Punctuation and Epistemic Honesty:
Do Photos Need What Words Have?


by

Scott Fosdick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Journalism
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO  65211-1200
573/882-3496
[log in to unmask]

and

Shahira Fahmy
Doctoral Candidate
School of Journalism
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO  65211-1200
[log in to unmask]


Submitted  for consideration by the Media Ethics Division of AEJMC for
presentation at the 2003 convention in Kansas City.

Punctuation and Epistemic Honesty:
Do Photos Need What Words Have?


Abstract

        This research begins a discussion of the ethics of sampling reality by
drawing together parallel research on quotations and
photography.  Interviews with editors at leading magazines reveal
internalized standards that draw nothing from formal codes of
ethics.  Editors do not support the adoption of "photation marks" to serve
as the visual equivalent of the quotation mark.   The authors argue that
news practitioners should consider replacing Truth with Honesty as their
guiding light when presenting samples of reality.
 Punctuation and Epistemic Honesty:
Do Photos Need What Words Have?


Introduction
No allegation is more serious to a mainstream journalist than that he has
lied, that he knew what the truth was and consciously altered or obscured
or misrepresented it.  The public forgives journalists who simply make
mistakes.  There is little forgiveness, however, for someone who has found
a fact and willfully twisted it.
Of all the reasons that people find to vilify journalists, none is more
damning than the revelation that one has fabricated a quotation or a
photographic image.  The reasons are simple and fairly obvious.  Although
the public might understand that quotes are not always accurate and that
computers are quite capable of merging and distorting images, the essential
nature of quotations and photographs are the same:  They imply a claim on
reality.  When a journalist quotes a source, he or she is promising that
the words are not merely a paraphrase, but are the very words used.  And
unless there are clear indications otherwise, the default assumption is
that a photograph also promises a slice of reality.  To promise is not
necessarily to be believed (ask any Lothario, any politician), but that
does not alter the status of quotations and photographs as promises.  In an
age when lying is so easy, the promises we keep are that much more valuable.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the use of quotations and the
treatment of digital images figure prominently in discussions of journalism
ethics, and in the codes that are the result of these discussions.  What is
surprising, however, is that they are invariably treated as utterly
distinct issues.  The word people debate the ethical use of words and the
picture people debate proper and improper photo editing techniques.  That
is how the issues have evolved in the
Punctuation and Epistemic Honesty, page 7
  academic setting.  But how does this play out on the front lines of
journalism?  This study uses qualitative interviews of leading magazine
editors to look for intersecting spheres of concern between the photo
editor and the copy editor.  In place of parallel discussions of the ethics
of presenting quotations and photos as accurate samples of reality, might
we make greater progress by considering the two together?  Can one field
learn from the other?  For example, do photographers suffer because they do
not have at their disposal the visual equivalent of the quotation mark?  If
we compare and combine the ethical convictions of these editors, might we
arrive at larger ethical principles, principles that could prove useful for
other platforms -- such as radio and television -- as well as for
communication technologies not yet invented?  Is there, perhaps, an
epistemological imperative that might guide all journalists in the ethical
sampling of reality?  By beginning this discussion among leading magazine
editors, the authors hope to spark a larger consideration of the issues
among visual and textual journalists and scholars.
Theory
In the world-wide context of the new information age, ethical dilemmas
arise regarding information transfer (Buchanan, 2002). Since Plato and
Aristotle, ethics has been a subject of attention from media scholars.
Media scholars agree that if the mass media are to function properly in a
society, then both freedom and social responsibility are important (Gordon
et al., 1999).
The social responsibility theory emerged to suggest an obligation "to
provide a truthful, balanced and comprehensive account of news" (Hutleng,
1985, p. 11). Merrill (1999) writes: "Ethical concern is important, for it
forces the media person to make commitments and thoughtful decisions among
alternatives" (Merrill, 1999, p. 3). He explains that media ethics focuses
on duty to self and duty to others regarding actions taken by media
practitioners. Media practitioners echo an ethical media perspective. They
believe in ethical performance and standards of responsible journalism
(Hutleng, 1985).
In seeking behavioral guidelines, Hutleng (1985) cites two historical norms
as relevant to media ethics. One is Aristotle's golden mean, which suggests
ethical behavior should be middle range, between scales that run from
excess at one extreme to deficiency at the other.  The second -- an
outgrowth, perhaps, of Kant's categorical imperative -- is seeking a
decision that would result in the maximum benefit for society. However,
despite serious efforts to follow ethical guidelines, there tend to be a
wide variation in practice as few ethical decisions are "clear cut" and
"uncomplicated" (Hutleng, 1985, p. 2).
The literature of media accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the extent to which the media portray an issue as it
really is. Communication scholars explain it as "a truthful reproduction of
an event or activity of public interest" (Blankenburg, 1970, p. 376), "the
extent to which a message produces agreement between source and receiver,"
(Tichenor et al., 1970, p. 673), and, in negative terms, "the deviation of
a reported observation of an event from the reality or the truth of the
event" (Lawrence & Grey, 1969, p. 753).
Many perceive accuracy to be the foundation of media credibility (Maier,
1999). Meyer's (1988) credibility index includes "accuracy" as one of five
items on the believability scale. Media accuracy is a key component of the
larger concept of credibility. If media coverage is perceived as
inaccurate, it would be hard for the receivers to trust the media to convey
reliable information.
The value of accuracy often takes a back seat to the richer and more
complex value of truth, to which it is closely related.  It is clear,
however, that both concepts rank highly in any list of journalistic
values.  In the late 1990s, twenty-five prominent journalists formed the
Committee of Concerned Journalists and conducted a series of symposia, more
than 100 qualitative interviews with journalists and editors, and a variety
of surveys of media consumers and producers.  Based on that activity, the
committee's chair, Bill Kovach, collaborated with the director of the
Project for Excellence in Journalism, Tom Rosenstiel, on a book, "The
Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should
Expect."  Kovach and Rosenstiel identified the core values of
journalism.  The first and most important of these is truth.
This desire that information be truthful is elemental.  Since news is the
material that people use to learn and think about the world beyond
themselves, the most important quality is that it be usable and reliable
(Kovach and Rosenstiel 2001, p. 37-38).

