In this essay I will be investigating potentially manipulated photojournalistic images, the way they have been manipulated, the ethical implications of the manipulations and the resulting consequences. The term ‘photographic manipulation’ can be applied to many different practices. Simply changing the brightness and contrast of an image is considered manipulation, as well as cropping certain aspects out of the frame, airbrushing/retouching, and completely removing aspects of an image. In terms of photojournalism where do we draw the line between what acceptable and what is a false truth?
There have always been ways (It has always been possible?) to edit analog photographs in the darkroom, by exposing paper to more or less light, or covering parts of an image to hide parts of an image. (; )However, after the birth of the digital age it is becoming easier and easier (more effortless/accessible?)to create false photographs with little to no trace of them ever being tampered with.
Historically, photography was used as a form of proof. In Eadweard Muybridge’s series Horse in Motion (reproduced in Mitchell, 2001, p.26), he photographed a horse galloping in order to prove that horses do in fact lift all feet off the ground during a gallop. These images became incredibly famous not only because of the cutting edge technique Muybridge used to capture them, but because they allowed the world to see the possibilities of documenting the truth in photography.
1. History of manipulation
In 1982, National Geographic magazine published a now infamous example of photographic manipulation on the cover of its February issue (Gahan, 1982). The image presents the silhouette of the pyramids of Giza at sunset, with three camel riders in the foreground. Compared with the original image it is evident that one of the pyramids had been ‘moved’ to allow them both to be seen on the portrait format of the magazine. When the issue was released, the photographer Gordon Gahan instantly recognised that his image had been altered, and promptly complained to National Geographic. Had he not have noticed, the magazine’s credibility would not have been called into question by many critics. In response to his complaint, the Director of Photography for National Geographic released a statement, claiming that the alteration occurred under the request of the previous Director, and a mistake like this would not happen again (Bronx Documentary Centre, n.d.). It was only a small alteration, however it misrepresented the scene, and proved that if a pyramid can be moved so easily, how easy would it be to move a person and potentially incriminate them.
One of the most blatant abuses of photographic manipulation is editorial and fashion photography. The removal of imperfections to allow celebrities and models to appear perfect is an age old tradition of fashion magazines. Published photographs of celebrities that haven’t been retouched cause outrage, as the world can see what they really look like; it breaks the illusion that celebrities are ‘perfect beings’ when you can see their wrinkles, scars and other less desirable visual traits. In contrast to this, it is damaging for society to be fed false images regarding what the ‘ideal’ appearance is, particularly amongst young girls who aspire to look like this. Individuals can develop eating disorders, go through dangerous, painful procedures (why is it damaging to society? what is the outcome of presenting celebrities as ‘perfect?’)
A very controversial example of manipulation was that done by Matt Mahurin on the cover of TIME magazine (Mahurin, 1994). The image is OJ Simpson’s mugshot, taken when he was arrested on suspicion of murdering his wife. His face is blurred and shadowed, we are unable to see much expression because of this. His cheekbones are obscured, and his eyes stare emotionlessly into the camera. Compared with the original, the image that appeared on the TIME front cover was significantly darkened. (fig
Newsweek magazine also released an issue with Simpson on its cover, but with no alterations. TIME’s cover shown next to Newsweek’s shows just how much the image was altered. The increased contrast not only darkens Simpson’s skin, but it alters his entire expression. Not being able to see the features of his face alters the viewers perception, makes him appear more menacing. With the contrast of the white background it almost makes him look like a character from a horror movie. In American history, (do you know for definite which one was edited and which one was real? – is there any evidence of which one was edited or are we unaware?)
‘Black people were negatively defined as ugly, savage and barbaric; in contrast, White folks were positively defined as beautiful, Christian and civilized. These hierarchies of skin color, which systematically privileged lightness over darkness, perpetuated white supremacist beliefs about Blackness’ (Gooden, 2011).
The alteration of the image speaks directly to this outdated, prejudiced image of race. Before his conviction, OJ Simpson was a household name and loved the world over, which was uncommon for a black man in the 1990’s.
