Point of View

TheDistortingMirror:EthicsandtheCamera

LouisW.Hodges

WashingtonandLeeUniversity

… Inthebeginning,therewerenowords.Assoonastherewassight,therewereimages.Imagesaremoreprimitive,natural,andprimordialthanalphabetsandwords.AsTravisLinn (1994)putsit: “Phonicsandimagesworkedforthousandsofyearsbeforealphabetsappeared,indeedmostofourhistory.Theyarethebasics,notonlyforusbutperhapsforallsentientspecies.” Atfirstimagesexistedinthemindonly,butlateronpeoplewereabletoreproducethemonthewallsofcaves.Herebeginspressphotography!Whenimagesinthemindweredrawnaspicturesonwalls,theartistbecameacommunicatortoanybodywhowouldlookandcouldunderstand.Andyouknowhowthestoryunfoldedfromthere:signs,symbols,paintings,architecture,music,words,presses,and,finally,cameras.Justthinkofit:Kodakbroughtourwholespeciesfullcirclebacktoimages.

Perhapsthatisallweneedtosayabouttheappealofpictures.Itisnotallweneedtosay,however,abouttheethicalissuesphotojournalists–bothbroadcastandprint–mustresolvethesedays.Inwhatfollowsweshallplayaroundalittlewithhumancommunicationthroughwordsandimages.Fromthatfoundationwedefinethemoralmissionoftheenterprisewecall “photojournalism.” Basedsolidlywithinthatmission,withitsspecificfunctionsandpurposes,ourthoughtscanturnmorenarrowlytothebehaviorofphotojournalists(photographersandtheireditors)astheygoaboutcarryingouttheirspecialmandate.Weshallexaminethetwomajormoralissuesthatarisewithinthewholeenterprise:objectivity/accuracy,andprivacy.Thefinalsectiontakesabriefglimpseatthemercurialnotionof “taste.” (Authors’ Note: “Photojournalist” referstobothprintandelectronic.By “viewer” wemeanthosewhoseepicturesinprintorelectronicmedia.)

TheCuriousNexusofImagesandWords

Ababy’sfirstvisualcomprehensionsconsistofshapesandcolors.Ontogenyrecapitulatesphylogeny!(We’renotkidding.Lookitup.)Justasimagescamefirstandwordssecondinspeciesevolution,sotootheycomefirstinindividualdevelopment.By “image,” ofcourse,wemeanapictureinthemindofanormalpersonthatincludesshapeandcolor,mostlybasedonsight.(Wedonotneedheretogointothequestionoftheroleoftheotherfoursensesintheformationofimages,butitisclearthattheyhavearole.Theblind,forexample,havepicturesoftheworldintheirheads,soweknowthatimageformationdoesnotdependsolelyupontheeye.)For(our)purposes…wearethinkingsimplisticallyofimagesasbeingthementalpicturesourmindcreatesuponseeingobjectsoutsidethemind.By “words”wemean,againsimplistically,languagethatinvolvesalphabets,writtenandoral.

Tothinkabouttheinterplayofwordandimageinhumanaffairsbogglesthemind.Threeobservationsareimportantandrelevantasafoundationforclarifyingthemoralmissionofphotojournalismasanenterprise.

First,throughpicturespeopleencountertheworlddirectlyandimmediately;wordsarearbitrarilycreatedandareonelevelofabstractionfromtheworldtheysymbolize.Imagesjusthappeninpeople,i.e.,peopledonotchoosethattheyhappen.Forexample,anencounterwithananimal,tree,ormountainisdirect,immediate,andinvoluntary;talkingandwritingabouttheanimal,tree,ormountainareindirect,intermediate,andvoluntary.Onedoesnothavetothinkinordertohaveimagesoftheworld,thoughoncetheimageiscreatedinthemindonecanthinkabouttheimage.(Notethathumansdonotthinkabouttheworlddirectly,onlyabouttheimagesoftheworldintheirheads.)Onceimagesarestoredinthemind,anindividualcanbyanactofwill “callthemup,” andsometimesonecandeletethem–thoughthatisdifficultforimagesthatareindeliblyplanted.

Becauseimagesareessentiallydirect,theymakeitpossibleforhumanstobecomeonewiththeworldinanalmostliteralsense.Inamystical–andmysterious–waytheyenablepeopleto “commune” –joinasone–withtheworldandtoidentifywithit.Inaway,theworldenterstheperson.DirectexperienceofthissortisnotunliketheBuddha’svisionoftheunityofallbeing.

Newsphotosareoftenmorepowerfulthanwrittenstoriesbecauseofthisdirectnessandimmediacy.Theycreateintheviewerapsychologicalsenseof “beingthere.”

Second,imagesaremoreuniversalthanlanguages.Witnessinternationalhighwaysignsthatareoftenword-free.Notethatsmilesandtearsonahumanfacehavemeaningsthattranscendparticularcultures.Peoplelearntheirmeaningthroughdirectencounterswithothers.Words,however,areculture-specific,andthatisaseriouslylimitingfactor.Perhapsthatispartofwhatpeoplemeanwhentheysay “apictureisworthathousandwords.”

Third,thoughtheirmessagesoverlap,picturesandwordscommunicatedifferentthings. Inconveyingfeelingandelicitingemotions(sympathy,anger,horror),picturesareusuallysuperiortowords,exceptfortheveryfinestwordsmithteamedwiththemostsensitivereader.Ontheotherhand,wordsareinherentlysuperiortopicturesincommunicatingconcepts,propositions,orideas.Thustherightwordscoupledwiththerightpicturescancommunicateideasaswellasstrongfeelingsaboutthoseideas.Awrittenstatementabouttheconceptoffreedom,forexample,cancarrygreatermeaningwhenitisaccompaniedbyapictureofnewlyreleasedhostages.

TheFunctionandPurposeofNewsPhotography

Forthesereasonsnewsphotographsarenotmereadjunctsorappendagesthatjustaccompanystories.Picturesareintegraltothelargerjournalisticfunctionoftellingpeopleabouttheirworld.Picturescangrabattentioninwaysthataleadparagraphcannot,andthatispartoftheirjournalisticpurpose.Buttheirmoreimportantcommunicativefunctionistotellastory,tocommunicatemeaning.Indoingso,though,picturesdependuponverbalexplanation,andthatiswhycutlinesareessential.

Itisinterestingtonotethatpartofthepoweroftelevisionnewsisitsthoroughintegrationofimageandword.Itisalsopartoftelevision’slimits,becausewhenthereisnovideo,televisionnewsorganizationsarereluctanttocoverthestory.