        Whatever truth is -- and it is a slippery concept, the "most confusing
principle," according to Kovach and Rosenstiel -- it depends on accuracy at
a basic level.  Yes, truth can be elusive, Kovach and Rosenstiel confirm,
when journalists twist it by reporting only select, misleading details,
even when those details are conveyed with complete accuracy.
This, however, does not mean that accuracy doesn't matter.  On the
contrary, it is the foundation upon which everything else builds:  context,
interpretation, debate, and all of public communication (Kovach and
Rosenstiel 2001, p. 43).

        Indeed, "getting the facts right" was listed as important by 100 percent
of the journalists in a study conducted by the Committee of Concerned
Journalists and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (CCJ
and Pew March 1999). The study suggests news staff are aware of a concerted
effort by their companies to address ethics. The majority of media
professionals express satisfaction with efforts to address ethical issues
by their news organizations.
        When accuracy is seen to be such a revered value, the quotation takes on
added significance as the one place in which journalists seem to be
promising that they are especially accurate.  Quotation marks promise not
just a paraphrase, but the actual words of the source.  So it is odd to
note that very little research appears to have been conducted on the
accuracy of quotations.  Every reporting textbook underlines the importance
of keeping one's quotes accurate.  Why, then, are there not surveys of
accuracy, regular checks on how journalists are doing when it comes to
quotations?[1]
        Perhaps the answer is that the issue seems beyond reasonable
debate:  Everyone knows that quotes should be accurate.  Everyone knows
that good journalists and good journals are careful about this, and that
bad journalists and supermarket tabloids are not.  Where there is no
controversy, no underlying theoretical construct to probe, there is little
academic interest.  And yet, there is evidence that the proper use of
quotes is not a completely settled issue.  Journalists often struggle with
the question of whether and how thoroughly to clean up the quotes of those
who do not speak in perfect paragraphs (that is, most of us), who cough or
clear their throats, who correct themselves or rephrase in
mid-sentence.  There is also debate over the ethics of intentionally using
fractured speech in quotations when one is trying to convey a sense of
personality in a feature story.[2]
        The reconstructed story, a form that has found increased use in magazines
recently, often involves reconstructed quotes, which raise an ethical
question:  How should the writer set up a quote that he or she did not
hear?  A heated discussion of this issue raged briefly at the 2000
convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC) in Phoenix.  During a panel on teaching long-form
magazine writing, David Hayes, a successful magazine writer and teacher at
Ryerson University in Toronto, was talking about writing reconstructed
scenes in the manner of fiction.  If, for example, everyone at a meeting
including the speaker agreed that the speaker had uttered a certain phrase
or sentence, Hayes said he felt confident in simply writing, So-and-so
said, followed by the quote in quotation marks.  Other professors, on and
off the panel, objected strongly. People in the room agree that so-and-so
said should precede the quote itself, many felt, even if that clutters the
narrative and lessens the impact.  Hayes maintained that a room full of
people agreeing on a quote is bound to be more reliable than if the
reporter had in fact been in the room taking notes.  The conversation
eventually moved on to other topics without being resolved.[3]
        James B. Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and former editor of
the Wall Street Journal, lends depth to this controversy in his popular
text, Follow the Story: How to Write Successful Nonfiction:
The convention that a writer is always present to witness what is reported
has given rise to many of the controversies surrounding literary
nonfiction.  Does describing a place imply that the writer was there at the
moment described?  Does dialogue imply that the writer overheard the
remarks at the time they were made?  Some advocates of traditional
nonfiction writing would argue in both cases that it does; in that case,
the result is false, and it crosses an inviolable line between fiction and
nonfiction. (Stewart 1998, p. 301)

