Photo Credibility
Public Perceptions of Photographic Credibility
in the Age of Digital Manipulation
Introduction
Any discussion of "manipulated" photography must begin with the
recognition that photography is itself an inherent manipulation, a
manipulation of light, a process with many steps and stages, all influenced
by the biases and subjective interpretations of the photographer, printer,
editor, and viewer.[1] And yet throughout the century and a half of its
existence, one branch of photography D photojournalism D has acquired a
special standing in the public mind, a confidence that a photo can
reflect
reality in a uniquely compelling and credible way.[2]
It might be said that photojournalists and readers have arrived at an
understanding, a compact of sorts, a set of assumptions that provides
the
foundation for photojournalism's long-lived credibility. This set of
assumptions, which has been called the reader's "Qualified Expectation of
Reality,"[3] derives from professional codes of ethics, actual
practices, some
awareness of rudimentary photographic processes, and a public faith
founded
on decades of experience. Consumers of media have long used terms such as
"doctored," "staged," "trick" and "special effects" photography to
distinguish images that fall outside this set of assumptions. For images
that fall within it, our faith runs deep. We go so far as to link
quite
comfortably the words "photographic" and "proof," even in courts of
law.
But what will become of photojournalistic believability in this digital
age, when viewers are bombarded with images in which characters are
"morphed" into phantasms, and fanciful dreamscapes appear to be as real as
any photograph?[4] Will the public come to view the unaltered photo as
the
exception? The New York Times photography critic Andy Grundberg
predicted
that, "In the future, readers of newspapers and magazines will
probably
view news pictures more as illustrations than as reportage, since they
can
no longer distinguish between a genuine image and one that has been
manipulated."[5] Will his prediction come to pass, or can the public's
faith
in photography as a qualified reflection of reality survive the
increasing
use of digital manipulation? Can journalists maintain a fortress of
credibility around "real" images, isolating them in the public mind from
"photo illustrations"?
Recently developed computerized processes allow us to add, remove,
rearrange and even create people, objects and backgrounds in an existing
photograph, or to build a new composite "photograph." In "Digital
Photography and the Ethics of Photofiction: Four Tests for Assessing the
Reader's Qualified Expectation of Reality" (1994), Wheeler and Gleason
suggested that although photography has been subject to enhancement,
bias
and distortion since its inception, the rapid adoption of these new
technologies provides more opportunities than ever for "fictionalizing"
photographic images.[6] They documented evidence that altered
photography is
contributing to a loss of confidence in the editorial process,[7]
proposed a
definition of their term "photofiction,"[8] and suggested several
credibility-preserving guidelines for photo-alteration in editorial
contexts.[9]
They pointed out that valuable research[10] has documented professional
attitudes toward, for example, altered photos in "news" versus "feature
sections," but they asked whether readers knew or cared about
distinctions
made in the profession or in academia. They wrote: "It is the public
who
will decide whether editorial photography's credibility survives the
drastic, undetectable photo-manipulation afforded by widely available
software, and thus far we [the profession, academia] have failed to
adequately address issues of public perception, such as readers' differing
expectations when considering, say, the covers of an established news
magazine versus a notorious satirical publication."[11] They concluded:
"If we
are to preserve photography's authority, we must look beyond academic
discussions and establish guidelines reflective of public attitudes
[emphasis added]."[12] This pilot project is a step toward that objective.
Research Questions
In fall 1994, I surveyed 330 journalism students to ascertain what kinds
of photo alteration are deemed acceptable by one narrow segment of the
media audience. This pilot study D a nonrepresentative, nonrandom
sample D
addresses editorial (nonadvertising) material in various print media.
Future projects will explore several issues listed at the end of this
article; this report addresses the following questions:
y Are readers correct in their assumptions about whether selected images
are "real" or "trick" photos?
y Regarding selected examples of altered photography, do readers accept any
or all of them as responsible and ethical?
y Regarding the acceptability of altered photography, do readers apply
different standards to newspapers, news magazines, and general interest
consumer magazines?
y Are readers more willing to accept as ethical some types of manipulation
than others?
y In cross-tabulating these various inquiries to variables such as gender,
do any trends emerge that suggest a need for further research?
