CC's Research Paper

Photoshopping the Truth

Cecilia Schnobrich

“Use a picture,” stated Arthur Brisbane, editor of the 1911 New York Evening Journal, “It’s worth a thousand words.” At the time, Brisbane was discussing advertising and publicity with his staff. The phrase has been applicable for more than a century, and holds so much truth that it’s sometimes wrongly credited to Confucius. Since its invention, photography has always played an important role in our lives, and consequently it has become the object of the widely popular medium dubbed photojournalism. But the versatile technology of the Digital Age has changed how photography is made, used and viewed; photo editing software, most famously Photoshop, have changed the game in more ways than one. Post-Photoshop images lead us to believe in events that never happened, something that has become commonplace in 21st century mass media. If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is a manipulated picture worth? The prevalence of photo-editing software use in photojournalism has led to a saturation of manipulated photos which alters the public's perception of truth in a way that needs to be halted if photojournalism is to keep its status as a credible medium.

http://www.ub.edu/otac/recerca_english/mongolia/mongolia_projecte1/imagesfosses/18.jpg

An 1896 Sunday Magazine edition of the New York Times contained something new to print: a photograph. It was the first newspaper to include an image captured by a camera, and as always, some were uncomfortable with the change. But when print media began to regularly include photographs, they began to hold almost as much story as the articles themselves. Photoshop hadn't yet been born, of course, but--unbeknownst to many--photo manipulation was around long before the magic wand tool came to be. Early examples of this are the works of Alexander and Timothy O'Sullivan, Civil War photographers famous for dragging corpses across deserted battleflields in order to dramatacize the composition. Though this is far from digital, the alterations still resulted in images that were significantly different than what was originally behind the lens of the camera. With advancements in technology and innovation, the manipulations made to photographs shifted from adjustments made to the composition before the photo was taken to after. The picture I've provided here is a well-known example of image manipulation decades before Photoshop. In 1930 an image of Stalin walking alongside Nikolai Yezhov was later edited to eliminate Yezhov after he was executed. This change attempted to rewrite history by erasing the connection between the two leaders. The process back then was done by hand, and surely took hours if not days (in comparison to a sequence of clicks, finished in minutes by a Photoshop master) but the fact that political leaders use photo misrepresentation to curate their image remains undeniably true today, though the platforms for doing so have changed drastically. And certainly it's not just politicians; it's photojournalists employed by biased corporations who are equally culprits of manipulating photographs to distort the viewers' adaptation of reality.

http://www.ub.edu/otac/recerca_english/mongolia/mongolia_projecte1/imagesfosses/18.jpg

The abilities of photo-manipulation software such as Adobe Photoshop are boundless; it's become an art that is near impossible to master fully. The capabilities range from correcting "red eyes" to filtering the whole image to make it look like it was painted by a watercolor aficionado. Effects such as the latter have led to a blurring of the line between art and journalism. Ansel Adams, one of the most legendary photographers of all time, said "In a strict sense, photography can never be abstract, for the camera is incapable of synthetic integration." Technically this statement holds true in the 21st century, for it isn't the camera that transforms a captured moment of life into a possibly abstract work of art, it's the software. Effects that were once only possible with a room full of photography equipment now take only a few buttons to create.

http://i500.listal.com/image/3693400/500full.jpg

http://www.joieelie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/equipment-list.jpg

These edits have become so commonplace that the question at hand is no longer if the photo has been manipulated, but how much it has changed the original image, and if the image is still portraying the truth. As US media consumers, we seem to believe that photographs provide us with a different (while equally important) type of truth than writing does. If someone took a picture of it, the contents in the photo must be real. But the abilities of Photoshop have muddied the vision of 'truth' for both photographers and consumers. If a photographer uses Photoshop to alter exposure so that the photo looks more faithful to what an eyewitness at the scene would have perceived, is that wrong? After all, cameras pick up different amounts of light depending on which setting they're on. Is it wrong to use the zoom tool to allow the taken photo to reveal components that would otherwise be too far for the eye to pick up? How far can we allow these seemingly small adjustments to go? If I wake up with a mountainous zit on my forehead the day of my wedding, is it okay to airbrush it out in all of the pictures? And if Uncle Todd was in the bathroom at the time of the family picture, is it a big deal to just Photoshop him in later? At the risk of sounding nostalgic, I can't help but notice that while photographs used to provide a sort of documentary evidence, today they are frequently photo mash-ups, with numerous elements pieced together to create a more beautiful whole. This may seem ideal, but it is far from reality. If I'm really bummed that Leonardo DiCaprio went another year without winning an Oscar, I can Photoshop his head onto George Clooney's body, but that doesn't make it real. Photoshop's extensive abilities have allowed the production of photos that may be more appealing or interesting, but these images are not suitable to be supplied as "truth. When used in mass media and trusted new sources, these images give way to false ideas and beliefs. It becomes an issue of ethics, and this is precisely why there is an ethical code in place for photojournalism.