        Stewart himself does not hew to the traditional boundary, but clearly many
do.  The issue remains unsettled, and ripe for research.
        Photographs, like quotations, also promise an accurate depiction of
reality, and, again like quotes, are open to manipulation and
fabrication.  Here, however, much more research has been done, perhaps
because photography is a relatively young form of communication, and the
perfection of techniques of electronic editing did not come about until the
1990s.  Opinion is more or less settled on the matter of making up
quotes.  While clever photographers have manipulated images in the darkroom
almost from the dawn of the medium, the advent of Photoshop and similar
programs have made it possible for the decidedly un-clever to create
fabulous falsehoods with digital or digitally scanned photographs.  That
led to a flurry of research in the 1990's that has tapered off somewhat in
recent years.
Digital imaging is not in itself evil.  On the contrary, it has decided
advantages, despite the opportunities it offers for questionable
manipulation.  Fahmy and Smith (2002) studied ways in which digital imaging
affects the news environment in relationship to the production of images,
storage, flexibility, interpersonal relationships, autonomy and control
over photographs. They found that digital imaging allows for extended
deadlines; photojournalists can delete and transmit photographs from
location; the technology offers -- to many -- a chance to take part in the
picture editing process; photojournalists making picture-editing decisions
are becoming more aware of their images and more perceptive in their
conversations with picture editors; the new technology may enhance and
increase information sharing in the newsroom, and although photographers
may leave assignments earlier and many may shoot less, at least they will
have a better idea if they have a usable image. In sum, Fahmy and Smith
found that the benefits of digital imaging exceed the drawbacks.
Nevertheless, some have noted evidence that the use of digital alteration
in some publications threatens the power of photography in all
publications.  Tirol (2000) found that while there were great differences
in the attitudes toward and use of digital techniques between editors at
tabloid versus broadsheet newspapers, there is reason to believe readers
don't make a distinction between the two:
The alteration of the means of production of a product traditionally used
to represent verifiable experience may serve the purpose of shifting the
audience's view of that product. (Tirol 2000, p. 350)

That shift is one away from trust and toward skepticism.  In a recent study
regarding the uses of digitally altered photographs, Huang (2001) examined
how much readers trust digital images in documentary contexts. Results
suggest respondents expect the media to let them know if a digitally
altered image is used.  Huang also found that, "So far, few magazines or
newspapers have used a sign or symbol to indicate that an altered image was
used in a documentary context" (179). Based on the finding that awareness
plays a big part in acceptance of digital-imaging alterations, the author
suggests the media should reconsider their current policy of using digital
alterations without making it known to the readers. Along a similar line of
research, Greer and Gosen (2002) examined the level of alteration that
affects public attitudes toward a digitally manipulated news photograph in
particular and the news media in general. Results suggest increasing levels
of digital alteration leads to lower credibility levels for photographs.