Takentogether,theseconsiderationsdefinetheroleofphotographyinthenewssetting.Thatleadstoastatementofthemoralmissionofphotojournalismasanenterprise:Themoralmissionofphotojournalismistoserveviewers’ needtoobtainatruthful,accurate,andobjectiveviewoftheworldinwhichtheylive.(Thereadershouldnoteandcompareitem3intheNationalPressPhotographersAssociation’sCodeofEthics,whichsays: “Itistheindividualresponsibilityofeveryphotojournalistatalltimestostriveforpicturesthatreporttruthfully,honestly,andobjectively.”)Thisstatement,whichyoushouldanalyzecarefullyandevaluatecritically,isthesolecriterionbywhichanyactcommittedbyaphotojournalistcanbejudgedtobemorallygoodorbad,rightorwrong.Aboveallelse,servetheviewer.Fromthatviewer-centeredmissionfollowallofthemoralguidesforbehaviorwithinphotojournalism.Forinstance,itispreciselybecauseofthislargermoralpurposethatphotojournalistsoughtneveralterthecontentofapictureinawaythatwoulddeceiveviewersabouttherelevantmessage.Thusthespecificmoralimperativeisbutaconcreteexpressionofmoraldutiesthatgrowoutofthegrandermission.Letusnowturntotwocategoriesintowhichphotojournalists’ dutiesshouldbedivided:dutiesofobjectivityandaccuracy,anddutiestohonorprivacy.

TheDutytoBeAccurateandObjective

Photojournalists,likeallnewsprofessionals,owetheirprimaryallegiancetotheviewers,theirclients.Viewersneedfromthem,firstandforemost,themostaccurateandobjectivedepictionoftheirworldthatispossible.Becauseallprofessionaljournalistshavepledgedthemselvestoserveviewerneeds,itfollowsthatphotojournalistshaveacceptedthedutytoprovidethataccurateandobjectivedepiction.Thatisoneofthemoralbasesofphotojournalism;itiswhatdefinesphotojournalismasamoralenterprise.

… Butjustwhatdotheterms “accurate” and “objective”mean?…Inphoto-communication, “accuracy” isobtainedwhenthepictureinthephotographer’smindistransferredaspreciselyaspossibletothemindoftheviewer.WalterLippmannobserved
(1965,pp.3–20)that “objectivity” isachievedwhenthepictureinthephotographer’smindconformsascloselyaspossibletothereal-worldobjectbeingpictured.Thisunderstandingoftheconceptspresupposescertaincommonsensenotionsofepistemology:Thehumaneffortto “know” istheefforttomaketheperceptionsofthemind(thesubject)conformascloselyaspossibletothethingknown(theobject).Thus,philosophically, “subjectivity” ofknowledgemeansthatperceptionsoftheworldoutsidethemindmaybedistortedbytheintrusionofpreconceptionsinsidethemind–preconceptionsheldbytheknower,thesubject. “Objectivity” ofknowledgemeansthattheinfluenceofthosepreconceptionsorpredilectionsisminimized…

Purelyobjectiveknowledgeisnotpossible.ImmanuelKantdemonstratedinTheCritiqueofPureReason(1899,pp.12–15)thatallknowledgeinvolvesbothasubjectandanobject,whichisthereasonknowledgecanneverbetotallyobjective.Thebestthehumanmindcandointherelentlessquestforobjectivity,therefore,istobeawareofsubjectivepredispositionsinordertominimizetheirdistortingeffectonknowledge.Thatawarenessisachievableifthephotojournalistcontinuallywondersaboutalternativewaysofviewingtheobjectstobepictured.Thephotojournalistwilltrytoknowhersubjectivedispositionsinordertoneutralizethemasmuchaspossible.

Justascompleteobjectivityisnotachievable,sotooistotalaccuracybeyondhumangrasp.Justasthephotographer,asaknowerorsubject,hasincompleteknowledgeoftheobjectsofphotographs,sotootheviewer,asknowerorsubject,canneverhavecompletelyobjectiveperceptionofpictures.Fromtheviewer’sperspective,thephotographitself,nottheevent-in-reality,istheobject;fromthephotographer’sperspective,eventsintheworldaretheobject.Thisverysimpleandcommonsensicalepistemology,showingasitdoestheunavoidablesubjectivityofknowledge,causesonetobeamazedthatphoto-communicationisasaccurateasitis.

AlteringPhotos

Thisepistemologyofsubjectandobjectisthephilosophicalbaseofthedebatesthatswirlaroundquestionsofdigitaltechnologyinnewsphotography.Philosophicallyspeaking,thenewtechnologyhaspresentednonewmoralissuesatall,butithasbroughttomindagainthelimitsofphotojournalismasanenterprise,andithastriggeredahighlyusefulmoralinquiry.Becauseithasnotintroducedanynewmoralissues,onewonderswhatallthefussisabout.

Photojournalistsandnewsorganizationsareremarkablyexercisedoverdigitalmanipulation.Thealarmissoloudonemightreasonablyconcludethattheskyisfalling!Herearesomeheadlinesandstatements:

  • “ElectronicPhotoManipulation:ManyAreDoingIt,andEditors,PhotojournalistsUrgeStrictEthicalGuidelinestoProtectCredibility.” (presstime,Feb.1992,pp.22–23)
  • “PhotographsthatLie:TheEthicalDilemmaofDigitalRetouching.” (Lasica,1989,p.22)
  • “WhenPhotographsLie:Advancesin ‘electronicimaging’ areassaultingthemeaningofthepicture.” (Alter,1990,p.44)
  • “DigitalEnhancing:JournalismCrisisintheMaking.” (Lambert,1991,p.55)
  • “Oncethedemonsofdigitalmanipulationarereleased,therewillbenoputtingthembackandourcredibilitywillbedead.” (Long,Aug.1990,p.14)Thealarmissoloudonemightreasonablyconcludethattheskyisfalling!

Digitalcapabilityhasobviouslyresurrectedtheolddebateaboutmanipulatingphotographicimages,thoughmanipulationitselfisbynomeansnew.AsShielaReaves(1990,p.44;quotealteredforclarity)says, “Photographicmanipulationisnotnew.It’sjustthatithasneverbeensoflawlessandfast.” RogerKarraker(1994)adds: “Fordecadeswe’vebeenteachingstudentsthatwordsaren’ttruth,thatstoriesareoneperson’sversionofevents,andthatthosewordsandstoriescanbeincomplete,biasedandevenwrong.Photographyhasoftenescapedthisdissection,undertheillusionthatitsomehowrepresentsan “objective” truth.Now,becauseofthetechnology,we’rebeingforcedtodowhatshouldhavebeendoneallalong:teachhowALLrepresentationsofrealityaresubjectiveandsusceptibletoomission,biasanderror.

Fromthebeginning,photographershavedoctoredphotographsbyusingavailabletechnology(airbrush,burn,dodge,crop,paste,etc.).Evenin1864(Lester,1991,pp.95–97),askilledtechnicianpastedPresidentLincoln’sheadatopJohnCalhoun’sbody.AttachingOprahWinfrey’sheadtoAnn-Margret’sbody,onTVGuide’scover(Aug.26–Sept.1,1990),isnewonlyinthatitwasdonedigitallyandwithoutflaw.

IsDigitalDoctoringReallyDifferent?