Background and methodology
My 32-question survey was distributed to three undergraduate lecture
classes of journalism students D two Media And Society classes and one
Visual Communication class. None of the classes had previously addressed
the ethics (or any other aspect) of altered photography. Instructions
for
the 10-page survey were written into the questionnaire and also
explained
orally at each step. Respondents were asked at several points if they
had
any questions.
Participants read a consent form explaining that their responses were
voluntary and anonymous. They were reminded at several points, in
writing
and orally, that "there are no wrong answers here; this is a survey of
your
personal opinions."
Background questions covered age, sex, status (journalism pre-major,
etc.), political philosophy, and the frequency of reading one or more
newspapers, news magazines, and consumer magazines; watching one or more
local or national TV news programs; and watching television other than
news
programs. The respondents were 63% female, 36% male (0.9% did not indicate
sex).
One goal was to assess responses to questions presented in a variety of
configurations. For example, the specified photos included a mix of
actual
and hypothetical cases. Second, sometimes respondents heard arguments
for
and against the alterations; other times no such context was provided.
Finally, while some of the images were projected onto a screen, others
were
not displayed (all were described in writing).
The study is organized into five sections. Section l assesses the
comparative credibility of newspapers, news magazines, and general interest
consumer magazines. Section ll gauges respondents' abilities to
distinguish altered from unaltered images. Section lll contrasts responses
to the well-known O.J. Simpson covers of Time and Newsweek, while
Section
IV presents a mix of actual and hypothetical examples of altered
photography and contrasts the levels of their acceptability in newspapers,
news magazines, and general interest magazines. Section V addresses
two
well-known cases of altered photography and presents respondents with
arguments for and against the alterations. Throughout the study, response
percentages are rounded off to the nearest whole number, and .5
ratings are
rounded upwards, accounting for totals of 99% or 101% in a few cases.
Section l
General credibility of various print media
Respondents rated the general credibility of daily newspapers nationwide,
as well as nationally distributed news magazines and nationally
distributed
general interest consumer magazines. The terms "daily newspapers," "news
magazines," and "general interest consumer magazines" were illustrated
with
lists of representative samples. Specified examples of daily newspapers
were The New York Times and The Washington Post. Examples of news
magazines
were: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. The instructions
specified that "'General interest consumer' refers to a broad range of
magazines typically available by subscription and also in supermarkets,
bookstores, and retail stores catering to readers of specialty
publications
D skiers, musicians, computer users, etc." The nine examples included
Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Macworld, National Geographic, etc. Questions
were
presented in the following format:
On a scale of 1 to 5 D 1 being very low and 5 being very high D how do you rate
the
credibility of daily newspapers nationwide?
1 very low
2 somewhat low
3 average
4 somewhat high
5 very high
For purposes of discussion here, the two "low" and two "high" categories
are combined. The results:
1a. Credibility of print media, overall percentages
credibility
newspapers
news magazines
gen. int. mags.
low credibility (%)
7
9
26
average (%)
49
43
47
high credibility (%)
43
47
26
totals
99%
99%
99%
X2 = 22.41, P<.001
1b. Credibility of print media, in percentages by sex
newspapers news magazines
general int. magazines
credibility
female %
male %
female %
male %
female %
male %
low cred.
6
8
7
13
30
21
average
53
43
45
39
50
43
high cred.
41
49
47
48
20
36
total %
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
X2 = 50.16, P<.001
Table 1a: The overall credibility of general interest magazines was rated
significantly lower than that of either newspapers or news magazines.
Table 1b suggests that women may view certain publications in a
significantly different fashion than do men. Examining the six "low
credibility" breakdowns and six "high credibility" breakdowns, the largest
female/male differentials occur with regard to general interest
magazines;
for example, women were about half again as likely as men to rate such
publications as having low credibility.
Section ll
Identification of composite photography
We know that readers sometimes view altered photos in editorial contexts
and mistakenly assume they are unaltered,[13] and sometimes view
unaltered
photos and mistakenly assume they are altered.[14] (Terms such as
"altered" and
"unaltered" are used here to distinguish images that do or do not fall
within the aforementioned "Qualified Expectation of Reality" that I
believe
readers bring to the page.)