Method
This qualitative study uses interviews with the following:  Bronwen
Latimer, Director of Photography, U.S. News & World Report.  Robert Grover,
chief of the news desk, U.S. News & World Report.  Kathy Ryan, Photo
Editor, Sunday New York Times Magazine.  Katherine Bouton, Deputy Editor,
Sunday New York Times Magazine.  John Kenney, Managing Editor,
Esquire.  Kenney said he decides ethical issues involving both quotations
and photographs at Esquire.  Kenney's and Bouton's interviews were
conducted by e-mail. Latimer's was conducted in person.  Ryan and Grover
were interviewed by telephone.  The interviews were conducted in 2002.
Since we are interested both in how ethical decisions are made in the field
and in the question of ethical leadership, it seemed appropriate to select
subjects who are responsible for day-to-day ethical decisions involving
quotations and images at some of the nation's leading magazines.  In short,
we wanted people at the top of their field, editors whose opinions command
considerable respect.  We were interested less in those who wrote the code
of ethics for a publication than those who might be expected to enforce or
put into use the code of ethics.  We concentrated on magazines because it
is in magazines that one finds the most creative use of photography and of
narrative writing, particularly reconstructions.  By selecting pairs of
editors at top publications, we increased the chances that we could find a
degree of interaction between parallel discussions of ethical issues
involving quotations and images. We selected magazines that ranged from a
primary orientation of news to literary journalism and lifestyle, thereby
increasing the chances we would find a variety of views toward quotation
and image.  U.S. News and World Report was selected because of its
reputation as the most straightforward of the major news magazines, the one
least tainted by controversies over such things as manipulation of cover
photographs.  The Sunday New York Times Magazine is both a highly artistic
product and, through its connection to the New York Times, a magazine that
might be influenced by one of the most detailed and specific codes of
ethics.  Esquire was chosen primarily because it is the venue of some of
the most adventuresome experiments in narrative journalism, but also
because of the attention is pays to the display of photographs and photo
illustrations of various types.   Together, these three are respected for
what they do, even while what they do varies considerably.
Interviewees were first contacted via telephone or e-mail. Respondents
could answer via e-mail or be telephoned on a specific date and time.
Interviews follow a semi-structured approach.  Photo editors and word
editors were asked similar questions, with some differences related to
their job responsibility; the Esquire editor, who served both functions,
was given questions from a combined list (see Appendix).   Follow-up
questions were asked when appropriate.
One of the debates surrounding the treatment of sources in journalism is
whether they should be allowed to remain anonymous.  Some argue that
anonymity increases the likelihood of honesty:  I am not apt to tell you
what I really think about my tedious minister unless I am confident she
won't find out I am the one who said it.  Most, however, hold that
anonymous sources are a bad idea:  Not only does it allow falsehoods
without consequences, it prevents the reader from considering the
perspective of the source.  In this study, we chose not to promise
anonymity, and told our interview subjects upfront that we intended to
quote them.  (We would have made that clear whether the Institutional
Review Board required it or not.)  All of our sources are editors at
leading magazines, but each magazine has its own history, and offers a
different perspective on the world.  In a qualitative interview, it seems
valuable to consider the source.
Findings
        Individually, the interviews yielded a number of interesting statements,
opinions, and attitudes toward quotation and photography.  Together, they
yielded five main findings:
1.      Ethics Codes:  Editors were either unaware their publication had one,
were sure they did not, or said the publication had one but that they had
not consulted it in years.  In any case, it is clear that despite the
attention paid to them by the people who write them and by the academy,
ethics codes are not treated as powerful documents by the journalists
actually making decisions about quotations and photography at these
magazines.  That does not mean editors do not have standards or do not
understand the choices they must make.  Rather, it seems clear that they
take full responsibility for understanding and putting into practice a
consistent ethical posture.  In any case, each is able to articulate a
clear point of view on the subject.
"I am quite aware of what we will and will not do."  -- Bronwen Latimer,
U.S. News & World Report.
"…I have worked here a long time, so…I have a pretty good idea of our code
of ethics."
– Kathy Ryan, Sunday New York Times Magazine.
"The Times DOES [Bouton's caps] have a written code of ethics, which I had
simply forgotten existed …The policy on quotations is just as I explained
it.  This statement is given to all new staffers (which is why I'd
forgotten about it … [Bouton's ellipses] I was hired in 1988, a long time
ago).  By coincidence, it was redistributed to all staffers this week."  --
Katherine Bouton, in a note e-mailed to the authors two weeks after she had
written, in her initial e-mail response to our questionnaire, that she did
not know of a written code of ethics at The New York Times Magazine.
3.      Reconstructed Quotes: There was disagreement on the proper way to set up
a quote in a reconstruction;  not surprisingly, U.S. News & World
Report  favored the longer, more explicit method.  Esquire does not require
this, although it is careful to make clear earlier in the story what the
sources are.
"…we'll be sure, through various means, not to inadvertently mislead
readers into thinking a writer was a firsthand witness to events or
statements when such was not the case."  -- John Kenney, Esquire.
4.      Reader perceptions:  Editors feel their readers are quite aware of the
possibilities of digital alteration, if not the techniques
themselves.  Editors disagree, however, about whether readers can
accurately judge by context whether or not a photo has been enhanced.
"…the accusations, they are a little bit over the top, because you don't
manipulate photographs, and the expectation is that we do.  And that's a
little bit unnerving."  -- Bronwen Latimer, U.S. News & World Report.
"I think that the audience is very sophisticated visually today, but
everybody has a different knowledge of photography." – Kathy Ryan, Sunday
New York Times Magazine.
"Most readers, we feel sure, expect that news photos will be altered only
negligibly or not at all.  It's hard to say for certain, but we believe
that readers understand that some manipulation is done to other, more
stylized or abstract photographs in Esquire." – John Kenney, Esquire.
5.      Border-crossing interchange:  There is no discussion of these issues
between the photo side and the copy editing side.  They might discuss
captions, but the photo people decide whether and how to alter photographs,
and the word people keep control of the quotations.
6.      Icon of Authenticity:  Do photographers need a visual equivalent to the
quotation mark?  One editor had no opinion; all others were opposed to the
idea of "a visual equivalent of the quotation mark, say a small icon in the
upper right-hand corner."  If there had to be a visual icon, most preferred
one to indicate alteration as opposed to one to indicate no
alteration.  (That would work in the opposite way of a quotation mark; it
would be more of a visual paraphrase mark.)  In any case, the idea of a
visual icon intruding on the space of an un-enhanced photo was met with
near-universal opposition.
"…we would have to put this for every single picture, so why even put it
in."  -- Bronwen Latimer, U.S. News & World Report.
"I think it is better to have the assumption if there is nothing indicating
otherwise the photograph is exact, exact reproduction, then if you have
done any kind of change then you make that clear in the caption or the
photo credit."  --Robert Grover, U.S. News & World Report.
"What it would do, we look at the page and would it just seem so overboard
because you see it all the time….Day to day, the judgment call, it's not as
clear…OK, with the quotations, it is either a quote from somebody or it is
not, but if you're putting on an icon, does it go with posed portraits done
in a studio?  They are lit, they are posed, sometimes they are
styled.  Does it go strictly with documentary photography?" – Kathy Ryan,
Sunday New York Times Magazine.
"I don't really have an opinion about this." – Katherine Bouton, Sunday New
York Times Magazine.
"No." – John Kenney, Esquire.
Discussion
        The larger issues of this study hinge, to a degree, on the distinction
between accuracy and truth.  It is, of course, possible to achieve mere
accuracy without coming near the truth:  the quote taken out of context;
the close-up photo of the one person caught laughing at a funeral.  It is
also possible to achieve truth without accuracy:  the worlds of fiction and
art, not to mention art photography, succeed at this with some
regularity.   After considering the views of  the editors in this study, we
would suggest that Kovach and Rosenstiel (2001) were correct to put Truth
high on the list of journalistic values, but that perhaps there is a value
they do not mention in their book that deserves consideration for the top
spot:  Honesty.
        As a group, our magazine editors did not unanimously proclaim that photos
should never be digitally enhanced, that quotes should never be cleaned up
in any way, or that reconstructed quotes must be introduced in a proscribed