Digitizingisnottrulyrevolutionaryexceptintwoaspectsoftheenterprise:Itopensnewpossibilitiesforclarifyingandsharpeningmeaninginpictures,anditmakesitmoredifficulttocatchscoundrelswhoalterphotosinwaysthatdeceiveviewers.Thenewtechnologyshouldhavenoeffectatallonthefirstandthirdstepsinthethree-stageprocessbywhichpicturesgetontothepageorscreen.Thosesteps,ordecision-makingpoints,are:(1)takingpictures,atthescene;(2)doctoringpictures,inthedarkroom(nowcomputerroom);and(3)selecting/placingpictures,inthenewsroom.Thoughtheyreflectnomoralnovelty,changesareimmenseinwhatcanhappenatsteptwo,betweenclickingtheshutterandrollingthepressesortape.(Wewilltalkaboutstepsoneandthreelater,butfornowletuslookatsteptwo.)

Thenewdigitaldoctoringisdifferentfrompre-digitalmanipulationsinthreesignificantrespects:(1)Computersenablephotojournaliststomanipulateimagesinwaysthatonlyrecentlywereimpossible.Theycannowmovewholeobjectswithinasinglephotograph(e.g.,thepyramids),addobjectstoit(e.g.,Oprah’sheadtoAnn-Margret’storso),anddeleteobjectsfromit(e.g.,theCokecanfromthecoffeetable).(2)Journalistscannowdothosethingswithsuchskillthattheirmanipulationsareundetectable.And, (3)manipulationsnolongerrequirethephotographer’sdarkroomskillsbutthoseofpeoplewhopossesshigh-techcomputerliteracy.(Withdigitaltechnology,photographerscouldlosemuchoftheircontroloverthecontentoftheirpictures,andthatmaypartiallyexplaintheirwidespreadknee-jerkreactiontodigitizing.)

ManipulationItselfNottheProblem

Thesechangesinthetechnologicalabilitytodoctorphotoshave,totheastonishmentofsomescholars,lednewsphotographerstocondemnmanipulationitself.Manipulationissimplynottheissue.Whatisatissueis,asithasalwaysbeeninphotojournalismethics,whentomanipulateandforwhatreasons.

AsJohnLong,photoeditoratTheHartfordCourantandpastpresidentofNPPA,hascorrectlynoted(Aug.1990,p.14), “theprincipleswhichhaveguidedusfor150yearsinthepracticeofsettingupphotos,dodgingandburning,croppingandlensselectionarethesameasthosewenowfaceintheelectronicNewWorld.” Thoseguidingprinciplesarecontained,atleastincatecheticalform,inNPPA’sCodeofEthics (1948).Photojournalistsmustnowdiscoverhowtheexistingstandardto “reporttruthfully,honestlyandobjectively” shouldguidebehaviorinthedigitalage.Thatisreallyarathersimpletask–nobigdeal.

Existingmoralstandards,includingtruthfulness,accuracy,honesty,andobjectivity,derivefromthelargermoralpurposeofjournalism:toservetheviewers’ needtoknowtheirworldinawaythatisasfreeofjournalisticmodificationordistortionaspossible.Anewsphotoisa “good” photo,morallyspeaking,onlyifitdoesthatforviewers.Itfollowslogicallythatthedoctoringofpictures–digitallyorotherwise–isneithergoodnorbadinitself;alterationisgoodifthemanipulations–nomatterthetechniqueused–succeedindepictingtheworldasforcefullyandaccuratelyaspossible.Manipulationismorallybadonlyifitdistortsreality.

NPPA’sPosition

TheNPPA’s“StatementofPrinciple”(NPPA,1991)acknowledgesthepointwhenitstatesinitsfirstparagraphthat “itiswrongtoalterthecontentofaphotographinanywaythatdeceivesthepublic.” (Emphasisadded)ButitseemsthatNPPAitselfisoutoffocuswhenitsStatementalsodeclares: “Alteringthecontentofaphotograph,inanydegree,isabreachoftheethicalstandards.” (Emphasisadded)Thesecondstatementdeclaresthattheactofalteringiswrong.Thefirstdeclaresthatdeceivingthepubliciswrong,anditimpliesthatalteringwhichdoesnotdeceiveisacceptable.(ContradictoryrulesindocumentslikeNPPA’sStatementarenotatalluncommonbecausetheyhavetobevotedonbyagroup.Fortunately,suchself-contradictionsusuallygetclearedupovertime.)

Itismorallyindefensible,nottomentionpracticallycounterproductive,toassertthatalterationitselfiswrong,becausephotographsareunavoidably “altered,” mostlyforgoodreasons,ateverystepintheprocess.Itisindefensiblephilosophicallybecauseitisarulethatinmanycaseswouldfrustratetheveryviewer-centeredpurposeforhavingpictures.Alterationofwhatthecameracaughtisoftennecessarytofocustheviewer’sattentionandclarifythepicture’smessage.Anexample:WhenthespaceshuttleChallengerblewupin1986,somepapersmadethehazyskybluerandthustherocketcontrailsbrighter.Thathelpedviewersseemoresharplyandclearlywhathadactuallyhappened.Othernewspapersfrowneduponthealterationforreasonsthatnonearticulatedconvincingly.

GoodAlteration

Perhapsanotherexampleofagoodalterationwouldsharpenthepoint.Supposeaphotographerreturnstotheshoponlytodiscoverthatsomeextraneousobject,suchaselectricalwires,distractstheviewerfromapicture’smainmessage.Thewiresrunacrossthepicturejustabovethepresident’shead.Digitalremovalofthosewireswould “alterreality,” insomesenseofcourse,but,moreimportantly,removingthemwouldavoiddistractingreadersandwouldallowthemessagetogetthroughmoreclearly.Itisnotthepicture’spurposetocallattentiontowiresthatcluttercitystreets.Hadthephotographernoticedthewiresbeforeshooting,thesimplesolutionwouldhavebeentomoveafewfeettoeliminatetheobtrusivewires.Tohavedonesowouldhavebeentomanipulatethephotowhiletakingit,i.e.,atsteponeintheprocess.Butbackintheshopthesamegoodpurposecannowbeachievedonlybymovingsomethingelse,pixelsonascreen.Bymakingthisalterationpossible,digitaltechnologyhasexpandedfreedomtocommunicatemoreeffectively.Thereisobviouslynomoraldifferencebetweenmovingthecamerawhileshootingandmovingthewireswhileediting.Thedifferenceisonlyinthemechanismofachievingthesamegoal.

UnacceptableReasonsforAltering

Nevertheless,awordofcautionisinorderhere.Photographersareoftentemptedtoaltercontentforotherreasonsthantheonewehavegiven.Somemayjustwanttotesttheirmanipulativeskills;othersmayjustwanttomakethepicture “prettier.” Forthisreason,newsphotographers’ predilectionoughttobeagainstalteration. “Don’talternewsphotos”shouldbetherule,providedthateditorsrecognizethatthereareexceptions.Prohibitionofallalteration,however,isamorallyunacceptablestandardbecauseitsometimesworksagainstthemoralmissionofeffectiveandaccuratephoto-communication.Suchastandardalsoallowsphotographerstodeceivethemselvesaboutchoicestheyregularlymaketoobtaintheresultstheywant.