In this survey a composite photo was defined, in writing and orally, as
"one in which elements of two or more photos are combined in the lab,
or on
a computer, to create the impression of a single photo." Respondents were
told: "The images shown in this section may or may not be composites."
Respondents were shown a slide of Spy magazine's Nov. 1993 cover, which
was explained in writing, and orally, as follows (also shown below are
the
question and responses in percentages; quoted descriptions of
publications
are from Bacon's Magazine Directory, 1993):
First Lady Jackie Kennedy was wearing a pink suit like the one shown here at the
time her
husband, President John F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Dallas
in 1963. Actress Daryl
Hannah, pictured here, has been romantically linked to the late
President's son, John F.
Kennedy Jr. The caption to this cover photo reads "Daryl
Hannah as Mrs. John F. Kennedy
Jr.?" Spy is an irreverent, satirical magazine covering
"personalities, institutions, and
culture in urban America."
How likely is it that this picture is a composite or "trick" photo?
2a. Spy, Daryl Hannah
very likely
33 %
somewhat likely
25 %
no opinion
7 %
somewhat unlikely
20 %
very unlikely
14 %
total
99 %
The Spy image is in fact a digitally rendered composite, identified inside
the magazine as a "paintbox photo composition." Respondents were asked the
same question while viewing a slide of Esquire's Jan. 1994 cover, which
pictured a woman nude from the waist up, her breasts cupped by hands
belonging to an otherwise concealed person behind her. The photo was
explained in writing and orally as follows:
This cover photo of so-called "Hollywood Madam" Heidi Fleiss appeared on
Esquire's annual
Dubious Achievement Awards issue. It followed by several months
a similar image of singer
Janet Jackson on the cover of Rolling Stone. Esquire addresses
"the changing role of the
American male in today's society" and covers current events,
trends, fashion, profiles and
fiction.
How likely is it that this picture is a composite or "trick" photo?
2b., Esquire, Heidi Fleiss
very likely
28 %
somewhat likely
32 %
no opinion
8 %
somewhat unlikely
20 %
very unlikely
11 %
total
99 %
Section ll discussion: We may not find it surprising that 58% of the
respondents thought the Spy image was probably a composite, given its
outrageousness and implausibility, but I would point out that slightly
more
than one-third thought it was somewhat or very unlikely to be a composite;
that is, a significant number of respondents were wrong. In the case of
the Esquire cover, most of the respondents were wrong. Sixty percent
thought that it was likely to be a composite, which it is not.
These results echo the experience recounted here in footnote 14. While it
is no longer news that some "doctored" photos look "real," some
readers may
now be assuming that some "real" photos are "doctored." The implications
for the continued credibility of editorial photography are
significant.
Section lll
O.J. Simpson: Newsweek and Time
Regarding June 1994 covers of Time and Newsweek, both of which depicted
O.J. Simpson, respondents were told: "These two news magazine cover
images
of O.J. Simpson started with the same photo, an LAPD mug shot of the
former
football star." The Newsweek slide was shown first. The instructions and
question appear below:
Newsweek: close inspection reveals that Simpson's hair was retouched subtly
along the top
edge of the image to provide contrast against the word
"Newsweek."
In your opinion, Newsweek's alteration was:
definitely unacceptable
probably unacceptable
I have no impression either way
probably acceptable
definitely acceptable
For ease of comparison here and in later tables, the two "unacceptable" and
two "acceptable" tallies are combined. Results, in percentages, are broken
down by sex:
3a. Newsweek: O.J. Simpson
overall %
female %
male %
unacceptable
18
20
15
no impression
16
16
17
acceptable
65
63
68
total %
99%
99%
100%
X2 = .9304, P>.05
The instructions, question, and combined tallies for the Time cover are as
follows:
Time: The image was darkened and blurred, and identified inside the magazine as
a
"photo-illustration."
Some considered the image to be a misleading and perhaps racist or legally
prejudicial
attempt to make Simpson look guilty or sinister. The
N.A.A.C.P.'s Benjamin Chavis charged
that it portrayed him as "some kind of animal."