The ethical code that governs photojournalists is similar in theory to that of journalists and TV stations. The producers of the content are to supply work that abides by all of the rules and guidelines, and the directors are to make sure that no regulation has been overlooked. It is undeniable that the following of these ethical codes is important and necessary; for we, as consumers, certainly trust (to some extent) that what we receive in trusted news sources is reality. Consequently, toying with images is toying with the viewer's trust. But before a set of rules can be strictly enforced, it must be clear and fully understood. Bulletpoint number six on the NPPA's (National Press Photographers Association Inc.) code of ethics reads, "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misinterpret subjects." The Associated Press Code of Ethics for Photojournalists says "AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or digitally manipulate the content of a photograph in any way," and later goes on to say, "The content of a photograph must not be altered in Photoshop or by any other means." Interestingly, they open a new paragraph by saying "Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable." Later in the list they clarify by partly specifying these minor adjustments. Surprisingly, the small act of correcting red-eye is not permissible. Is it safe to say that all of the photojournalism we eat up with our morning coffee is a product of these meticulously maintained rules? Unfortunately, I don't think so.

Unlike the ethical codes in place for media platforms like TV or radio stations, that which governs photojournalists is not exactly written in stone; it seems to be more like carved in the sand. The rules are frequently bent in ways that somehow justify cutting and pasting an African-American face into a photographed crowd of white sports fans in order to make UW-Madison appear to be more diverse than it really is, or adding a photo of a speaking Jane Fonda to one of a sitting Senator John Kerry to make it look like they are sharing a stage at a rally. However, the muddying of the ethics lines doesn't always produce images that are far from reality--often, they only make simple adjustments to lighting or color in order to enhance the image in an innocent way. And so the spectrum of photo manipulation goes from extremely simple and subtle to extremely altered and misleading. The current problem is that the latter end of the spectrum seems to have a dominance in today's mass media. In comparison to the cut-and-dry statutes of the movie business, (like "No F-words in a PG rated movie") that which govern photojournalism seem to allow many different answers to the question of what is acceptable and what isn't. And even while there are written rules clearly in place, some seem to feel that these do not apply to them. This is in part due to the increasing popularity of gossip-fodder magazines like People and the National Enquirer, publications that are not widely viewed as credible, but nevertheless consumed unabashed by the masses, which could be taken to mean that maybe a bit of Photoshop is actually a good thing. Anyway, most of the news we consume comes from sources owned by huge media oligopolies with dollar signs in their eyes, companies that may be putting money before ethics when it really comes down to it. The saturation of significantly altered photos is also a result of different media platforms holding different ethical standards. For instance, advertisers are held to different rules--if one is attempting to make a profit, Photoshop is perfectly acceptable. But couldn't you say that every media production is in some sense, advertising something? A thinned-down photograph of Katie reporting outside the White House is advertising the aesthetic quality of CBS news by displaying their ability to find attractive news people. A highly zoomed in and sharpened photo of the aftermath of a mudslide in Washington advertises CNN by proving that they are the news source that gets up close and personal with the newest story. I don't mean to claim that it is wholly at the fault of the producers; it is consumers that favor aesthetics over reality that are equally to blame, for accepting these heavily altered photographs as acceptable journalism. And if photojournalism holds a certain ethical code, and advertising holds a certain ethical code, but the two occasionally overlap, what is to be obeyed? The blurring of lines affects the different results of both media platforms, and it sees that questioning producers sometimes go with whatever answer leads to the most profit. Which of course, would be the more visually intriguing or interesting image.

http://thecommittedindian.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Ansel-Adams_2.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iVwGQQxkRWK8.jpg