What,then,wouldbeamoreacceptablestandard?Weproposethis: “Journalistsshouldalternewsphotographs,usinganyavailablemeans,onlyinwaysthatenhancecommunicationofthemeaningthatthepictureisintendedtoconvey.” Itisdeceptionofthereaderaboutmeaning,notalterationofwhatthephotographersawthroughtheviewfinder,thatmustbeavoided.Inthepast,thisstandardiswhatguided,allowed,andevenrequired,useofalltechnologiesthenavailable.Thesamestandardshouldbeappliedinthenewdigitalworld.

AlterationandObjectivity

Letusnowtiequestionsofalterationtotheissueofobjectivity.Photojournalistswhoalterpictures,bywhatevermeansortechniques,alwaysdosointermsoftheirownsubjectivestandards.Fromstarttofinish,photographsareartisticcreationsofphotographers,i.e.,ofhumanbeingswhosevalues,goals,skills,andknowledgeshapetheentireenterprise.Becausephotographsarecreatedbyhumanbeings,theyaresubjectivefromthegroundup.Theyareinpartalsoobjectiveiftheyproposetoreflectevents-in-reality,asalltruenewsphotosdo.

Thesubjectivesideofphotojournalism,atallofthethreestepsintheprocess,iseasytorecognize.Someonehastodecidewhatthingstocover:fires,wrecks,ribbon-cuttings,orriots.Ideally,thedecisiononwhattocoverrestsuponanothersubjectivedetermination:Weoughttocoverthosethingsthatareimportantandinterestingtoviewers.Thatchoicehavingbeenmade,somebodythenmustchooselens,color,cameraangle,shutterspeed,framing,etc.,allofwhicharetechnicalchoicesthataredrivenbythephotographer’spurpose(whichissubjectivebydefinition).Backinthedarkroom(nowoftenthecomputerroom)somebody,i.e.,some “subject,” mustmakeothertechnicaljudgments,againbaseduponmoralpurpose,abouthowto “doctor” capturedimagesofthatlittlesliceofrealitysothatitwill “tellthestory” thejournalistwantstocommunicate.Theprofessionalquestionsare:Whatcanwedotomakethisphotomorecompelling,moreaccurateaboutthepointwewanttomake,moretrulyreflectiveofthesceneweareshowing?Inthefinalstep,inthenewsroom,editors(readsubjects)addtheirownsubjectivejudgmentsaboutwhichphotosorvideotorunandaboutwheretoplacethemonthepageorinthenewscast.

Whatwithallthatsubjectivitylyingaround,itisastonishingthatanythingevenapproachingobjectivityevergetsintonewsphotos.Onemajorconstraintonsubjectivity,ofcourse,istheevent-in-realitybeingreported.NojournalistwhomakesanewsphotographofthepresidentmeetingwiththePopewouldeverpublishapictureinwhichAnn-MargretreplacedthePope.Anotherconstraintonsubjectivityisthatwhilemoraljudgmentsthemselvesareinfactsubjective,theycanbe,andoughttobe,groundedinhumanexperienceoftheobjectiveworld.Forexample,oneknowsthatthejournalist’smoralimperativetobeaccurateisvalidbecauseexperienceoftheobjectiveworldhasshownthatinaccuracyhurtstheveryviewersjournalistswanttoserve.Sothepointisthatphotojournalistsdotheirthinginthecontextofawonderfullycomplexmixofsubjectivityandobjectivity.Thosewhodonotrecognizethatfactdeceivethemselvestothedetrimentofthemselvesandthepublicstheyserve.

Thequestionofobjectivityinnewsphotographybringsustoanotherkindofsituationinwhichobjectivityisthreatened:staging,or,moregenerally,anyformofphotographers’ participationinthescenetheyareshooting.

Staging

Theverypresenceofaphotographeronthesceneinevitablychangesit,butifthephotographerpurposefullyaltersthescenebeingphotographeditiscalled “staging,” apracticethatisalmostuniversallycondemnedbyphotojournalists.Forexample,ataLosAngelesfiresceneinthefallof1993,MikeMeadows,veteranphotographeroftheLosAngelesTimes,shotapowerfulphotoofafirefightercoolinghisheadwithwaterfromaswimmingpool.Thehouseburnedbrightlyinthebackground.ItwasPulitzerqualityphotography.Thehitchwasthatthenewspaperfoundthatitwas “staged,” i.e.,thefirefighter,MikeAlves,saidthatMeadowshadsuggestedhegotothepoolandpourwateronhishead.TheTimescanceledplanstoenterthepictureinthePulitzercompetition,suspendedMeadowsforaweek,andtransferredhimtoanon-editorialjob.Callingthepicturea “fabrication,” photodirectorLarryArmstrongsaid, “Weregarditasextremelyserious.Thisisafiringoffense …Whenyoumanipulatethesituation,youmanipulatethenews.” Headded: “Itwasprobablyoneoftheworstdaysofmylife.” (Kurtz,1994)

ArmstrongandtheTimesfollowedtheconventionalwisdom.Butistheconventionalwisdomwiseandmorallydefensible?Wethinknot.Itisunrealbecause,asintheTimes’ case,theconventionoftendeniesreadersaccesstophotosthatshowthemanimportantimageofasliceoflifeasthephotojournalistwantedtoshowit.Alves’ coolinghisheadwasaperfectlyrealisticandnaturalthingforhimtodo,somethinghewouldhavedoneonhisownhadhethoughtofit.AlvesfreelychosetodoasensiblethingonceMeadowshadsuggestedit,andMeadowscapturedhimactuallydoingit.Therewasnodeception,eventhoughtheexactscenewouldnothavehappenedhadthephotographernotbeenthere.Itisdifficult,therefore,tounderstandthemoralreasoning(thereseemstohavebeennoneinthiscase)thatwouldjustifykillingthepicture,whichthenewspaperwouldhavedonebeforepublicationhadeditorsknownofMeadows’ role.Thisoneappearstobeyetanotherknee-jerkreactionbaseduponrigidobedienceoftheorthodoxrules.Readersaredeprived.

