Kelsey Keegan
Theater 380
Prof.Wilson
11/19/12
The Digital Darkroom: Ethics of Digital Image Manipulation in Photojournalism
Doctoring photographs has been around almost as long as photography itself, but as photoediting software, like Photoshop or GIMP, has both advanced and become cheaper in price
(making it easily accessible and extremely popular) the practice of digital image manipulation has
become much more commonplace and faked photos are becoming even harder to detect. Many
consider this photographic fakery a new art form, but when it works its way into photojournalism
and the media, the issue of ethics comes to the forefront. How far can we take digital image
manipulation and still maintain photographic integrity? The main dilemma that presents itself in
this case is if it is morally or ethically right to create, publish, and disseminate images that have
been overtly digitally edited in attempt to alter the public’s perception of reality. Photojournalists
(along with their credibility) and the public, whose understanding of both historical and current
events is being influenced, are the primary stakeholders in this issue.
Depending on how it is utilized, photo editing can be a positive tool by using minimal
manipulation that merely enhances and restores photos while at the same time maintaining
photographic integrity (resulting in a positive outcome) or a negative tool that attempts to alter
reality either intentionally or unintentionally (by using so much digital editing that photographic
integrity is lost, at which point it is no longer considered a photo, but rather a photo illustration),
leading the public to distrust photography as a source of truth (resulting in a negative outcome).
The morality of photo-editing software depends entirely on the purpose for which it is used. If a
photojournalist feels it necessary to blatantly manipulate images, then some sort of disclaimer
should be attached to the image, alerting the public that the photo is now out of context and is an
individual’s interpretation of a situation or event. The public has the right to know the complete
1
truth, even if the truth is hard to grapple with, particularly because it is impossible for everyone to
experience events first-hand. The public relies on gatekeepers of information, and it is imperative
that these gatekeepers are ethical and honest in their dissemination of information, which will
inevitably influence public perception. If the purpose of a journalist’s photography is to depict an
honest scene to the public as a record of history, then nothing more than cropping and sharpening
should be done.
An early example of this blatant editing is a photograph in which General Ulysses S. Grant
appears to be in front of his troops at City Point, Virginia, during the American Civil War.
However, some detective work by researchers at the Library of Congress revealed that this photo is
a composite of three separate images. According to Hany Farid’s article “Photo Tampering
Throughout History,” the “head in this photo was taken from a portrait of Grant,” the “body and
horse are those of Major General Alexander M. McCook,” and the “background is of Confederate
prisoners captured at the battle of Fisher’s Hill, VA.”
Manipulation of historical photos is one type of photo editing that is generally dishonest and
damaging to the historical record, especially when original copies of the photos in question are not
readily available and preserved. This is much less of an issue today, when digital copies of a photo
can be preserved in many locations. However, it can still impact the historical record if a
photograph is manipulated in the same way, released to the public, but not archived and/or made
widely available in its original form. Additionally, if such images are portrayed as factual without
any sort of disclaimer or warning that the images are highly edited, then this is explicitly against
the ethical standards of photojournalism, which are mentioned later.
CNN was recently criticized for damaging the historical record when it edited a photo that
other news organizations released unaltered. The article “CNN’s Photo Editing Raises Ethics
Controversy” states that in February 2011, CNN blurred the faces of a group of men behind CBS
2
correspondent Lara Logan, in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, who was assaulted by a mob of Egyptians
soon after the photo was taken. Many people criticized CNN for altering the photo, saying that the
network had “unethically tampered with a historic photographic record” (“CNN’s Photo Editing”).
CNN defended the decision, explaining that they blurred the crowd's faces because they had no
way of knowing whether the people in the photograph were the same people who had assaulted the
correspondent. Not wanting to incriminate the potentially innocent crowd members, CNN
protected their privacy.
This type of photo editing (done to protect the individuals in the picture), in effect, does not
harm the historical record since many other news organizations released the unaltered photograph,
and because there is no reason to believe that the original, unaltered photo will become
unavailable. Digital photos, especially those used in news media, are typically preserved in many
locations and would be readily available to authorities if charges were pressed. Additionally, the
facial blurring was done with good reason, did not change the photo’s meaning, and did not
misrepresent the situation within the photograph. CNN altered the photo in an attempt to be ethical,
not for the purposes of deceiving the public in a harmful manner.
Another example of the power of digital image editing comes from the 1994 photo
illustrations of O.J. Simpson in Newsweek and Time during his infamous murder trial. According
to “Photojournalism,” both magazines used the same picture, yet the alterations done to the Time
magazine, the darkening of the mug shot to make Simpson appear more menacing, generated a
different connotation compared to Newsweek’s unaltered issue. A large amount of the contrast done
to Time made Simpson look guilty, which shows the bias nature of the magazine and, in effect,
could have influenced the judgment of the readers before the verdict was decided.