Time said the mug shot's "cold specificity" was "subtly smoothed and shaped into
an icon
of tragedy." "We knew [the mug shot] would be widely
disseminated, and that gave us
license, we felt, to push the image into something more
interpretive or illustrative."[15]
3b. Time: O.J. Simpson
overall %
female %
male %
unacceptable
79
83
74
no impression
6
7
5
acceptable
14
10
21
total %
99%
100%
100%
X2 = 4.752, P>.05
Section lll discussion: One could claim that including the rationales for
and against the Time alteration weakens the credibility of the results
(are
respondents really addressing the issue, or are they "voting" on the
superiority of one argument over another?). But I wanted to provide
respondents with context so as to make their decisions more informed.
Future research will pose the same question without the arguments to see
if
they make any difference.
Newsweek's cover was found to be generally acceptable, Time's very
unacceptable, and it seems reasonable to suppose that much of the
difference is due to the latter's perceived racial component, the very
different degrees of alteration, and perhaps some awareness of the
controversy surrounding the Time cover. Although a sizable portion of the
group, nearly two-thirds, judged Newsweek's alteration to be
acceptable, I
would point out that the 18% unacceptable rating is significant when
one
considers the minor nature of the alteration. In discussions comparing
these two covers, the Newsweek version is often used as something of a
control sample D the "unmanipulated" photo.
A higher percentage of females than males (20% vs. 15%) judged the
Newsweek alteration to be unacceptable; the discrepancy is significant, as
is the similar divergence (83% to 74%) in the Time results. Although
as a
group the respondents found Time's alteration to be unacceptable by a
large
margin, more than twice the percentage of males as females found it
acceptable. The female/male divergence appears repeatedly throughout this
study, raising provocative questions discussed below.
Section lV
Standards of Acceptability: Comparison of various media
For this section, respondents received the following instructions (no
slides were shown):
In the following actual or hypothetical cases, certain information is specified:
y the type of publication involved (daily newspaper, etc.)
y the subject matter of a particular story
y the subject of an accompanying photograph
y a description of how the photo was altered
You are asked to judge the acceptability of the alteration.
An acceptable alteration is within your expectations of a responsible and
credible
editorial (nonadvertising) photo.
An unacceptable alteration is misleading or otherwise irresponsible.
Remember, there are no right or wrong answers here.
This is a survey of your personal opinions.
Example
Story: Economic outlook for family farms
Photo: a family farm
Alteration: The art director felt that a telephone pole within the borders of
the photo
was "distracting," so she deleted it; there was no disclosure
of the alteration to
readers.
In your opinion, such an alteration in a daily newspaper photo would be:
definitely unacceptable
probably unacceptable
I have no impression either way
probably acceptable
definitely acceptable
Respondents were then asked to make the same judgment regarding the same
alteration in a news magazine photo, as well as in a general interest
consumer magazine photo.
4a. Farm photo, overall group responses in percentages
newspaper
news magazine
general int. mag.
unacceptable %
41
36
23
no impression %
10
12
13
acceptable %
48
51
63
total %
99%
99%
99%
X2 = 7.913, P<.05
4b. Farm photo responses in percentages, by sex
newspapers news magazines
general int. magazines
female %
male %
female %
male %
female %
male %
unaccept.
47
30
41
28
29
13
no impress.
10
12
12
11
14
13
acceptable
44
58
46
61
58
73
total %
101%
100%
99%
100%
101%
99%
X2 = 16.70, P<.05
This example is hypothetical. Table 4a: If levels of acceptance reflect
the strictness of standards, the overall group responses (particularly
the
"unacceptable" rankings) suggest that regarding altered photos,
participants hold different media to different standards. By significant
amounts, the standards decrease in strictness going from newspapers to
news
magazines to general interest magazines.
Table 4b reveals that, at least regarding some examples of altered
photography, these female journalism students hold all three media to
significantly stricter standards than do their male counterparts. For
example, in the newspaper category, the percentage of women who found the
alteration unacceptable was more than half again as high as the
unacceptability rating for males; in the general interest magazine
category, women selected "unacceptable" at a rate more than double that of
men.