TheSearchforStandards

Whatoughttobethestandardonphotographers’ involvement,includingstaging,inthescenetheyphotograph?Effortstoestablishastandardshouldtakeanumberofthingsintoaccount.First,thepredispositionreflectedinthecurrentconventionalwisdomissound:Asageneralrule,photographersshouldtrytoavoidinfluencingthescene.But,second,photoeditorsshouldwakeuptothefactthattheverypresenceofaphotographeraffectspeopleonthescene.Peoplechangebehaviorwhentheyknowthattheirpictureisbeingtaken,anditisdifficulttohidecameras,especiallyTV.Thatmeansthatphotographers’ influenceonthesceneisunavoidable,onceagaindemonstratingthephilosophical “principleofindeterminacy”:Itisnotpossibletotakethefullmeasureofanythingbecausetheactofmeasuringaltersthethingmeasured,albeitsometimesinfinitesimally.Third,thereasonforphotosistohelpreadersunderstandthescene.Incircumstanceswhereanobjective,accurate,andimportantstorycanbetoldonlybystaging,itismorallyproper,andsometimesobligatory,forphotographerstodoso.TheclassiccasethatprovesthepointisthestoryofJoeRosenthal,theAPphotographerwhoshottheraisingoftheflagonIwoJimaduringWorldWarII.ThefirstpictureoftheceremonywasmadebyaMarinephotographer,StaffSgt.LouisLowery,severalhoursbeforeRosenthalarrived.Rosenthal’sfirstpicture,theoneeveryoneknows,camefromareenactmentoftheceremony,andincludedalargeflagRosenthalhimselfrequestedtoreplacethesmalleroneintheoriginalphotograph.(Lester,1991, p.114)Thepicturewaspublishedasanewsphotothatinspiredageneration.

Oneexampleofwhereitisobviouslynotpropertostageorreenactasceneisinriotcoverage.Aphotographerwhomissedashotofriotersthrowingbricksthroughstorefrontwindowsshouldnotaskthemtodoitagainforthecamera.Thepoint,ofcourse,isthattheconventionalorthodoxyistoorule-boundtodomoraljusticetothenewsphotographer’sjournalisticrole.

PhotoIllustrations,NotNews

Timemagazine’sJune24(1994)cover,adigitallydarkenedpolicebookingshotofO.J.Simpson,precipitatedanincrediblyheatedreactionfromphotojournalistsaroundthecountry.TheNPPAe-mailontheInternetfairlyhummedforoveraweekwithnegativereactionsaboutwhatTimehaddone.…Respondingtothewholewaveofcriticism,JamesR.Gaines,Time’smanagingeditor,wrote(1994)thatthecoverillustration “liftedacommonpolicemugshottothelevelofart,withnosacrificetotruth.” Peopleatthemagazineobviouslyviewedthecoverasa “photoillustration,” which is whattheycalleditintheircover-descriptiontagline.PhotojournalistsontheInternetdebatedwhether “photoillustration” meansanythingtoreaders,usuallydecidingthatitisaninadequatetermtoexplainwhatwentonwithaphotograph.Gainesdefinesthetermas “usingphotographyasthebasisforworkinanothermedium,inthiscaseacomputerizedimage.” Perhapsitwouldbeaccuratetocallit “photographicart,” butthatwouldnothelpmuchbecauseallphotographyisart.

Thecentralissuehere,astheTimecoverdebatesobeautifullyshows,iswhetherdifferentmoralstandardsshouldbeemployedforphoto-manipulationofnon-newsphotographs.Shouldmagazinecovers,evenonnewsmagazines,meetthesamestandardsofobjectivityasphotosinthenewsstory?Wehaveheardnocompellingreasontobelievethattheyshould.Thepurposeofcoversistograbattention,isitnot?Mostpeopleseemtothinkso.Inthiscase,Timecouldhavesavedalotofinkhaditsimplypointedoutthat “ourcoverisourownalteredversionofapolicemugshot.” Thatisalittleclearerthan “photoillustration.”

ItmatterslittleforourpurposeswhetherTimesteppedoversomemoralline.Whatdoesmatteristoinvitethereadertodecidewhetherdifferentstandardsoughttoapplytonewspicturesandillustrations.Wethinkthatstandardsofaccuracyandobjectivityshouldbemorestrictfortheformer.Italsomattersthatnewsphotographersbereminded,astheTimebrouhahashouldhave,thatallphotographsaretheproductsofartists.Theyarealwaysinterpretationsofreality,notrealityitself,andforthatreasoncanneverbeobjectiveinanypuresense.

WhataboutPrivacy?

Havingexaminedsomeoftheissuessurroundingphotojournalists’ dutiesregardingaccuracyandobjectivity,letusnowlookattheothersetofduties,thoseinvolvingprivacy.Theissueofprivacyplacesphotojournalistsunavoidablyinmoralconflict.Theyowecertaindutiestosubjectsofphotographsandcompetingdutiestoviewers.Sometimessubjectsdonotwishtobephotographed,ortohavetheirpicturepublished,especiallyintimesoftrouble,tragedy,ordeath.Viewers,however,needonoccasiontobeinformedofeventsthatproducegrief.Itisoftendifficulttomeetthelegitimateneedfornewsandtheequallylegitimateneedtogrieveinprivate,freefromthepenetratingeyeofthecamera.Wecansuggestnomoralrulethatwillresolvethisconflictinallparticularcases,butwecanexaminethemoralconflictandpointtosomeoftheconcernsphotojournalistsoughttoconsiderinparticularcases.

We…repeatAlanWestin’s(1967)definitionofprivacyasamoralconcept.Privacyis “theclaimofindividuals,groups,orinstitutionstodetermineforthemselveswhen,how,andtowhatextentinformationaboutthemiscommunicatedtoothers.” Picturesareincludedinthisdefinitionbecausetheycontainvisual “information.”

Privacyissuescometotheforeattwopointsinthephotojournalisticprocess:first,atthepointoftakingpictures,and,second,atthepointofpublishingthem.Whenphotographerstakepictures,theethicsofprivacyinvolvestheissueofintrusion.Whenpublishingpictures,theprivacyissueisdisseminationofprivateinformation. “Intrusion” and “publicationofprivatefacts”arelegalterms(Sanford,1987,pp.428and441),partoftheprivacytort,buttheyarehelpfulinmoralanalysisaswell.Lookatintrusionfirst.

PrivacyattheScene

Photographersareoftendispatchedtoscenesoftragedy,andtheyfrequentlywitnessmomentsofpersonalgriefthatfollowintheaftermath.Mostofthetime,peopleinmomentsofgriefdonotwanttobephotographedandtheybelievetheyhavearightnottobe.Theydohavethatmoralright,andsometimesalegalone.Theyalsodonotwanttohavetocopewithstrangersintheirmidstcarryingcameras,strangerswhobytheirpurposeanddemeanorseemindifferenttotheconcernsofthosewhogrieve.Sotheverypresenceofnewsphotographersisintrusive;theyarefrequentlynotwanted.ThatwasdemonstratedinthefamousBakersfield,California,case.Achildhaddrownedandhiswholefamilyhadgatheredaroundhisbody,whichwaslyinginanopenbodybag.NewsphotographerJohnHartewasattemptingtoshootthescenewhensheriffsandevenstrangersstandingbysoughttoprotectthefamilyfromtheintrusionofHarteandhislens.Hartegotthepicture,butreadersthroughoutthecountrywerehorrifiedattheintrusionuponthefamily’sprivatemoment.(Goodwin,1987,p.212)

IntrusiononGrief

Yetthedesireofnewsorganizationstoobtainphotographsofwhatsomehavecalled “ultimategrief” (Sherer,“Bibliography,” 1990,p.10)seemsinsatiable.Thatdesiregrowsinpartfromthepublic’smorbidcuriosityabouttragedyanddeath,butitalsocanreflectarealneedincivilsocieties.Itisimportantforhumanbeingstoexperienceempathyandtosharegrief.Itisimportantalsoforpeopleinacivilsocietytoberemindedofthefrailtyofthehumancondition: “TherebutforthegraceofGodgoI.” Thesearecivilizingforcesthathelptobuildcharacterandnurturecommunity,sothereisalegitimatepublicinterestintragicscenes.

