PhotoStop

______________

In this modern age, digital photography threatens the legitimacy of photojournalism.

by Dana Livingston Ward

"Down! A British soldier manning the Azubayr Bridge orders fleeing Basra residents to hit the dirt as Iraqi forces opened fire.—Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2003

This is the caption for a photograph by Los Angeles Times photojournalist Brian Walski. In the published photograph, printed on the covers of both the Los Angeles Times and Hartford Courant, an armed American soldier gestures strongly at nearly two dozen Basra civilians crouching below him. The picture suggests that the British soldier, tightly gripping a rifle, is the cause of the people cowering down. They "listen" to him and even give the impression that they are submitting to his authority. The photograph's power structure, and its misuse, is further accentuated with the apparent disparate physical appearance, as the peacekeeper is secured in a color-focused monotone uniform, and the civilians are divergently draped in multi-colored "native" cloths. In this rainbow of fabrics, one man stands frozen in front of the others, cradling a blanket wrapped baby in his arms. The soldier and man appear to be defiantly staring at each other, a showdown that indicates the conflict between the two individuals and the political and social concepts they represent. The positioning and specific stance of the civilian leader in relation to the soldier implies a power struggle, as well as negative feelings—perhaps to the extent of outright animosity—between the peacekeeper and crowd.

While the caption may elicit the impression of courage and chivalry through the selfless assistance of a British soldier, the accompanying photograph tells a very different story. More importantly, the photograph is a fictitious creation (i.e., a "composite") created from two spliced snapshots, which together invent an artificial scene. Hence, Walski's subjective political statement completely contradicts the actual events of that day, forging a highly symbolic "relationship" that had never existed. This material misrepresentation of the exchange between the soldier and the Iraqi residents intentionally misleads the reader. Further, Walski subjectively created a false negative cause-effect relationship in the photograph, when the unfettered truth was that a far more positive and helpful event had actually occurred between the peacekeeper and civilians. And it is precisely this type of intentional manipulation—journalistic dishonesty, or at the very least this "re-creation" of the truth—that directly violates journalistic ethics. Indeed, this type of photographic dishonesty is no different in purpose and effect from the formulated quotes and wholly fabricated stories of Jayson Blair who was recently fired from the New York Times, and of Janet Cooke of the Washington Post whose Pulitzer Prize was returned because she had made-up the "composite character" of a drug-addicted child.

Walski's case, in particular, calls into question the location of where "the line" in the photographic spectrum must be drawn in order to separate acceptable digital editing, or even enhancement, from intolerable manipulation or re-creation. The grey, shady area has grown significantly in recent years—and not entirely due to a specific Adobe Photoshop tool—but also from the surge forward in digital editing technologies. Simply stated, digital is quicker, faster, better.

Of course, photojournalists alter images everyday without creating ethical dilemmas. Theoretically, every time a photographer changes angles, switches lenses, or even zooms in or out, a manipulation occurs to some degree. But these necessary actions are inevitably left to the photojournalist's professional judgment (Elliot). The important distinction is that these small movements and petty tweaks are not capable of materially altering a story in a way that the readers would not understand the true facts. For example, why would a photojournalist not decide to crop (e.g., "re-frame") an expansive blue sky that takes the photographic emphasis from the intended subject of the photograph constituting a sobbing, teary-eyed girl? Or why wouldn't a photojournalist intensify the crimson coloring of a blood-soaked war victim to show more accurately the true visual appearance and deep shadings of blood? And why would a photojournalist not augment the size of an image with a soldier as the subject in order to emphasize the grenade in his hand waiting to be thrown? Thus, photojournalists chop, crop, and color their photographs in a subjective effort to best present true stories to the public. These non-"manipulations" are ethically acceptable and even essential to the news profession, as long as they do not metamorphose the story into falsehood.

According to Susan Sontag's "Looking at War" essay, Gardner's photograph "in fact shows a dead Confederate soldier who was moved from where he had fallen on the field to a more photogenic site, a cove formed by several boulders flanking a barricade of rocks." Regardless of where the body was placed on the battlefield, the photograph still clearly expressed that the private indeed had been killed during battle. The photojournalist had simply wanted to take a photograph with a better composition. As long as the information presented in a photograph is essentially true and tells an accurate story, it is arguably legitimate to be published according to widely accepted standards of journalistic ethics. However, other journalists would argue that this example would likely represent the outside range of compositional permissibility, especially today, with higher professional standards.

Representational embellishment further shades the photographic spectrum, and it is best exemplified by Felice Beato's photograph of Sikandarbagh Palace ruins, which depicts a small group of people observing the courtyard after the Sepoy Rebellion. Photographer Beato creates his own war event by actually adding human bones to a site months after the late 1857 battle. This photojournalist's actions are reasonable because viewers went away from the enhanced image with the same knowledge and learning that they would have if the photograph had not included the old human bones in it. Indeed, the added bones (which were real human bones) actually aided in telling the story by more thoroughly stressing the violence that had existed during November 1857 at the site. But because camera technology has advanced dramatically since then and now allows photojournalists to view images instantaneously, no one is arguing that Beato's actions would be described as acceptable by today's standards.