http://cdn-media.extratv.com/archive/images/news/1008ralphlaurenad.jpg

A medium with a loose ethical code such as this garners effects that are sneaky but serious; that said, it is the versatile technology of the Digital Age that allows manipulated images to magnify these effects in a way more harmful than ever before. Before elaborating on the way this influences you and me, I will go over a few of the most well-known photo manipulation scandals. At the eve of a century packed with new technological developments and controversies, the popular National Geographic magazine was the first media platform to be internationally scrutinized for placing an altered photo at center-stage. The February 1982 edition of the magazine featured a lovely evening photo of the Egyptian pyramids at Giza on the cover. What they neglected to mention is that the pyramids had been digitally squeezed together in order to fit the dimensions of the horizontal cover. The magazine received waves of questions like "How do we know that all your photos aren't edited?" and was hit with many cancelled subscriptions. Their director of photography was fired and they issued a public apology and promise of "Never again”.
A few years later, an August 1989 edition of TV Guide boasted a glamorous photo of a thin Oprah Winfrey on the cover--a photo that was quickly detected to be Oprah's head spliced onto the body of actress Ann-Maragret This particular scandal's eruption was intensified by the fact that neither Winfrey or Margaret knew about the manipulation. These pre-Photoshop cut and paste productions appeared frequently, and when busted, prompted angry social commentary that may have caused a stir initially but didn't seem to do much in the long run. The first edition of Photoshop was released in 1990, but it wasn't widely used until the price went down and it became inclusive to all computers. Photoshop was soon grasped by marketers and producers and utilized to increase visual appeal in a range of products and photography assignments; today, the changes that the software can induce on a photograph are incredibly impressive. Whereas splicing a head on a different body was, in the 80's, considered a big move, now society uses Photoshop to digitally change bodies and faces in a range of remarkable (and, apparently, acceptable) ways. Take Ralph Lauren Polo, for example: a few years ago the company came out with an ad that features a model whose pelvis is smaller than her head. Which is biologically impossible.Fillipa Hamilton models a body that is impossible to achieve, as it has been shamelessly altered by money-hungry marketers.

It's peculiar that a 1989 cover photo that included body parts from two different women spliced as one created a significant upset, while any given issue of a 2000's-era Cosmo magazine that displays immaculate skin revisions, whitened teeth, elongated necks, waist-trimming, and color-changed eyes is received without much stir. The complacent acceptance of these models (which are results of hours of Photoshopping) has led to low esteem and poor body image in American citizens and people all over the world. Everyone has a role model; but if your role mode is a "fake reality" due to numerous manipulations, it is understandable that a desire for an impossible ideal will begin to take over, and inevitably cause insecurity and other problems. Setting aside the advertisement industry (as they have a separate ethics code, if you recall) the effects of the wide use of photo editing software are also extremely prevalent and harmful in the world of photojournalism. We look to photographs, in the traditional sense, to give us an accurate visual of what we would have seen, had we been looking through the lens ourselves. Increasingly, these visuals are less accurate than they should be, but how are we, as viewers, to know? Distorted photos mess with the public's interpretation of a news story (or product, for that matter). Validity had become a serious issue. Fortunately for the well-being of the consumers (and unfortunately for those directors who let Photoshopped images slip on by), the public is starting to catch on, starting to realize these altered or manipulated images do not belong in a medium that is looked to for truth. "Oh, all of it is messed with nowadays," my grandpa said last night, as CNN flipped through photos on the TV screen, "You can hardly tell what's real anymore."

Which he is hardly alone in thinking. A 2012 Gallup poll showed that the US distrust in media has hit a new high. 60% of Americans, the article claims, "Have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly." It doesn't help that many media outlets today look to the public to help capture the news: Cell phone photos or videos submitted by an eyewitness or passerby can help add proof to an event. This is convenient for the media producers, and exciting to those who submit evidence with the intention of helping. But these "citizen photojournalists", or freelancers, do not report to the same ethics code as photojournalists are supposed to, and not everybody has good intentions or instructions. If career photojournalists have been reprimanded for manipulating their pieces to make them look better, wouldn't a freelancer or citizen-- someone that isn't gambling with his/her reputation or job--be all the more likely to do the so? Another issue is that the complex nature of Photoshop can make it near impossible to notice alterations in pictures. Even if the photo was heavily changed, how is the editor or manager to know? It all boils down to trust. Is it safe to believe the pictures we are presented with in current media? With the prevalence and ease of software like Photoshop, I'm afraid the answer is a lot closer to "No" then it should be.

The bottom line is that it is not okay for rapid technology advancements to have the unpleasant side effect of poor media credibility. Technology should aid the media (in terms of what content they are able to produce) but not in ways that favor aesthetics over true journalism. If we continue to believe the idea that photographs contain truth, we need to make sure that those supplying the photographs share that belief. The foundation of this could be a reconstruction of the ethics code for photojournalism. The ethics code needs to adapt to the advancing technology abilities and the convergence of media and deliver clear and intricate rules that must be enforced, if the medium is to be trusted. A medium that is relied on for true depictions of events needs to have firmly planted guidelines, rules that clearly define what is acceptable use of Photoshop in photojournalism, and what is not. I'm not saying it is going to be easy. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, we better make sure the words aren't made up of lies.