Example
Story: the success of TV show Beverly Hills 90210
Photo: actress Tori Spelling
Alterations: facial blemish or blemishes removed, cleavage increased, visibility
of
nipples enhanced, waist decreased, legs lengthened. There was no
disclosure of the
alterations to readers.
Respondents were asked to judge the acceptability of the alterations in a
daily newspaper, a news magazine, and a general interest consumer
magazine.
5a. Tori Spelling photo, overall group responses in percentages
newspaper
news magazine
general int. mag.
unacceptable %
81
77
60
no impression %
8
8
9
acceptable %
11
15
30
total %
100%
100%
99%
X2 = 14.29, P<.01
5b. Tori Spelling photo, responses in percentages, by sex
newspapers news magazines
general int. magazines
female %
male %
female %
male %
female %
male %
unaccept.
82
81
79
74
66
51
no impress.
8
8
7
9
7
12
acceptable
11
11
14
17
27
38
total %
101%
100%
100%
100%
100%
101%
X2 = 36.64, P<.001
This image appeared in the Aug. 1994 issue of Details magazine. Table 5a:
Again, the overall group responses suggest that the strictness of
standards
decreases by significant amounts from newspapers to news magazines to
general interest magazines. General interest magazines scored almost
three
to one over newspapers in acceptability of the alteration. Note,
however,
that regardless of the type of publication, the alteration was
considered
strongly unacceptable.
Table 5b: All categories reveal that females again were more likely to
find the alteration unacceptable, regardless of the type of
publication. In
general interest magazines, women selected "unacceptable" over men by a
margin of 66% to 51%. In other cases the divergence is less
significant;
still, it is remarkably consistent. Note also that regarding general
interest magazines, females were significantly less likely to select the
"no impression" option.
Story: the popularity of the movie Rain Man
Photo: actors Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman, together offscreen
Alteration: two images were joined to look as though the actors were meeting
side by side
when in fact they were photographed at different places and
times; there was no disclosure
of the alteration to readers.
Respondents were asked to judge the acceptability of the alteration in a
daily newspaper, a news magazine, and a general interest consumer
magazine.
6a. Cruise/Hoffman photo, overall group responses in percentages
newspaper
news magazine
general int. mag.
unacceptable %
61
62
46
no impression %
13
13
14
acceptable %
25
25
39
total %
99%
100%
99%
X2 = 7.311, P>.05
6b. Cruise/Hoffman photo, responses in percentages, by sex
newspapers news magazines
general int. magazines
female %
male %
female %
male %
female %
male %
unaccept.
66
54
66
55
49
41
no impress.
10
19
10
18
13
17
acceptable
24
27
24
28
37
43
total %
100 %
100 %
100 %
101 %
99 %
101 %
X2 = 15.19, P<.05
This photo appeared in the Jan. 16, 1989 edition of Newsweek. Table 6a:
Overall the alteration was generally considered unacceptable, though
less
objectionable than Tori Spelling's digital makeover in Details. There
was
no significant difference in the overall group responses when
comparing
newspapers and news magazines, but again respondents held general
interest
magazines to a significantly looser standard.
Table 6b: In all three types of publication, women again were more likely
to judge the alteration to be unacceptable, despite the absence of any
apparent sexist stereotyping. In newspapers, for example, females
selected
"unacceptable" over males by 66% to 54%. While the divergence is
smaller in
other cases, it is yet again remarkably consistent. Females were again
less likely to select the "no impression" option (only about half as
likely
in the newspaper and news magazine categories).
Section V
Case studies: Acceptability of alterations
In this section, respondents were asked to judge the acceptability of two
actual cases of altered photography, using the same definitions of
"acceptable" and "unacceptable" as specified above. No images were shown.
Pro and con arguments were offered for each alteration so as to allow
for
more informed decision making. Again, the two "unacceptable" and two
"acceptable" tallies were combined. The instructions, questions, and
results:
The Coke Can
A newspaper ran a photo of a Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist. A Diet Coke
can was
optically removed from within the frame of the published
image; there was no disclosure of
the alteration to readers.