way.  They did not promise a slavish accuracy.  Instead, they expressed a
universal determination to seek truth, the fullest, fairest and most
expressive truth possible.
        And yet, truth is hardly a reasonable goal for journalists.  It cannot be
practically tested or measured.  What journalist can ever say with full
confidence that he or she has delivered the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?  Like the North Star, truth can be our guide, but we
will never reach it.
        Indeed, when we examined the details of what these editors told us, time
and time again they were most careful to make clear that it was not what
they did with quotes and photos that mattered most, but how they made clear
to the reader what he or she was looking at.  That isn't truth -- although
it points us toward truth.  And it isn't always accuracy.  It is honesty.
        Readers want amazing stories and startling photographs.  They want literal
accuracy and they want artistic expression, the lie that tells the
truth.  If, as has been said so often, reality is constructed, readers want
to author their own versions.  Quotations and stories and photographs and
photo-illustrations -- the grand flux of mediated matter that flows through
our lives -- are the building materials we all rely on.  If media
constructs reality, each of us reconstructs it.  Like any good carpenter,
we want to know our materials are sound.  We cannot expect journalists to
hand us truth in a neat package, and we do not always want mere
accuracy.  But we can and should demand honesty.
In the field, choices involving the use of quotations and photos often
involve two determinations:
1.      What do we do with the words and images we have taken from the world?
3.      How do we let the reader know what we have done with these words and
images?
The second question is all about honesty.  In this regard, the word people
have a tool the image people lack:  The quotation mark.  Lacking that mark,
words attributed to a source are presumed to be an approximation, a
re-phrasing of the source's words by the writer.  Within quotation marks,
words take on a special immediacy the moment we read them; one mark appears
just before the words, letting us imagine the source saying them, and one
mark appears afterward, returning us to the writer's voice.  No words in a
caption can function in the same way, unless we somehow manage to train
people to read captions first.  The more extraordinary the photo, the more
likely we are to assume it has been altered.  So the initial impact -- that
important moment when our eyes first see and our minds try to comprehend --
has been muted by the cynicism we have been trained to hold for
photographs.  Who but those inflicted with Alzheimer's can see something
twice for the first time?  As things stand now at our most respected
magazines, we expect the reader to look at a picture, then read the caption
and note that it lacks the disclaimer "photo illustration," and finally
look back at the picture and see it for what it really is.  Wouldn't it be
preferable to devise a way that readers could instantly and effortlessly
recognize when a photo meets a certain standard?
Clearly, the editors we queried do not like the idea of an icon imposed on
a photo, whether to indicate enhancement or an agreed-upon degree of
purity.  After completing the survey, we wondered if there might be a
simpler, more direct, and less intrusive way that people who work with
photographs could develop punctuation to convey the same kind of claim that
writers make when they use quotation marks.  We came up with what we will
call the photation mark.  This mark would appear outside the frame of the
photograph: A photo editor, copy editor or designer would put a thin rule
around one or more corners of the photo -- say the upper corners, or the
upper left and lower right corners -- to indicate a kind of visual
quotation had taken place.  We expect that much of what our editors found
objectionable with the idea of an icon was that it might interfere
significantly with the image.  The photation mark could be as thick and
visible or as thin and inconspicuous as the publication's designer
chooses.  We asked a designer to create a mock-up of a magazine page using
an understated version of the photation mark (a copy is in the
appendix).   Then we went back to the editors in our study and asked their
opinion.  They still did not like it, finding it either too subtle or too
intrusive.
One New York Times editor did not want any mark intruding on the page; the
other New York Times editor thought it was too inconspicuous to have any
impact at all, and also assumed that the mark indicated alteration, not
lack of alteration.  Bob Grover of U.S. News and World Report thought
confusion would be the only result:  "I think readers would be at best
bewildered by them."
The U.S. News and World Report photo editor, Bronwen Latimer, wrote in an
e-mail:
My initial reaction is that photation marks will be mistaken as a design
element rather than an editorial acknowledgement.  I missed them entirely
the first time I looked at the picture. I believe that the credit is the
viable place to alert the reader something has been altered.  That way the
type of alteration is spelled out for those who are curious, professional
or non-professional.
No doubt any new form of punctuation would look strange for quite some
time.  It would take some getting used to.  It might even take a public
education effort.  We aren't born knowing what quotation marks mean;
somewhere along a line, a parent or teacher taught us how to read
them.  The same would be true of photation marks, if they are to catch
on.  Eventually, though, we might reach the point where we could read
photos effortlessly.  It is unlikely that the first use of the quotation
mark was either universally understood or accepted.  The quotation mark as
we know it was not standardized until the 19th century.  Earlier versions
included the diple, which, in the Middle Ages, was primarily used to
indicate holy scripture.  When the printing press was introduced, the diple
was replaced by guillemets.  Since much of the earliest writing was
dictated to a scribe, all writing therefore was a transcription of speech,
so a mark indicating quotation might have been problematic.  In other
words, early on, all writing was assumed to be a direct
quotation.  Interestingly, early in the history of photography, all photos
were considered to be direct samples of light.  It was only when
non-quotations and non-photos came about that there arose the need to mark
the distinction.  (Parkes 1993.)
        It might not be easy to define what should get the photation mark and what
should not.  Debate is inevitable, just as there is an ongoing discussion
involving what one may put between quotation marks, and what those marks
promise to the reader.  But just because quotation marks are sometimes
problematic does not mean that they should be abandoned.  In the main, they
are a powerful tool for any writer, and especially for the journalist.
Lacking such a tool, photographers and photo editors must depend on their
reputations, or the reputations of the publications for which they work, to
cue the reader as to the possibilities of a photo that carries no
"photo-illustration" or "composite" line.  This situation robs photos of
their power.  And the photos most damaged by this situation could be the
ones that are in one sense the most honest.
The editors we queried believe that readers have grown to trust their
presentation of photographs, so it is not surprising that they do not feel
the need of new punctuation to assert the honesty of their images.  They
might be right (although further research on this is needed).  However
justified editors at the most respected magazines are in their opinions,
what of the editors at smaller, newer magazines that have not yet
established a reputation with readers?  Would they be more likely to
embrace new punctuation to allow them to make distinctions between
different classes of photographs?  Future research might expand the scope
of this study to include editors from a broader range of publications.  It
might also find ways to gauge how quickly readers might adapt to new visual
punctuation.
Epistemology is the study of the basis of knowledge – not what is true, but
how we come to know truth.  This is a field often visited by journalism
scholars.  We would urge ethicists to move beyond the study of epistemic
truth and consider epistemic honesty:  not what is honest, but how we come
to know what is honest.  Before we can determine if a statement is honest
we must establish the nature of the claim:  Is the person purporting to
give a thoroughly accurate statement, or is he or she only offering an
approximation, perhaps an improvement on the original for purposes of
clarity or art?  Centuries of paraphrasing and quotation led to the common
use of punctuation to make a clear distinction between the two.  Although
there is much disagreement over the use of the quotation mark, no writer
would want to abandon that tool.  It allows him or her to be clear about
what he or she is claiming to have heard or read.  It does not guarantee
honesty, but it allows for greater precision in one's claim to be making an
honest report.  It lends power to the honest writer, and leaves the
dishonest writer with less weasel room.  (If the quotation mark did not
exist, it would be more difficult to accuse a writer of misquoting.)  This
is a power photography might not have needed its infancy, when the public
took every image at face value.  Today's public is not nearly so
trusting.  It is precisely this lack of trust, this skepticism, that
diminishes the power of photography.
Photographs do seem to need what words have.  But until that need is more
sharply felt by people in a position to do something about it, the distrust
engendered by manipulated images will most likely continue to erode the
power of our most honest images.
 References

