and mass bombings. When these horrific incidents happen, we probably don't see the images, but we imagine how terrible they would be. We hear important public figures speak about how terrible the incident was, and how we need to change now! We see a spike in donations to local businesses and to the Red Cross. Debates on gun control and social movements will occur, especially in the case of the Parkland High School shooting. Then, after a few weeks or months, the debates will end, the donations will come to a halt, and there will be no real change.

In the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, the students who witnessed this massacre took to social media to share graphic images from the scene. The news however, did not.

17 Killed in mass shooting at high school in Parkland, Fl. :https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101 

But, what if more graphic images could inspire action? If people were shown the blood and how horrific these scenes really were, would they make a change? Would sharing these images be ethical?

Some argue that if law makers and the American people were to see these images, they would make the change. In many cases of mass shootings, I think it's important to show the truth. "Holder said in a 2016 interview. 'If members of Congress perhaps had a chance to see those pictures and see what happened to those little angels I think we would’ve seen a different result.'" (Bouie, 2018) This quote was in response to the Sandy Hook shooting that occurred in 2012.

I think that in these extreme cases, it's important for the media to show graphic images that are unedited, as this would create an important change in policies. We are the ones who are allowing the gun laws to be unrestricted, allowing these mass murders to continue. When will enough be enough? These images may be graphic and heart-wrenching, but they need to be seen. In an article from Time, a quote from Kenneth Jarecke "If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it.” If we are big enough to allow these mass shootings and the mass murders to continue, we should be big enough to look at the gruesome images and make the change that is needed from the images we are shown.

"If It Bleeds, It Leads"

 Billy McDermott

wm017314@ohio.edu

 

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-falling-man/

Depicting truth in visual images is a commonly debated topic in the world of journalism. Viewers see things in their own ways, and are sometimes blind to the issue at hand because of the content contained in an image. It really depends on the context that one takes into consideration. Videos and images differ, but they both can lead people down a twisted thought process if taken in the wrong context or edited with malicious intent. They can be used to enlighten and allow news consumers to comprehend a situation, while also causing pain, grief and even horror. In this blog I'm going to discuss a widely-disputed ethical argument: displaying graphic images in the media. 

I believe that graphic images should not be displayed in the media. There's a difference between citizens having the right to have access to public information (Freedom of Information Act), and displaying content to the public that most would prefer not to see. The former can be digested within the confines of one's own discretion and desire, and the latter is disseminated for all to view. Here are some reasons as to why I hold this opinion: 

1.) The media has always had a saying: "If it bleeds, it leads." When displaying graphic images and videos, it has absolutely no intention other than to increase ratings and attain shock value. One can argue that there is an incentive for these things to be spread around, and that incentive would be for the media to connect emotionally to viewers. This could possibly persuade people to change views on certain issues, such as gun control, abortion or illegal immigration. I won't argue that this isn't true. Sometimes visually seeing something can put a story into a perspective that words couldn't achieve; however, there is a moral and humane limit as to how graphic these images can be. Can one truly believe that big media corporations actually care about anything other than their own benefit and political agendas? And why should the media "persuade" you what to think? (op-eds are an exception) I mean after all, the only purpose it serves is to research, and objectively report findings to inform an audience. 

2.) It can harm the victims that are affected by these situations. What is the real reason the media would release graphic content? Most likely to increase ratings and profit, and definitely not because it has any moral obligation to benefit its viewers (on the other hand, I find local news stations somewhat dedicated to serving their communities). Relatives and friends are already going through incredible hardships, so why do they have to be reminded of it in the worst way? I would be livid if a news platform decided to run images of something devastating that happened to someone close to me.  

3.) Even if printing graphic content might shock and inspire passion, studies show that it's only temporary. People will eventually go back to their normal lives. Most of them don't have time on their hands to protest or talk to lobbyists to proactively push an issue. If they aren't directly affected, they have plenty of other daily obligations to make them forget. In the end, it's only harming the people involved. I think most people understand that the world is a hard place, so why publish violent content to remind them? 

4.) Graphic content could be used inappropriately by voyeurs or people that enjoy browsing through violent things on social media or the Internet. It can also motivate people to commit similar crimes, though this isn't proven. 