Critics of the newspaper might argue that while the alteration may be a minor
detail, the
journalist's obligation is to capture reality, not to alter
it. The alteration violated
the expectations of readers who believe that what they see in
the photo is what the
photographer saw.
Defenders might argue that it was an esthetic improvement, a minor alteration
that did not
change the image's fundamental meaning. It actually made the photo more
journalistically
credible by deleting a distraction that might draw undue
attention to itself or appear to
be a direct or indirect product endorsement.
In your opinion, removing the can from within the frame of the newspaper photo
was:
7a., the Coke can
unacceptable
37%
no impression
13%
acceptable
49%
total
99%
The Coke can photo ran in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. [16] The results
showed little or no significant difference in response between females and
males.
National Geographic
National Geographic magazine altered a cover photo of two of the Great Pyramids
of Giza,
digitally "moving" them closer together to fit the cover.
Defending the alteration, the magazine's director of photography claimed that it
merely
achieved the same result as having the photographer move the
camera during the shoot. An
editor claimed that cropping [a routine procedure in which
part of a photographic image is
isolated for reproduction while the remainder is excluded] is a more serious
alteration.
Critics might argue that achieving the same result as moving the camera is
beside the
point, and that comparing it to routine cropping is also
pointless because cropping has
long been understood and accepted by readers. However, once
the image is on film,
rearranging essential elements within the frame is unethical in such
a photo.
This time, a significant breakdown by sex can be seen:
7b. National Geographic photo, responses in percentages, by sex
overall %
female %
male %
unacceptable
47
56
33
no impression
13
9
19
acceptable
39
34
48
total %
99%
99%
100%
X2 = 11.90, P<.01
Table 7b: Almost half of the respondents found the alteration to be
unacceptable. Note that the female/male divergence may be more striking
here than anywhere else in the study: The percentage of females who
found
the alteration to be unacceptable was more than half again as high as
the
same rating by males, despite the instructions' utter absence of
gender-based content. Again, females were less than half as likely to
select "no impression."
Summary; Questions for Future Research
Regarding the acceptability of altered photography in print media, this
study has attempted to expand the research beyond professional and
academic
circles to the public sphere. It provides further evidence that readers
and viewers are sometimes confused by the "reality" of widely
published
photos, suggests that some types of alteration are more objectionable
than
others, shows that various print media are held to different standards
in
this regard, and reveals that women may react differently than men to
photo
manipulation, even in cases when gender stereotyping is absent.
Many questions remain. How should editors and art directors respond to the
public's holding general interest consumer magazines to a looser standard
than newspapers and news magazines? Does it give them carte blanche to
manipulate images without disclosure, or does it signal a need to
bolster
their publications' relatively low credibility, perhaps by tightening
photo
standards?
Almost half of the respondents found the Post-Dispatch/Coke can alteration
to be acceptable, which like other results in this study raises an
interesting question: What level of public acceptability would most
publishers consider to be professionally adequate? Conversely stated, how
much negative opinion is too much? If fully half of your readers judge
a
practice to be unacceptable, or have doubts, is it responsible and
prudent
to continue it? How high an unacceptability rating would persuade most
pro
fessionals to rethink the practice in question? Ten percent? Twenty?
Or
would anything less than 51% certify the practice as ethically sound?
Is it
simply a matter of majority rule?
The consistent and sometimes striking divergences between male and female
respondents were unanticipated. College women may view general
interest
magazines as being less credible than do men because those titles
include
Cosmopolitan, Elle, Vogue, etc.; such publications are popular among
college women, manifest a relationship between advertising and editorial
that would be unseemly in many other publications, and also perpetuate
"the
beauty myth."[17]
But why are women more likely to judge non-sexist photo manipulations to
be unacceptable? It seems reasonable to suggest that compared to
images of
men's bodies, images of women's bodies are used more often in media of
all
types, that they are often highly idealized and retouched or otherwise
altered, that they both reflect and perpetuate a narrow and virtually
unobtainable standard of beauty in our culture, and that as a result
women
are keenly aware of, pressured by, perhaps resentful of, and almost
cert
ainly more sensitive to such stereotyping. Perhaps women's sensitivity
to
sexual stereotypes "crosses over" into a heightened sensitivity to
manipulated images of any kind. The notion bears further inquiry. (Might
the cases in which women were less likely to select "no impression"
also be
examples of this heightened sensitivity?)