Blankenburg, W. (1970). News accuracy: some findings on the meaning of errors.
Journal of communication. 20 (4), p.375-386.
Bouton, K. E-mail correspondence in March 27, 2002. (Available upon request).

Buchanan, E.A. (2002).  "Information ethics in a world-wide context." In
Joel Rudinow and
Anthony Graybosch (Eds.), Ethics and Values in the Information Age. New
York: Harcourt College Publishers.

The Committee of Concerned Journalists and the Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press (March 1999).  "Striking the Balance: Audience
Interests, Business Pressures and Journalists' Values." p. 79.

Fahmy, S. & Smith, C.Z. (2002). Changing News Environments: The impact of
adopting digital
imaging technology on how visual journalists work. Paper presented at the
conference of the International Communication Association, Seoul, S. Korea.

Gordon, A.D., Kittross, J.M., Merrill, J. and Reuss, C.  (1999).
Controversies in media ethics.
2nd. edition. New York: Longman..

Greer, J. D. & Gosen, J. D. (2002). How much is too much? Assessing levels
of digital alteration
as factors in public perception of news media credibility. News
Photographer. 57 (7), 4 – 13.

Grover, R. Telephone Interview on March 20, 2002.

Huang, E. S. (2001). Readers' perception of digital alteration in
photojournalism. Journalism
Communication Monographs, 3 (3): 149 –182.

Hutleng, J. L.  (1985). The messenger's motives: Ethical problems of the
news media. 2nd edition.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Kenney, J. E-mail correspondence in April 17th, 2002. (Available upon request).

Kovach, B. and Rosenstiel, T. (2001).  The Elements of Journalism. New
York:  Crown Publishers.

Lawrence, G. and Grey, D. (1969). Subjective inaccuracies in local news
reporting.
Journalism Quarterly. 46 (4), 153 – 157.

Latimer, B. Personal Interview on February, 19, 2002. Columbia, Missouri.

Maier, S. (1999). Getting it right: Newsmaker perceptions of accuracy and
credibility.
Paper presented at the Mass Communication and Society Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, New
Orleans, Louisiana.

Merrill, J. (1999). Foundations for media ethics. In 2nd edition, A. David
Gordon, John Michael
Kittross, John C. Merrill and Carol Reuss. Controversies in media ethics.
2nd. edition.
New York: Longman.

Meyer, P.,(Autumn, 1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers:
developing an index, Journalism Quarterly. 65, 567- 588.

