Last week the New York Times Media Decoder blog posted an entry about The Economist recently edited a photo for its cover. The image in question on the cover of the magazine shows President Obama standing alone on a Gulf Coast beach looking at the sand. Behind him looms a large oil rig and the title adds to the drama – “Obama v BP, The damage beyond the spill”. But, in the original photograph, taken by Reuters photographer, Larry Downing, the President is not alone. Instead he is standing on the shore speaking with Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen and local parish president Charlotte Randolph. The magazine digitally removed the other two individuals from the image.
The altered photograph and ensuing discussions in New York Times, the Guardian, and the blogosphere brings up some interesting points about the intersection of journalistic integrity, photojournalism, photography, and art.
We have always separated photographers from photojournalists. While there is an overlap in skills and many individuals have produced work that should earn them membership in both clubs, we have kept the distinction. In part I think this is to allow for creativity on the side of photographers. We have celebrated those who change their photos to tell us a story. The artist is given license to adapt reality through developing and manipulating, and now with software, to create the image in their eye. Not all photographers have taken this route. Many choose to present the world in its true, raw form. But, it is the artist's option. Photojournalists on the other hand are not allow license. They must present the world through the lens – accurate to the last detail. We charge them with recording history.
We are in the age of digital photography and photo-editing software. So, what about editing? Is it important for all news photography to be presented untouched? Or are some edits acceptable?
In response to the post on Media Decoder, The Economist pointed to their October 2008 cover when the magazine endorsed Barack Obama for president. That cover shows a photograph of the then presidential candidate striding towards the camera. The image background is bright white and the headline simply states “It’s time”. The Economist’s editor explains that in both images the magazine altered (or completely removed) the background to create focus on the subject – President Barack Obama.
The fact that the magazine has edited two recent covers of the same individual does not make the practice right – or less controversial. So, when is it acceptable to edit a photograph and when is it not? I do not think there is one answer to that question. Perhaps news sources and photojournalists should always alert viewers when an image has been edited. But, that would only be a band-aid solution and not address the controversy directly. The question would remain: Are there circumstances where it is acceptable for a news source or journalist to edit photographs? I think the best answer lies in the intent of the alterations. Obviously, altering an image to misguide the viewer does not coincide with the integrity standards we accept of all journalists – written or photographic.