It has been estimated that within five years or so, most mass-media
photos will either begin as electronic photographs or be transformed into
digital data during production.[18] This study suggests that unless
publications adopt stricter standards for applying these new technologies,
the public will continue to be misled, at least sometimes, resulting
in an
almost certain erosion of photo credibility and increasing the
likelihood
that Grundberg's prediction ("In the future, readers. . . will
probably
view news pictures more as illustrations than as reportage. . . .")
will
come to pass.
[ note: to print footnotes, select "footnotes" from "VIEW" menu; then print ]
[1] In "Digital Photography and the Ethics of Photofiction: Four Tests f
or
Assessing the Reader's Qualified Expectation of Reality" (a paper
presented to the annual convention of AEJMC, Magazine Division, A
tlanta,
Georgia, August 1994), footnote 3, Wheeler and Gleaso
n asserted: "The long
debate in the art world over the very n
ature of photographs has been
noticeably absent in profession
al journalists' discussions of photography.
In much of the sc
holarly and critical communities the claim that 'our faith
in the superfi
cial availability of reality, in its obviousness, has
dwindle
d dramatically...and with it much of our faith in the camera as a
witness' would be accepted without question; however, in journalism we
cling to the faith that editorial photography is an objectiv
e reflection of
reality." Grundburg, Crisis of the Real (1990): 102.
[2] As essayist Lance Morrow wrote, "The pictures made by
pho
tojournalists have the legitimacy of being news, fresh information. They
slice along the hard edge of the present." "Imprisoning Time in a
Rectangle," Time: 150 Years of Photojournalism (Fall 1989): 76.
[3]
Wheeler and Gleason, supra note 1, pp. 10 - 11.
[4] W. J. Mitchell wr
ote: "We are approaching the point at which most of
the image
s that we see in our daily lives, and that form our understanding
of the world, will have been digitally recorded, transmitted, and
processed." W. J. Mitchell, "When Is Seeing Believing?: Digital T
echnology
for Manipulating Images has Subverted the Certainty
of Photographic
Evidence," Scientific American, Feb. 1994, p
. 70.
[5] Andy Grundburg, "Ask It No Questions: The Camera Can Lie," The
New York
Times, August 12, 1990, Sec. 2, p. 1.
[6] Wheeler and Gleas
on, supra note 1.
[7] Time magazine's June 27, 1994 O.J. Simpson cover f
eatured a
computer-retouched L.A.P.D. mug shot that was ident
ified on the contents
page as a "photo-illustration." Many
observers considered it misleading
and perhaps racist or lega
lly prejudicial. See To Our Readers, Time, July
4, 1994, p. 4
. Time's managing editor cited the charge by the N.A.A.C.P.'s
Benjamin Chavis that it was "as if Willie Horton had stepped out of an old
Republican campaign ad and into O. J.'s cleats," according t
o Joseph P.
Kahn, "When 1 Picture Tells 2 Stories," The Bosto
n Globe, June 22, 1994,
Living, p. 21. See also: Howard Kurtz
, "Time to Newsweek: What's Wrong With
This Picture?", The Washington Pos
t, June 24, 1994, Style, p. B1; Rita
Ciolli, "Time Alters Pho
tograph For Its Cover," Newsday, June 22, 1994, p.
25; "Photo
Flap: Time's Altered Image Sparks Ethics Debate," The Phoenix
Gazette, June 22, 1994, p. A2; Howard Kurtz, "Time's 'Sinister' Simpson;
Cover Photo Was Computer-Enhanced," The Washington Post, June
22, 1994,
Style, p. D1.
[8] Wheeler and Gleason, supra
note 1. They proposed that "the term
'photofiction' can apply
to any photo that has been manipulated enough
during process
ing to change readers' perceptions of its meaning whether
m
aterial elements in the photo are altered, added, removed within the frame
or rearranged, and regardless of the method employed." They added:
"Photofiction isn't new, but computer technology has made it far ea
sier to
do, accessible to many more people, and virtually imp
ossible to detect,
creating a greater potential for abuse of
readers' trust than has ever
existed."