“As the media often represented him, Simpson “transcended” race to become all‐American. Yet that transcendence was not the negation of race, but rather a hiding of race, for all‐Americans must, necessarily, be white (or, in Simpson’s case, “honorarily” white).” (Dickinson, G. and Vasby Anderson, K., 2007)
After his arrest, Simpson was once again considered ‘black’ by America. Dickinson and Vasby Anderson conclude that he succumbed to his ‘natural’ identity,
Mahurin claimed that he was given the image to interpret, and any racial implication was completely unintentional. Rejecting any form of racial implications, he maintains that he was creating a dramatic tone, just as a stage director would lower the lights during a scene in a movie. Time magazine was (FINISH) , even if indeed no racial implication was intended. This is not a movie scene to be dramatised, it is a real life mug shot of a man on trial for murder.
2 – Digital manipulation – contemporary examples
A lot of manipulated images that are intended to fool society are so successful because the majority of the public doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to prove them false. William J. Mitchell (2001) explains that when close up photographs of the surface of Mars were released in 1976, society had no other choice but to believe them, as no one had ever been to the surface of Mars in order to disprove them. “… We had virtually no relevant knowledge against which to cross check them. At best, we could make comparisons with barren, rocky deserts on Earth.” Consequently, it could be argued that we can never trust an image unless we were present at the time of its capture. But even if this were the case, would an altered image of a scene at which we were present stand out as obviously altered? José Van Dijck (2007) investigates the integrity of both personal and societal memory and how it can be altered with not only human emotion and reinterpretation of their own memories, but digital manipulation also. One particular study conducted among a group of 20 individuals showed that memories can very much be altered with the use of digital manipulation. Psychologists created a false image of each subject’s childhood, of them during a hot air balloon ride (Wade, K., et. al., 2002). After the first interview, 7/20 subjects had either partial or clear memories of the fictional hot air balloon ride. After an interview at a later date the subjects were asked again, and this time 10/20 had at least a partial or full memory of the false event.
This experiment is incredibly significant within the discussion of how far photographs should be manipulated.
“overzealous or dis- honest” officer could photograph a crime scene, put those images onto a computer, and “a particularly damning piece of evidence could be later undetectably inserted into the images through an image processing program . . . I could see this becoming a problem
godfather of fake news – doesn’t doctor images but could to make stories more believable
“It literally will be possible to purge information, to alter a historic event that occurred five years ago because no original exists. There’s enormous potential for great wrong and great misuse.”
you could talk about eyewitness testimony here as well, if you need more words – loftus and palmer theory (1974)
With an increasing amount of news photography being created by citizens and smart-phones, it could be argued that the photojournalist is becoming obsolete. With this realisation comes potential hope for detecting manipulation within photojournalism. A company called Truepic allows you to create ‘verifiable digital original’ (Rothman, 2018) images – using geolocation data, nearby cell towers and the barometric-pressure sensor on mobile phones to identify if an image has been tampered with. Although mainly used for the public for dating, renting and selling, the app could prove invaluable for disproving false news images, and even photographic evidence used in court cases.
Although a good idea in theory, Truepic is only effective when images taken on smartphones are directly uploaded to it’s servers. The technology cannot identify whether pre-existing images have been manipulated, and any photo taken on any device other than a smartphone. Given how the increased amount of
Society is becoming accustomed to recognising the false from the true, however (dont need the word however) technology is advancing at a much faster rate than our ability to detect the false.
Martin Lister explains that In his TED talk, Supasorn Suwajanakorn discusses how he has created an algorithm to create a “high-detailed 3D face model from any image without ever 3D-scanning the person.” (Suwajanakorn, 2018) During his talk, he shows four video screens with Barack Obama giving a speech about healthcare, and he explains that none of these videos are real; all four of these ‘characters’ have been augmented by his software.
This software could prove catastrophic if used unethically, as Suwajanakorn explains in his talk. It is known that images are able to be manipulated and have been for decades, whether in the darkroom or digitally. Video was once considered to be more reliable than the still image, as it is a great deal more difficult to manipulate moving figures without leaving an obvious trace. However, this is no longer the case.
