Reality vs. Preferred Reality
With today’s technology, digital picture manipulation can easily alter the meaning of images. A common view in society is that people are benefited by the photo records of events. But when images are altered, and the meaning consequently shifts, this no longer presents the entire truth.
The rapid progressions in media technologies has created the potential for skewing our perception and attitudes, by altering reality. Reality in the photo imagery world is becoming non-existent, with most media related images being manipulated lightly or otherwise, to ultimately persuade the viewers to a particular point of view. The audience is generally unaware of the alterations, creating a blurring of the truth. Many journalists and editors have stepped over the line of what is right and ultimately, what is real (Conklin 2001, 6).
One current issue regarding image and representation is diversity. Corporations and institutions desire to accept diversity, or at least present the appearance of diversity. A pressure has emerged, particularly in such a multicultural nation as Australia, to demonstrate diversity, however in doing so, has caused the misrepresentation of the truth. Superimposed photos and post-photographic manipulation can easily create perceptions of diversity, however there is a watchdog environment that attempts to monitor on behalf of the cultural and subordinated groups (Conklin, 2001, 7). Many images are altered for public acceptability and sensory reasons, though it needs to be defined under what context the public has a right to be notified of the manipulation of any image, regardless of the extent. Magazine and newspaper publications have been known to create composite images to increase their appeal and newsworthiness. In 1994, the cover of Time magazine presented a mug shot of O.J Simpson at the time of his murder trial. Manipulation accusations were rampid, and rightly so as Time Magazine (2003) illustrates, the original image also fronted Newsweek magazine, where the tone difference was obvious. The photographer’s intention to make the cover more compelling failed miserably since the matter raised so much discussion. This goes to show that best intentions are often not good enough and that ethical principles should be applied when decisions are made.
The ramifications of misleading the public will cause loss of credibility and support, specifically affecting news media. In regard to preferred reality, changes in technology have revolutionised the process of creating and producing media. As Conklin explains, merger mania, rightsizing and shareholders interest have caused companies to be more sensitive to advertising costs and communication efforts (Conklin 2001, 9). Stock images, cheap and easy to alter to a desired purpose, are now being used as a substitute for photography. Such issues involving budget restraints may cause shortsightedness. But the cost of presenting truth may ultimately prevent the cost to defend a lawsuit, a harsh reality of today’s society.
This new era means confronting society’s uncertain distinctions between invention and reality. Consequently, effective communication of images between the sender and receiver is also contested, as through the effort of manipulation, the audience is no longer being presented with the truth they understood. Digitalisation and new media has profoundly transformed our ideas of reality, knowledge and truth.
Millie York 20:17, 28 Oct 2004 (EST)