Some may think that this embellishment by Beato constituted in practical terms a reenactment (requiring attribution, either expressly or by context), comparable to a reenactment of the Spanish-American War in a New Jersey backyard (Elliot). Although the idea of recreating a scene, most specifically a war scene, may seem totally unacceptable, and in fact much worse than splicing together two photographs, the reenactment still relays the overall truth of the events; it reemphasizes that a battle had occurred and people had died. Reenactments must not introduce new information or facts; they can only restate the real.

Because the British forces supported the United States' "War on Terrorism," the way the people of the region perceive the British directly reflects how they see Americans. Individuals around the world, as well as entire countries, are divided about this war and many are looking to the media for indicators that the war is helping the Iraqi people move towards freedom. If the media chooses to portray this sentiment, it should release a photograph showing friendly relations between the Iraqi people and American troops.

As Sontag sets forth in her essay, "[a] photograph is supposed not to evoke but to show. That is why photographs, unlike handmade images, can count as evidence." Photographs are supposed to relay events to viewers without suggesting specific opinions or assessments, and in fact, they are an essential tool for preserving history. Photographs are an element—not of air, earth, fire or water—but of the past. Because most of us have not experienced war first-hand, we must turn to the media to see the "reality" of war that would otherwise go unseen. Photographs have such a great impact that they even affect how war veterans remember and then pass on their own battle experiences.

Walski stated in an interview, "[t]he push in the industry is to go to that line where news becomes art" (Johnston). While this is a legitimate complaint, the fact remains that guidelines from the Los Angeles Times existed well before his manipulation of the Iraqi conflict photo. Because digital manipulation is so facile now, policies from several professional groups have been designed to give journalists regulation on the topic of photographic manipulation. The National Press Photographers Association's states: "We believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceived the public" (Greer). The National Union of Journalists says that manipulated photographs cannot be printed unless they are labeled. The Society of Professional Journalists also has a code of ethics to guide photojournalists in their digital editing.

When any photographer attempts to trick the public by altering the truth, the photojournalist violates the entire journalistic purpose to report true events to the public. They should act as society's liaison to reality by communicating entire stories through accurate images. As Walski himself has subsequently acknowledged, "[t]here are no gray areas here. The line is very clear here and I crossed it" (Johnston). His reaffirmation of photojournalistic integrity stands as a beacon to the profession, and most particularly to photojournalists of the future.

While studying broadcast journalism, Dana Livingston Ward also actively participates in the print world. This Chicago native is the High Maintenance section writer for 28th Street Magazine, in addition to being a contributing writer for the New Hollywood publication, Ingenue Magazine. Dana used to co- host Fox Sports Net’s “High School Pep Rally,” and aspires to become a news anchor in the near future.

Works Cited

Butler, Callie Elizabeth. "Keep war coverage honest, realistic." University Wire April 3, 2003. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. Reed Business Information UK USC, Los Angeles, California. 11/14/03.

Elliot, Deni and Paul. "Manipulation: the word we love to hate: what is the future Of photographic credibility." News Photographer v58 i9 September 2003. Expanded Academic ASAP. National Press Photographers Association, Inc. USC, Los Angeles, California. 11/09/03.

Farid, Hany. "A picture tells a thousand lies." New Scientist Sept. 6, 2003. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. Reed business Information UK USC, Los Angeles, California. 11/09/03.

Greer, Jennifer D. "How much is too much? Assessing levels of digital alteration as factors in public perception of news media credibility." News Photographer v78 i7 July 2002. Expanded Academic ASAP. National Press Photographers Association, Inc. USC, Los Angeles, California. 11/23/03 .

Irby, Kenny. "L.A. Times photographer fired over altered image." Poynter Online April 2, 2003. 11/14/03 .

Johnston, Cheryl. "Digital Deception (Photo Journalism Ethics)." American Journalism Review May 2003. Expanded Academic ASAP. University of Maryland. USC, Los Angeles, California. 11/14/03.

Klingsporn, Geoffrey. "Icon of real war: A Harvest of Death and American war Photography." Velvet Light Trap Spring 2000. Expanded Academic ASAP. University of Texas at Ausin. USC, Los Angeles, California. 11/23/03 .

Kobre, Ken. "The long tradition of doctoring photos." News Photographer v50 n4 April 1995. Expanded Academic ASAP. National Press Photographers Association, Inc. USC, Los Angeles, California. 11/09/03 .

Sontag, Susan. "Looking at War: Photography's view of devastation and death." New Yorker December 9, 2002.