Parkes, M.B. (1993).  Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of
Punctuation in the West.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ryan, K. Telephone Interview on March 22, 2002

Stewart, J. B. (1998).  Follow the Story: How to Write Successful
Nonfiction.  New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster.

Tichenor, P., Olien, C., Harrison, A. and Donohue, G. (1970). Mass
communication
systems and communication accuracy in science news reporting. Journalism
Quarterly. 47 (4), 673 – 683.

Tirol, B. (2000). The photo-journalist and the changing news image. New
Media and Society. 2
(3): 335-352.


 Appendix

Questionnaire One:

For editors who are responsible for establishing and enforcing writing
policy (regarding, for example, the use of quotations).

start:
Thanks for doing this.  When we're done, I'll tell you more about the
study, and answer any questions you may have.

1. We are researching journalistic guidelines involving the proper use of
quotations and digital alteration or enhancement of photos.  I'd like to
ask you a few questions.  Current federal regulations require that I assure
you that your participation is voluntary, that you may refuse to answer any
question, and that you may end the interview at any time.  This is not a
confidential interview; one focus of this project is rules journalists
follow about attribution; we plan to quote people directly.  With your
permission, I will also record our conversation to ensure accuracy.  This
shouldn't take more than 10 or 15 minutes, depending on how much you have
to say.  Do you understand, and do I have your permission to record?
[turn on tape recorder]
2. Thank you.  I have turned on the recorder.  What is your name and title?

3. To your knowledge, does your publication have an official code of ethics?

4. If yes:  Is it a document you regularly consult?  Why or why not?

5.  Is there a general principle you follow when it comes to deciding how
to handle quotes, for example, to what extent you will clean up bad
grammar, random noises like throat clearing, repeated words, stuttering,
"uhs" and the like, and whether you will use ellipses when deleting words,
phrases or sentences?

6. Can you articulate an underlying principle?

7. What is it?

8. My next question involves the use of quotations in reconstructions, the
kind of reporting where the writer did not witness an event but is piecing
it together in narrative fashion based on transcripts, tape recordings, or
the reports of people who were there.  How do you deal with quotations in
circumstances where the writer was not present?

9. For example, if five people attend a meeting, and all them agree that
one of them stood up and said something, will you permit a writer who was
not there to quote those words in the midst of a narrative, like
this:  Jane Smith stood up and said, QUOTE, I support the proposal, END
QUOTE.  Or would you require the writer to write something like
this:  Participants, including Jane Smith herself, agree that she stood up
and said, QUOTE, I support the proposal, END QUOTE.

10.  Do you think your typical reader understands the difference between
these two ways of handling a reconstructed quote?

11.  Does the reader's understanding of how quotes are used make any
difference in your decisions?

12.  Could you amplify on that?

13. Do you ever discuss these issues with photographers or photo editors?

[if yes]14. Has their experience influenced your choices?  [if yes:] In
what way?

15. Writers use quotation marks to indicate that they are offering a sample
of reality that is largely unchanged.  Do you think photography might
benefit from a similar indication to the reader claiming that the photo is
largely unchanged, a visual equivalent of the quotation mark, say a small
icon in the upper right-hand corner?

16. If you had to choose, which would be better, an icon promising no
significant alteration or an icon indicating alteration?

17. Is there anyone in the business anywhere that you consider a leader
when it comes to thinking about these issues, someone we should talk
to?  Do you have contact information for him/her?

18. I am required to tell you that the name of this study is "The
Epistemology of Pixels and Quotations" and that you may at any time contact
the Institutional Review Board at 573/882-9585.  Thank you for your
time.  Do you have any questions about this study?

Questionnaire Two, for photo editors

start:
Thanks for doing this.  When we're done, I'll tell you more about the
study, and answer any questions you may have.

1. We are researching journalistic guidelines involving the proper use of
quotations and digital alteration or enhancement of photos.  I'd like to
ask you a few questions.  Current federal regulations require that I assure
you that your participation is voluntary, that you may refuse to answer any
question, and that you may end the interview at any time.  This is not a
confidential interview; one focus of this project is rules journalists
follow about attribution; we plan to quote people directly.  With your
permission, I will also record our conversation to assure accuracy.  This
shouldn't take more than 10 or 15 minutes, depending on how much you have
to say.  Do you understand, and do I have your permission to record?
[turn on tape recorder]
2. Thank you.  I have turned on the recorder.  What is your name and title?

3. To your knowledge, does your publication have an official code of ethics?

4. If yes:  Is it a document you regularly consult?  Why or why not?

5.  Is there a general principle you follow when it comes to deciding how
to handle photos, for example, to what extent you will correct for color,
lighten or darken skin tone or erase blemishes, dodge in corners, eliminate
random distractions, combine images, et cetera?

6. Can you articulate an underlying principle?

7. What is it?

8. What standard or expectation do you think your typical reader brings to
your work, regarding the degree of alteration a photo might have
undergone?  [If they don't understand the question, say:  For example, when
they look at a photo in your magazine, do you think they expect that it has
or has not been altered digitally in any way?]

9. Do you think your typical reader understands the difference between the
various degrees of enhancement or alteration of photos?