Muchofthetimeitispossibleforsensitivephotographerstotakepicturesinwaysthatareonlyminimallyintrusive.ThefuneralofslainVirginiaStateTrooperJerryHineson February26,1989,illustrates this.HineswasburiedinacemeterythatisownedandmaintainedbyaPresbyterianchurch.Itwasnotapublicplace.Thefamilyatfirstrequestedthattherebenonewscoverage,buttheyfinallyagreedtoallowtelevisioncamerasifthephotographerswouldshootfromaspecifiedspotsomedistancefromthegravesite.HundredsofpoliceofficersfromallovertheEasternSeaboardattended,asdidhundredsofHines’ friends.Allbutonetelevisionphotographergladlyhonoredthefamily’srequestandshotfromadistance.Onecameraman,fromabureau75milesaway,eitherdidnotgetthemessageorinsensitivelywalkedaroundthegravesiteshootingthecasketandfamilyduringtheceremony.(Thesceneofthatcameramanmadeitontonewscastsofotherstationsshootingfromadistance,nodoubtcontributingtotheviewingpublic’sperceptionthatjournalistsareunfeelinganimals.)KeithHumphrey(1994),veteranreporter/anchorforWDBJ-TV,Roanoke,whoalsocoveredtheeventfromthedistantspot,correctlyobservedthat “mostofthetimeitisnotnecessarytogetthatclose.”

PhotographersshouldalwayshonorrequestsliketheHinesfamilymadeunlesstherearecompellingpublicinterestreasonsnottodoso.(Wehavetriedbuthavebeenunabletoimaginewhatpublicinterestcouldbethatcompelling.)Themoralbasisforsucharuleliesinthefundamentalmoraldictumofrespectforpersonsasendsinthemselves.Itrestsalsointheincreasinglyrecognizedmoralrightofpeopleinacrowdedworldtobe “letalone.”

Photographers’ DefensiveArguments

Manyphotographers,ofcourse,donotacceptthatmoralstandard.Partofthereasonisthattheyliveunderheavypressurefromtheirnewsorganizations.Theireditorsarethemselvesunderpressurefromtheirsuperiorstohavephotographersgetthepicturesandworrylateraboutwhethertousethem.Competitivepressurescomefrompeerswhovalueintimatephotographyasanendinitself.Theserealitiesoftheirworkenvironmentpushphotographersinthedirectionofpayinglessattentiontosensitiveissuesofprivacyandmoreto “gettingthejobdone.”

Thepredictableresponseofmanyphotographersistoengageinvariousrationalizations,notreasons,thatareintendedtojustifymoralinsensitivitytopeople’sneedforprivacy.Oneresponseistoassertthat “I’mjustdoingmyjob.” Thelogichereisthat “Iamnottheoneatfaultforintrudingintoyourprivatemoments;mybosses,whodefinemyjob,arethemeanguys.Iambutapassiveinstrumentintheirhands,andthusinnocentofanywrongdoing.” ThisisthesamedefensivelogicusedfollowingWorldWarIIbyAdolphEichmanwhenansweringtohisculpabilityinsendingthousandsofJewstoNazigaschambers.Itwon’tworkforphotographerseither.

Aseconddefensiveargument,anothermererationalizationthatbegsthemoralquestion,states(Sherer,“Ethical Issues,” 1990, p.24)that “Ifpeopleareinapublicplace,they’refairgame.” Thatismoralnonsense,ofcourse.Itistruethatunderthelawpeoplewhoarephotographedinapublicplacedonothavethelawoftrespasstoprotectthem,buttobeinapublicplacedoesnotdiminishthestrengthofaperson’smoralclaimtoameasureofprivacy.Moreover,thereissomelegaldoctrinethatwouldprotectprivacyinpublicplaces.Federalcourts,forinstanceprotectedJacquelineKennedyOnassisfromintrusionsbyphotographerRonGalellaeveninpublicplaces.(Galellav.Onassis,487F.2d986[2dcir.1973])

Finally,somephotographersargue(Sherer,“Ethical Issues,” 1990, p.25)thatoneought “shootnowandeditlater.” Itiscertainlytrue,ofcourse,thatifyoudonotshootnow,youhavenothingtoeditlater.Ineditinglateritispossibletoconsiderthesecondkindofprivacyinvasion,thepublicationofprivatefacts.Butthatbegsthequestionofintrusion,themoralquestionthathastobeconfrontedatthesceneofprivatemoments.Thisexcuseisused(Marks,1987,p.19)togetthephotographeroffthemoralhookentirelybecausephotographersusuallydonothavethefinalsayintheeditingprocess.Thefactthatphotographersemployexcusesliketheseisevidencethattheyhaveamajorstakeinprivacy,andthattheyareawareofit.Onewonders,therefore,whyself-interestsoseldompromptssensitivitytoprivacy,especiallyatthesceneandinthephysicalpresenceofpeoplewhoarehurting.Marksmayhaveatleastpartoftheanswerwhenhewrites(1987,p.19): “Thetelevisionnewsphotographerhasabuilt-insenseofdetachment.Thisisapersonwhospendshiscareerwatchinglifeonatwo-inchblack-and-whitetelevisionset.” Evenso,newsphotographersshouldhavesomesenseofhowtheirrudenessandinsensitivitycauseharmtothemselvesandtotheprofession.Thepublicperceptionofjournalists,especiallyphotographers,isthattheyoftenbehavelikewolvesatafreshkill.Thatishardlysurprisingwhentheyareseenontelevisionscreenspushingmicrophonesinthefaceofgrievingvictims.Thereseemstobeagrowingpublicbacklash(Prato,1994,p.48)thatisgettingattentionamongphotojournalistsandintheirnewsrooms.

PrivacyandDecisionstoPublish

Weturnnexttothesecondlevelofmoralchoiceandprivacyinnewsphotography,decisionsaboutwhatimagestomakepublic,wheretheyshouldappearinthenewspaperornewscast,andwhy.Sofarasprivacyisconcerned,atthisstagetheissueisnolongerintrusion(asitisintakingpictures)butpublicationofprivatefacts.Atthislevelmuchlargernumbersofpeoplehaveastakeintheoutcome…Whenpicturesarebeingtaken,thestakeholdersarethephotographerandthesubject.Indecisionstopublish,thestakeholdersincludethephotographer,photoeditors,subjectsandthoseclosetothem,thenewsorganization,viewers,and,ultimately,thegeneralpublic.Thesedecisionspotentiallyaffectthelivesofcountlesshumanbeings,ofteninenduringways.(DoestheimageofPennsylvaniatreasurerBuddDwyerwitha.357Magnuminhismouthjustbeforeheblewhisheadofflingerinyourmind?Doesithauntyou?)