5.) Children can be exposed to it, and we all know that could be scary and confusing for them. 

The media has one job to do: Report unbiased and truthful information to the citizens of our country, while practicing ethical journalism values. Unfortunately, it rarely does so. 

The Power of Deepfakes

By: Anthony Suszczynski

as309714@ohio.edu

It is imperative that journalists tell the truth when writing and reporting news stories. Their reputations depend on it, but more importantly the public’s perception of news events are formed by what they read and hear in the news. As I read and watched the materials from this week, I understood how important the truth is. 

Journalists such as Jason Blair have been caught being dishonest reporting. Sometimes news events are very serious and tragic and any altering of the story is disrespectful to those who were a part of that news event and had to live through it. Ethics must be a part of a journalist’s everyday life. 

Jason Blair is just one example of false or unethical reporting. The others are listed in the articles and slides. Some include Jack Kelly, Mitch Albom, and Stephen Glass. Today, however, there is an entirely new meaning to fake news. Social media has made it incredibly easy to spread fake news. One example of fake news is politically motivated articles that are spread around to alter people’s political opinions. One such article is the story that Pope Francis endorsed President Trump. That simply did not happen, but it was shared on Facebook many times.

As we are on the topic of fake news, I believe it is important to examine a word that I just heard for the first time within the past few weeks. This word is deepfakes. In my own words, deepfakes refers to the altering of images and sound. Specifically, we see this with people. Technology now allows computers to put an individual on screen and produce video and/or audio of them saying or doing something they have not actually done. I’ll give you an example. 

Just the other week, I was scrolling through Twitter when I saw a tweet from Joe Rogan discussing deepfakes. Joe Rogan hosts one of the most popular podcasts in the world. This makes it particularly easy for deepfake technology to manipulate his speech. Due to the fact that he has thousands of hours of him talking on his podcast, computers were able to generate audio that sounded nearly identical to him speaking. The more audio there is of someone, the easier it is for this technology to work. When I heard the recording, I was shocked. It sounds just like him! Here is the audio that is NOT Joe Rogan talking. A warning to the readers: The audio has some colorful and crude language, but shows just how advanced this technology is. 

So what does this all mean? One question I had specifically was, what is the government doing about this? According to an informative piece on the many aspects of deepfakes by CNN Business titled, “When seeing is no longer believingInside the Pentagon’s race against deepfake videos,”“the Pentagon, through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is working with several of the country’s biggest research institutions to get ahead of deepfakes.” The article further explains that the Pentagon is actually trying to learn how to make deepfakes in order to better understand them. This will then allow them to develop computer technology to spot and detect deepfakes.

Lastly, it is worth examining the threats that deepfakes impose. An article by The Wall Street Journal titled, “Deepfake Videos Are Getting Real and That’s a Problem” explains that there are a number of potential problems. In the article, Professor Hany Farid of Dartmouth College worries that this could be a threat to democracy. I agree with him. Many of the methods U.S. Courts use to determine the innocence of someone is through use of recordings. If that cannot be trusted, it will make the judicial system more complicated. Another way I believe democracy can be threatened is during elections. If videos float around on social media of candidates saying and doing things they have not done, it can alter elections. Overall, deepfakes are interesting and technology continues to advance rapidly. I think we are all still learning at this point and I hope that in the coming years, we make technology work for us and not against us.
















link to photo source

The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth

Barbara Harring - bh572115@ohio.edu

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” We recognize these words as sworn testimony made before entering the witness stand in a court of law. These are just words, yet they hold so much value and seriousness when used in this way. Why? The truth is sacred and good, yet it can be harmful. The truth can save someone’s life the same way that it can destroy it.

Media professionals must consider the impact of displaying graphic or extreme content that could alter a person’s state of mind. When you unexpectedly see a disturbing image, you can’t un-see it. If it affects you enough, every time you close your eyes you might see that image. It can be especially disturbing for those who are closely associated with the content, like those who live nearby, those who know the victims, or those who have a strong emotional affiliation to the tragedy.

There are graphic images that need to be seen for the truth to be told. So, let's use good judgment when presenting the truth. Does a violent scene need to appear on the front page or cover? We can still publish an unaltered image on page 2 or 3 with an appropriate warning for graphic content. Rather than shading or eliminating details from the truth with a photo or video that is altered, the media can choose to satisfy the requirements of ethical conduct while serving the public and protecting the vulnerable.