10. Does the reader's understanding of these issues make any difference in
your decisions?

11.  Could you amplify on that?

12. Do you ever discuss these issues with copy editors?

[if yes]13. Has their experience influenced your choices?  [if yes:] In
what way?

14. Writers use quotation marks to indicate that they are offering a sample
of reality that is largely unchanged.  Do you think photography might
benefit from a similar indication to the reader claiming that the photo is
largely unchanged, a visual equivalent of the quotation mark, say a small
icon in the upper right-hand corner?

15. If you had to choose, which would be better, an icon promising no
significant alteration or an icon indicating alteration?

16. Is there anyone in the business anywhere that you consider a leader
when it comes to thinking about these issues, someone we should talk
to?  Do you have contact information for him/her?

17. I am required to tell you that the name of this study is "The
Epistemology of Pixels and Quotations" and that you may at any time contact
the Institutional Review Board at 573/882-9585.  Thank you for your
time.  Do you have any questions about this study?

END

Questionnaire three for combined word/photo editors
(Such as John Kenney at Esquire)

start:
Thanks for doing this.  When we're done, I'll tell you more about the
study, and answer any questions you may have.

1. We are researching journalistic guidelines involving the proper use of
quotations and digital alteration or enhancement of photos.  I'd like to
ask you a few questions.  Current federal regulations require that I assure
you that your participation is voluntary, that you may refuse to answer any
question, and that you may end the interview at any time.  This is not a
confidential interview; one focus of this project is rules journalists
follow about attribution; we plan to quote people directly.  With your
permission, I will also record our conversation to ensure accuracy.  This
shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes, depending on how much you have
to say.  Do you understand, and do I have your permission to record?
[turn on tape recorder]
2. Thank you.  I have turned on the recorder.  What is your name and title?

3. To your knowledge, does your publication have an official code of ethics?

4. If yes:  Is it a document you regularly consult?  Why or why not?

5.  Is there a general principle you follow when it comes to deciding how
to handle photos, for example, to what extent you will correct for color,
lighten or darken skin tone or erase blemishes, dodge in corners, eliminate
random distractions, combine images, et cetera?

6. Can you articulate an underlying principle?

7. What is it?

8.  Is there a general principle you follow when it comes to deciding how
to handle quotes, for example, to what extent you will clean up bad
grammar, random noises like throat clearing, repeated words, stuttering,
"uhs" and the like, and whether you will use ellipses when deleting words,
phrases or sentences?

9. Can you articulate an underlying principle?

10. What is it?

11. My next question involves the use of quotations in reconstructions, the
kind of reporting where the writer did not witness an event but is piecing
it together in narrative fashion based on transcripts, tape recordings, or
the reports of people who were there.  How do you deal with quotations in
circumstances where the writer was not present?

12. For example, if five people attend a meeting, and all them agree that
one of them stood up and said something, will you permit a writer who was
not there to quote those words in the midst of a narrative, like
this:  Jane Smith stood up and said, QUOTE, I support the proposal, END
QUOTE.  Or would you require the writer to write something like
this:  Participants, including Jane Smith herself, agree that she stood up
and said, QUOTE, I support the proposal, END QUOTE.

13.  Do you think your typical reader understands the difference between
these two ways of handling a reconstructed quote?

14.  Does the reader's understanding of how quotes are used make any
difference in your decisions?

15.  Could you amplify on that?

16. What standard or expectation do you think your typical reader brings to
your work, regarding the degree of alteration a photo might have
undergone?  [If they don't understand the question, say:  For example, when
they look at a photo in your magazine, do you think they expect that it has
or has not been altered digitally in any way?]

17. Do you think your typical reader understands the difference between the
various degrees of enhancement or alteration of photos?

18. Does the reader's understanding of these issues make any difference in
your decisions?

19.  Could you amplify on that?

20. Writers use quotation marks to indicate that they are offering a sample
of reality that is largely unchanged.  Do you think photography might
benefit from a similar indication to the reader claiming that the photo is
largely unchanged, a visual equivalent of the quotation mark, say a small
icon in the upper right-hand corner?

21. If you had to choose, which would be better, an icon promising no
significant alteration or an icon indicating alteration?

22. Is there anyone in the business anywhere that you consider a leader
when it comes to thinking about these issues, someone we should talk
to?  Do you have contact information for him/her?

23. I am required to tell you that the name of this study is "The
Epistemology of Pixels and Quotations" and that you may at any time contact
the Institutional Review Board at 573/882-9585.  Thank you for your
time.  Do you have any questions about this study?
 The following page is a mockup of a page of a magazine using photation
marks to indicate the photo has not been digitally enhanced.  This page was
put on a website so the magazine editors in our study could view it and
give their opinions on photation marks.  Thanks to Alexis Abrams for
allowing us to use her photograph of a man waiting for a subway train in
New York City.
[1]  Certainly there are scandals when journalists are caught plagiarizing
or fabricating quotations and other details.  But these transgressions are
usually revealed by journalists or other interested parties.  They are not
the result of empirical academic research.
[2]  George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama, famously complained
that he was the only governor quoted in dialect by the New York Times.
[3]  This incident is not itself a reconstruction.  The first author of
this paper was a member of the panel, "Teaching News Writers to Write
Magazine Style," which was presented by the Magazine Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.