Thefirstmoralconcern,thepersonalperspectiveofdecisionmakers,isoneofcharacter:Whenphotoeditorsaremakingdecisionsaboutpublication,itisvitalthattheybeawareoftherealhumanbeingswhowillbeaffectedbytheirchoices.Theycannotknowwhatspecificindividualstheyaffect,ofcourse,andforthatreasonitiseasytoforgetpeopleandtoseethesechoicesasmerelyimpersonal “professional” decisions.Theonlyantidotetothatmorallyescapistmentalityisconstantattentiontoone’sowncharacterinwaysthatwillpreventthewitheringofthevirtues:servicetoviewers,respectforsubjectsandtheirprivacy,andempathytowardhumanbeingswhohavesuffered.

Themoralframeworkofdecisionsaboutpublicationisthesameasforothermoralchoicesinjournalism.Itconsistsofthetensionbetweentwomoralcommitments:(1)toserveviewersand(2)topreventavoidableharmtopeopleinthenews.Correctlyunderstood,thisisatension,notacontradiction,anditordinarilydoesnotcallforaneither/orjudgment,asmanyeditorsliketosuppose.Itisnotatruedilemma,damnedifyoudoanddamnedifyoudon’t.Thesituationoftensionbetweengoodgoalscallsforcreativesolutionsthatwillachievebothgoalspassablywell.Journalistswhoremainawareofthattensionseldommessupmorally.Inordertokeepthattensionalive,whenphotojournalistsaremakingjudgmentsaboutpublicationtheyshouldaskthemselvesthesequestions:(1)Howisthispicturelikelytoaffectviewers?Aretheresoundreasonsthatviewersshouldseetheseimages,andcanwearticulatewhatthosereasonsare?(2)Howitislikelytoaffectsubjectsandpeopleclosetothem?Willpublicationcauseanguishorotherhurt?(3)Arewesurethattheneedsofviewerstrulyoutweighharmtosubjectsinthisparticularcase?(4)Willviewersperceivethispublicationas “inbadtaste”?Eachofthesequestionsraisesfurtherquestionsthatindividualsandnewsroomscananswerfortheirownshops.

TheUbiquitousQuestionof “Taste”

Allofthesemoralissuesinvolvingaccuracy,objectivity,deception,manipulation,andprivacyarecentraltoseriousanalysisoftheethicsofphotojournalism. “Taste” isdifferent.Thoughseriousethicalanalysisofthesubjectisnotpossible,questionsoftasteinnewsphotographyarewhatviewersmostfrequentlycomplainabout.Inrecentinformalconversationswithnewsombudsmenitbecameapparentthatthereisashortlistoftopicsthatpeopleraiseabouttaste:dying(uncoveredbodies,blood,momentofdeath,grieffollowingdeath),sex(nudity,suggestiveposes,exploitationoffemales),andsuffering(scenesoftorture,mutilation,andinjuredpeopleinwreckedcars).Itisnotclearjustwhythesearetherecurringtopics,unless,ofcourse,itisthateachinvolvesaspectsofthebasiccondition.Thepublicseemstoconsiderthemmattersoftaste,notofmorality.

Isthereanythingrationaltosayabouttaste?Yes,onethingonly:tasteisnon-rational.Peopledonotdecidetolikeicecream;theyjustlikeit!Questionsoftasteinphotojournalismareimportant,buttheyarenotsusceptibletoreasonedanalysis.Thereisnorationalaccountingfortastebecausetaste,unlikemorality,liesonlyinthepaletteofthetaster.Inmoraldiscourse,onemustgivedefensiblereasonsfordeclaringsomethingrightorwrong:Somebehaviors–e.g.,torturinginnocentpeople–canbeshown,throughreasonedargument,tobewrong,andanysensiblepersonacknowledgesittobewrong.Inmoralanalysisitispossibletocarryonmeaningfulargumentsandinquiriesintocompetingjudgments.Themeredeclarationofamoraljudgmentisneverenough,nevertheendofdiscourse.Inmattersoftaste,however,noneofthosethingsaretrue.Whensomeonesays, “Ilikeanchovies,” or “Thatphotoisoffensiveandinbadtaste,” thatpersonisdeclaringthingsaboutherinnerself,notsomethingaboutanchoviesorphotographs.Suchstatementsareradicallyunlikemoralstatementsbecausenoonecandisputethem,andthecaseisclosed.

Individualtastesinbeauty,food,smell,itchingandscratching,andevennewsphotosmaybe “acquired” or “learned,” buttheycanneverberationally “chosen.” Thoughyoumaychoosetotrytodevelopatasteforit,youdonotchoosetolikepeanutbutter!Eitheryoudooryoudon’t,andthat’sit.Becauseindividualtastesdiffer,thephotojournalistwhotriestopredictwhetherotherswilljudgeaphototobetastelessisinanimpossiblesituation.Photojournalistsmayregardapictureasbeingtasteful,whilemanyviewersmayseeitasoffensive.Andtasteschangelikeshiftingsands.JohnHultenggotitrightwhenhewrote(1985,p.48), “Mannersandmoresalwayshavebeenchangeable,andnevermorethaninourpresentdaywhenthepassageofahalfdozenyearscanbringradicalchange …” In1984eventheP-word(penis)becameacceptable.ThankstoJohnWayneBobbitt,whosenamebecameahouseholdwordin1993whenhiswife,Lorena,croppedhispeniswithakitchenknife,eventheP-wordisnowacceptable.Howcanyoupossiblypredict,thesedays,whatotherswillfinddistasteful?Youcannot.Inanefforttodoso,journalistshavegraspedatthestrawthatsomecallthe “baconandeggs”test(orchooseyourownbreakfast):Ifitmightmakeasensitivereaderupchuckinthebreakfastnook,don’tpublishit.Thatruledoesnothelpmuch,becausesomeviewersnauseatemoreeasilythanothers.Besides,therearetimeswhensegmentsoftheworldaresosickandbloodythatpeopleoughttobesickened.

ToOffendorNottoOffendTaste?