An example that stands out to me is the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013. The New York Daily News decided that the photo they selected to publish may be too graphic for victims and their families, so they acted out of sensitivity to these viewers. They altered the image by removing the open gash on one victim’s leg and placed the still-gory image on their front page, where victim’s families see their loved ones surrounded by blood and destruction. The altered image is below. The actual image of the victim's leg in the upper left corner can be viewed on the New York Intelligencer web page.

Photo from nymag.com - New York Intelligencer April17, 2013

The Atlantic included a photo on their website of another Boston Marathon bombing victim with both feet blown off. This is an image that should not be published without a warning and a hard stop before the image appears, which is what they did. There is a warning that includes an icon the viewer needs to click before seeing the actual image. Image number 8 is very graphic. Please consider the warning before viewing it. 

There was a choice to make. The Daily News image was less gruesome than The Atlantic photo, but they altered it. They made the wrong choice. The Atlantic, I believe, made the right choice. It is more honest to provide a clear warning and the actual image as The Atlantic did rather than crop, alter, the image like most did. If you decide to publish a graphic, blood-filled scene, do so with appropriate protection in place without alternation. Otherwise, do not publish at all.

I believe that there are ways to serve the public by promoting the truth, yet protecting the vulnerable. Until news professionals focus less on shocking the public with front page gore, less on being first for financial gain, and more on being advocates for the public, the current trend of fabricating information is not likely to change.

Too Awful Not to See. Right?

Chris Jewett
cj083711

Well, it happened again.  We wake up this morning to the story of another mass shooting.  This time it's Virginia Beach and we will certainly be hearing stunned friends and neighbors saying "this kind of thing just doesn't happen here".  Local and national news will descend on the area for a few days trying to put a new perspective on a too common story.  Politicians from both parties will add their increasingly meaningless platitudes.  We will hear the debate of gun control vs mental health issues as though they are mutually exclusive.  Then everyone will go back to their respective corners and wait for the next time.

We'll see photos of the shooter and of the scene, video of the overwhelming police response and hear stories of the fallen and the heroes that tried to help in any way they could. 

May 31, 2019 Law enforcement personnel survey the scene. (L. Todd Spencer/Virginian-Pilot/AP)

What we won't see are what are certainly terrible images of the human toll this event has taken.  Would this help prevent further tragedies?  If people were forced to look at the carnage and destruction maybe that would start us on a path toward meaningful change.  It would be shocking and really difficult for the average person to comprehend but it would force us to address the issue.  How could anyone see what a mass killing really looks like and not be moved to action?

There is a historical precedent to support this idea.  As World War II was coming to an end, and concentration camps throughout Europe were being liberated, Allied forces would force residents in the surrounding communities to tour the liberated camps.  They were even occasionally made to bury the dead.  The idea was to prevent the population from being able to deny that these atrocities had taken place and at the same time ensure that man would never again go down such a tragic path.

Obviously, extreme care would have to be taken to not sensationalize the event.  There could be no hint of doctored or staged scenes.  The privacy of the victims and their families should be protected to the greatest extent possible.  Some type of protocol that takes into account the various applicable codes of ethical standards can be put into practice.  Maybe the release of the images could only with the consent of victims family. 

Journalism with its broad reach and multiple platforms may very well be an agent of change in addition to the traditional mission of keeping the public informed.

Problem solved.  Right? 

At the beginning of this piece, I thought I knew what conclusion I was going to reach.

Maybe not.  What if none of those higher ideals were reached?  What if, these images only serve to motivate the next shooter to finally act on the thoughts he's already having?  Does this violate the NPPA Code of Ethics principle to treat subjects with respect and dignity?  Is the potential for harm to the subject or the family just too great to justify?  It is possible that the potential for positive change is not reached and only sensationalized, manipulated images and videos find their way to social media?  As referenced from a previous statement by Nicole Smith Dahmen (and colleague) in Disaster News Network, "Social media begs us to become voyeurs as opposed to informed news consumers".

After all, the example from World War II didn't exactly prevent future wars.