3 – Photojournalism
In response to technology’s advancement within the world of digital manipulation, increasing measures are being put in place to ensure photojournalists only submit work to be published that is as close to the original ‘raw’ image as possible. Despite the majority of major U.S. news agencies sharing a common standpoint on the extent to which photographs should be edited, yet there are still instances occurring where the extent of the manipulation has deemed to have gone too far.
Diane Swartz examines many photographers perspectives regarding the alteration of images, and claims that all photojournalists should follow these three rules:
1. “Publish only photographs that depict the subject as the ‘camera sees it’”
2. “Publish only photographs that depict the subject as someone present at the scene
would have seen it”
3. “Authorise photographers to make decisions regarding image production consistent with the prevailing norms governing journalistic representations across communicative modes” (2003: 45-46)
(these rules are apparent in Janet Malcoms writing…? relate this to what you have mentioned above if it is meant to be/possible) As Janet Malcolm (2011, pp.12) says “the journalist […] never had the slightest intention of collaborating with him [the subject] on his story but always intended to write a story of his own.” Even if the ‘ethical codes’ are followed and no manipulation has occurred in post production, the photographer still chose exactly how to capture that scene; what angle to stand at, what to include in the image, what camera settings to use that could create different effects on the brightness or colour of the image. Every photograph taken “implies an artist’s (or journalist’s) perspective” (Dickinson and Vasby Anderson, 2007).
4 – Ethics – fake news – social media
The majority of famous image manipulation examples that have occurred over the years has been without malicious intent, (but with the motive to…)just done to create a more striking image that will (subsequently?)attract the viewer.
The growth of social media has made it much(increasingly?) easier for false news stories to circulate. One particular news post made the rounds on Facebook and Twitter in January 2019. Gaining over 235,000 shares in just a week, it shows two images of a goose frozen to a pole due to the sub zero temperatures parts of America faced in January 2019. The goose is protectively curled around the puppy, shielding it with its beak and wings. The images are accompanied by the following caption:
“A man finds a goose that was shaking with cold stuck to a pole in Montana. When approaching, the surprise is capital. The goose was sheltering with her wings a puppy that was about to die frozen.
We have so much to learn as a species…” (Evon, 2019)
After researching the post, Dan Evon discovered that the first post he could find of this photograph was made in 2017, on a Chinese news platform NetEase. Although this is seemingly just a harmless news story, it is important to note just how many people were fooled by this post. If something so trivial can be shared more than 235,000 times on social media, then how far could a fake story with more sinister tones travel? During the 2016 US Presidential election, there was an incredible amount of ‘fake’ news posts about electoral candidates, mainly circulating on social media. Some of these fictional stories could have been incredibly damaging for the candidates careers and even lives if they weren’t disproved.
The reason these fake news stories are so damaging is because of the effects they can have on the people that believe them, and the subsequent actions these people take. One extremely harrowing example to note is that of Gordon Morrice, a 57 year old man who was wrongly accused of pedophilia after asking to bounce on a child’s trampoline. He was investigated by the police, and was later cleared of all suspicion (BBC, 2012). After he was cleared, a group of five individuals hunted him down and assaulted him, which led to his hospitalisation and untimely death.
Joshua Rothman (2018) argues that
Although
Vincent Lavoie declared in 2010: ‘photojournalism is a fundamentally unstable category which is being constantly reconfigured by different narratives’
A striking example of a false image that captured millions of people’s attention was that of Tourist Guy (Guzli, 2001). Two weeks after the tragic events of 9/11, an email began circulating with an image depicting a man posing for a photo on top of the world trade centre, with a plane behind him about to crash. The accompanying caption read:
”We’ve seen thousands of pictures concerning the attack. However, this one will make you cringe. A simple tourist getting himself photographed on the top of the WTC just seconds before the tragedy … the camera was found in the rubble!!”
The image was soon discovered to be a hoax, but not before it was forwarded to thousands of people and news agencies. The image circulated for around a fortnight before people started to question its authenticity.
The man was wearing a heavy coat in the image, which was indicative of a much colder temperature than a mild September morning in New York City.
In 2013, Paul Hansen won the World Press Photo of the Year competition with his submission, depicting two deceased young boys being carried to their funeral by family and friends in Gaza City (2013). They are walking down a dimly lit alleyway, with the two young boys wrapped in white cloth