[9] Ibid. They dev
ised the Viewfinder Test, the Technical Credibility
Test, the
Photojournalist's Process Test, and a test of apparent
impla
usibility (nicknamed the "Pregnant Bruce Willis" Test, after a Spy
magazine cover). These four tests are intended to help photographers
and
editors decide whether an image qualifies as "photofictio
n" and if so, what
kind of disclosure might be appropriate. Another stand
ard, also intended
to apply to disclosure, was the Essence of
The Image Test.
[10] As reported in "Digital Photography and the Ethi
cs of Photofiction,"
ibid., a leading researcher in the field
is Prof. Shiela Reaves of the
University of Wisconsin-Madiso
n. See her articles "Magazines vs.
Newspapers: Editors Have D
ifferent Ethical Standards On The Digital
Manipulation Of Pho
tographs," Visual Communication Quarterly (vol. 2, no.
1, win
ter 1995, p. 4); "What's Wrong with This Picture?: Attitudes of
Photographic Editors at Daily Newspapers and Their Tolerance toward Di
gital
Manipulation" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Bost
on, MA,
Aug. 1991); "Digital Alteration of Photographs in Consumer Magazi
nes,"
Journal of Mass Media Ethics (1991):175-181; "Digital R
etouching in
Newspapers," Journal of Mass Media Ethics (1987)
: 40-48; "Digital
Retouching: Is There A Place For It in News
paper Photography?" (paper
presented at the annual meeting of
AEJMC, Norman, OK, Aug. 1986); and
"Photography, Pixels, and
New Technology: Is There a 'Paradigm Shift'?" a
paper presen
ted at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Washington, D.C. (Aug.
19
89). See also, C.R. Harris, "Digitization and Manipulation of News
Photographs," Journal of Mass Media Ethics (1991): 164-74.
[11] W
heeler and Gleason, supra note 1, pp. 6-7.
[12] Ibid., p. 7.
[13] W
hen Spy magazine concocted a composite image of Daryl Hannah's head
on the body of a model dressed as Jackie Kennedy on the day Presiden
t John
Kennedy was shot, a reader wrote to complain that she
was "appalled" that
Hannah "would even consider doing such a
cover." "Kennedy: The Torch
Passes," Spy (Nov. 1993); "Lette
rs" (Feb. 1994): 8. The practice of putting
the image of a famous person'
s head on another body is becoming so common
that it is now k
nown as a "zipper head" in the industry. Jonathan Alter,
"Whe
n Photographs Lie," Newsweek (July 30, 1990): 45.
[14] Some readers of
Conde Nast Traveler criticized Mary Ellen Mark for
digitally
inserting the image of a castle into her photo of the Bombay,
India, harbor when in fact the castle was a reflection in a window. "The
Real India," American Photo (Nov./Dec. 1993): 28.
[15]
Joseph P. Kahn, "When 1 Picture Tells 2 Stories," The Boston Globe,
June 22, 1994, Living, p. 21.
[16] The manipulation was perform
ed on a portrait of, ironically, the 1989
Pulitzer Prize winner in news p
hotography. See S. Kramer, "The Case of the
Missing Coke Can: Electronica
lly Altered Photo Creates a Stir," Editor and
Publisher (April 29, 1989):
18-19. In "Consuming Images," The Public Mind:
Image and Reality in Amer
ica (PBS video, 1989), Bill Moyers refers to this
photo and asks, "If one
purpose of journalism is to give us a picture of
reality, is
this journalism, once the picture is altered?"
[17] See Naomi Wolf, Th
e Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used
Against Women (N
ew York: W. Morrow, 1991).
[18] D. Terry and D.L. Lasorda, "Ethical Imp
lications of Digital Imaging
in Photojournalism" (paper prese
nted at the annual meeting of AEJMC,
Washington, D.C., Aug. 1
989); see M. O'Connor, "Photography 2001," Photo
District New
s, Midwestern Edition, May 1988, p. 29.
|