Those who violate the core ethical rules of photojournalism also undermine the work and
credibility of thousands of ethical photojournalists, many of whom risk their lives to present honest
3
images to the public. Alex Lloyd Gross, a Pennsylvania-based freelance photojournalist, urges
other photojournalists to “’always follow tight ethics. Without them, there is no trust between the
reader and the journalist’” (Hancock)
There is even more to the ethical standards of photojournalism than this basic principle. In
fact, according to Mark Hancock’s “Ethics in the Age of Digital Manipulation” article, the National
Press Photographers Association released a modernized Code of Ethics in 2004, as the old code
was written in 1946 and didn’t address television or digital editing. While the standard isn’t
universal, most professional photojournalists around the world abide by the code, which spells out
the goal to achieve the highest standards while maintaining public confidence in the profession.
This is accomplished through an honest and complete presentation of visual information, which
promotes accuracy and honesty in recording of events, event fidelity, digital editing and captioning
(Hancock). Furthermore, in Tana Stevenson’s article “Digital Manipulation,” the statement of
principle declares that “’it is wrong to alter the content or context of a photograph in any way that
deceives the public,’” and/or misrepresents or stereotypes subjects, as photojournalists “’have the
responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record.’”
Of course, there must be a defining line between a simple enhancement of a photo, like a
crop or contrast (where there is no agenda to influence perception), and a blatant use of editing to
alter the public’s perception of reality (“Photojournalism”). However, putting a barrier between
what is allowed and what isn’t is difficult because not everyone sees eye to eye and every
photojournalist has his/her own ethics.
In May 2004, The Daily Mirror newspaper in the United Kingdom fired editor Piers
Morgan after learning he was a party to staged images of British soldiers supposedly abusing Iraqi
prisoners. Morgan refused to resign, stating that the photos “accurately illustrated the reality about
the appalling conduct of some British troops” (Hancock). This is a tougher subject to deal with
4
ethically as the reality of war may very well include appalling conduct of POW abuse, but to stage
or digitally manipulate photos in order to depict one of these scenes if, in fact, such a scene was not
occurring in real time when the camera flashed and the shutter went off, then the integrity of the
photo is in serious question, because this is just one photojournalist’s interpretation or
representation of the situation.
While political image manipulations are nothing new, the ease of modern software
programs has accelerated the frequency of manipulated images for political gain.
However,
because of the technology’s accessibility it is imperative that photojournalists and other digital
photo manipulators make wise, ethical decisions when using photography to report ‘events’ as
evidence due to the impact and emotional influence that such decisions have on public perception
and opinion. Photographs “depict the world as it is,” and it is “due to the concept of seeing is
believing” that “seeing validates our experience” (“Photojournalism”).
In other words,
photojournalists control what the photographs depict and readers connote the meaning of the
photographs via the lens of the photographer. Ultimately, then, photojournalists’ control public
perception.
Despite the fact that photo editing has become so widespread and the public has become
more skeptical about digital image manipulation, photojournalism is still incredibly influential with
its denotations and connotations. It is important to remember that photo editors are only tools. The
way that they are wielded depends entirely upon the person using them and that person’s
intentions. Though some photojournalists use them excessively for shallow or harmful purposes
causing the public’s distrust of photojournalism, many others utilize the digital editors minimally in
order to create or enhance works of contextually accurate ‘truth tellers’ (photographs) that
contribute positively to education, art, and society’s understanding of the World.
5
Works Cited
“CNN's Photo Editing Raises Ethics Controversy.” Studio Briefing. 18 Feb. 2011. Web.
18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.studiobriefing.net/2011/02/cnns-photo-editing-raises-ethicscontroversy/>.
Farid, Hany. “Photo Tampering Throughout History.” FourAndSix.com. 2011. Fourandsix
Technologies, Incorporated. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.fourandsix.com/phototampering-history/category/1800s>.
Hancock, Mark. “Ethics in the Age of Digital Manipulation.” Global Journalist. 1 Jul. 2009.
Missouri School of Journalism. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.globaljournalist.org/
stories/2009/07/01/ethics-in-the-age-of-digitalmanipulation/>.
“Photojournalism.” The World is Flat. 6 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
<http://salyee.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/week-12-photojournalism/>.
Stevenson, Tana. “Digital Manipulation.” Seeing the World: Frame by Frame. 14 May 2011.
Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.fruitsofmylens.com/blog/2011/05/digital-manipulation/>.
6