Journalistic Integrity
The introduction and rapid spread of digital manipulation to still and moving images raises ethical issues of truth, deception and journalistic integrity. Such advanced technology poses the temptation to better an image or reach a desired construct because it is fast, easy and generally traceless. With professionals challenging the ethical boundaries of truth, it creates a potential loss of public trust in visual journalism.
The two prime perpetrators of image manipulation are newspaper photography editors and television news editors. Both forms of media experience the pressure to succumb to entertainment and popularity values, and digital manipulation assists in creating this desired outcome. The tolerance of enhancement and alteration lies in the integrity of journalists and their dedication to reporting and presenting truth, as well as being accountable for their immediate actions. By exploiting the use of digital manipulation tools, journalists are abusing their power as representors of truth. The problem with digital manipulation is that it has become so ingeniously smooth that viewers may not even notice that what they are watching has changed. Lorn Pearson online (2003) reports that it therefore becomes "up to the integrity of the program maker to use virtual imaging in a way that is both responsible and accurate."
There are accepted practices of alteration journalist’s use, such as cropping, dodging (lightening), burning (darkening) and other post-processing techniques, as long as it does not distort the photographic content. Such actions are designed to more effectively reflect the reality of a scene (Wheeler 2002, 98). Extreme and exploitation of photojournalism can change the use of an image as evidence, by deleting or interchanging identifying elements.
An example of a manipulated news graphic is the famous image of the 2003 Madrid train bombings. This image of the train wreck and wounded, headlined The Australian, The Telegraph and the Courier Mail. Although not immediately noticeable, the image in both The Telegraph and the Courier Mail did not bear the exact resemblance of the other. A decapitated arm seen next to the train lines was only present in The Australian. This can be seen as an act of deletion on the other paper’s behalf, to shelter the public’s eyes to a potentially disturbing image, whilst not changing its meaning. This is considered to be an issue of editorial taste and differs from ethical problems. As Long states, ethics refers to the issues of deception, and taste refers to issues involving blood, sex, violence and other aspects of life which are disturbing to the eye (1999). In light of there not being any change in meaning, unethical claims are often reputed, and the image can be seen as acceptable despite its manipulation. But the presentation of these photorealistic synthesised images or pseudo-photographic assemblages (photographs with additions, deletions, substitutions, or rearrangements) as straightforward photographs is not valid reporting. And as Mitchell further argues, the resulting transaction then becomes something other than valid reporting - either falsehood or fiction (1994, 218).
Millie York 20:08, 28 Oct 2004 (EST)