Thatraisesaninterestingmoralissue:Dopeoplehaveamoralobligationtoothersnottobeaestheticallyoffensive?Theanswerissimpleandclear:Sometimes.Atothertimespeople,particularlyjournalists,havetheaffirmativemoraldutytooffendtaste.Therearetworeasons:First,objectivity.Journalistswhoarecommittedtoarealisticorobjectivedepictionoftheworld–asallresponsiblejournalistsare–havethedutytorevealtheworldasitis,wartsandall.Ifthereal-worldsceneisdistasteful,sobeit;runit.Picturesof “distasteful” scenesarenotnecessarily “inbadtaste.” Second,deception.Journalistshaveneitherauthoritynorsufficienttalenttosanitizetheworldforviewers.Tryingtocleanupimagesforconsumptionatbreakfastistoengageindeception,amoralno-noinjournalismifthereeverwasone.Picturesofpitiful,emaciated,fly-covered,andstarvingchildreninEthiopia,ashorribleastheywere,arousedtheworldtoaction.Hereinliesthepositivemoraldutytooffendtasteiftheoccasioncallsforit,viewercomplaintsbedamned.

Theothersideofthecoinisthatitisnevermorallyacceptabletoshowbadtasteinordertosensationalize,toexploiteitherthepeopleinpicturesorthosewhoseethem.Editorsareproperlyconcernedaboutpublishingpicturesthatinvitecomplaintsabouttaste,buttheycaneasilyrecognizethemoraldifferencebetweenpublishingtosensationalizeandpublishingtoinformandarouseindignationoverinjustice.Itisrarelyadifficultcall.

SummaryConclusion

Webegan…byrecallingtheroleofvisualcommunicationintheevolutionofthehumanspecies,andfromthattotheuseofvisualsincontemporaryjournalism.Thefocusnarrowedaswelookedintosomeguidingaxioms:accuracy/objectivity,andprivacy.Weendedwithtaste,theissuethatviewersmostcommonlycomplainabout.Withinthoseboundariesyoucanworkoutforyourselfthemoralrules,principles,andpracticesbywhichyouwanttogovernyourownconductasa photojournalist.That’saworthwhileandexcitingventure.Goforit!

References

Alter, Jonathan. “When Photographs Lie.”Newsweek, July 30, 1990, 44–45.

Gaines, James R. “To Our Readers,” Time, July 4, 1994.

Goodwin, H. Eugene. Groping for Ethics in Journalism. 2nd ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1987.

Hulteng, John L. The Messenger’s Motives: Ethical Problems of the News Media. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985.

Humphrey, Keith. By telephone, June 14, 1994.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Rev. ed. Translated by J. M. D. Meikeljohn. New York: Colonial Press, 1899.

Karraker, Roger. By Internet, May 15, 1994.

Kurtz, Howard. “L.A. Times Gets Burned by Disaster Photograph.” The Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1994, D1.

Lambert, Peter. “Digital Enhancing: Journalism Crisis in the Making.” Broadcasting, Dec. 16, 1991, 55–56.

Lasica, J. D. “Photographs that Lie: The Ethical Dilemma of Digital Retouching.” Washington Journalism Review, June 1989, 22–25.

Lester, Paul. Photojournalism: An Ethical Approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1991.

Linn, Travis. From JOURNET, Jan. 1994.

Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. New York: The Free Press, 1965, 3–20.

Long, John. “‘Truth’ and the new technology.”News Photographer, Aug. 1990, 14–15.

Marks, Jeffrey A. “TV News Photographer as Equipment: A Response.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Spring/Summer 1987, 18–20.

National Press Photographers Association.NPPA Code of Ethics. Durham, N.C., 1948.

National Press Photographers Association.“NPPA statement of principle,” 1991.

Prato, Lou. “It Was Like a Shark Attack.” American Journalism Review, May 1994, 48.

presstime. “Electronic Photo Manipulation: Many Are Doing It, and Editors, Photojournalists Urge Strict Ethical Guidelines to Protect Credibility.” Feb. 1992, 22–23.

Reaves, Shiela.“Digital Retouching.” In NPPA Special Report: The Ethics of Photojournalism, edited by Paul Martin Lester, 42–49. Durham, N.C.: The National Press Photographers Association, 1990.

Sanford, Bruce W. Libel and Privacy: The Prevention and Defense of Litigation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Law and Business, 1987, 427–476.

Sherer, Michael D. “Bibliography of Grief.” In NPPA Special Report: The Ethics of Photojournalism, edited by Paul Martin Lester, 10–15. Durham, N.C.: The National Press Photographers Association, 1990.

Sherer, Michael D. “Ethical Issues in Photographing Private Moments.” In NPPA Special Report: The Ethics of Photojournalism, edited by Paul Martin Lester, 23–27. Durham, N.C.: The National Press Photographers Association, 1990.

TV Guide, Aug. 26–Sept. 1, 1990, cover.

Westin, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967.

CaseNo.1

(Author’snote:TheFresnoBeeaskedreadersaboutthiscase,June20,1993.)

Anelderlyhusbandandwifehavebecomeinnocentvictimsofarobberyandbloodbathatanenclosedmall.Threeyouthsfiredrandomshotsintothecrowdastheydashedoutofajewelrystore.Severalshotsstruckthemaninhisbackandonehitthewomaninherhead.Thetwodiedandfellforwardontothepavement.

Aphotographer,wholearnedaboutthekillingthroughthepoliceradioinhercar,wasatthemallwithinminutes.Shetookanumberofpictures,butthemostcompellingisthatofthehusbandandwife.Thepictureshowsthemonthepavement,armsabovetheirheads,handsjoinedindeathastheywereduringthecouple’sfinalwalk.Facesareobscured,buttheman’slight-coloredshirtisclearlysoakedwithblood,andthepavementisheavilysplattered.

Thephotoisagraphicdescriptionofthetragedy.

Questions

Supposingthatyouarethephotoeditor:

1Wouldyouapproveitsprominentuseincoloronthefrontpage?

2Whowouldbeharmed/helpedifyoupublish?

3Areanybody’srightsatstake?

CaseNo.2

ItwasacompellingphotoofthefinishlineintheMississippistatetrackmeet,theendofthe100-yarddash.Twoyoungmen,legschurning,strainshowingontheirfaces,crossedthelineneckandneck,aphotofinish.

Thephotographerdevelopeditandthephotoeditorquicklyapprovedit,justafterdeadlineandwithoutcarefulscrutinybyeither,forthefrontofthesportssection.Thiswasanimportantcontest.

Thestateeditionwasout,distributedstatewide,andtheJacksoncityeditionwasreadyforthepresswhenthephonesbeganringing.Oneoftherunners’ –thewinner’s–peniswasdanglinginfullviewbelowhisrunningshorts.

Embarrassededitorsstormedintothenewsroom,removedthepicturefromthepaper,anddestroyedthenegatives.

Allofthishappenedbeforedigitalalterationcameintobeing.Supposeyouareaphotoeditorandthesamepicturecameacrossyourdesktoday.Shouldyoualteritdigitally?Killit?Cropit?

Atthe1993meetingoftheVirginiaPressPhotographersAssociation,NPPApastpresidentJohnLongsaidthathewouldnotalterthepicturebutwouldcropitsoastoshowjustthetorso.Manyphotographersagreed.Noonecouldpresentasatisfactoryreasonwhyalterationbyscissorswasacceptablewhilealterationbycomputerwasnot.Canyougiveareason?