Photojournalism: Fact vs Fiction (NY Times)

emraphoto said:
believe it or not there is a code of conduct when one speaks of journalism.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not entirely sure that I do believe it.

There is enlightened self interest when it comes to news reporting: if you consistently make things up, people stop believing you and there's a risk of getting sued.

The rest of it comes down to behaving like a decent human being: not unnecessarily intruding on people's grief, not stealing private property, etc.: nothing specifically to do with journalism -- though I suppose even stealing might be OK if it exposes a major scandal.

What else might there be? I cheerfully admit I have not thought deeply about this -- it's too early in the morning -- but although I've often heard of a 'journalistic code of ethics' (or 'conduct') I've never seen it spelled out anywhere.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
emraphoto said:
i assure you there are. those schools spend a great deal of time re-enforcing them.

www.media-accountability.org/library/Canada_CEP.doc

http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/cabethics.php

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

and perhaps more pertinent
http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html
Click to expand...

Fascinating! Thanks very much indeed! I had genuinely never seen such things.

On reading them, on the other jand, I can't help feeling that if you strip out the pompous drivel, they don't expand all that much on what I said: don't lie, and behave like a decent human being.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Fascinating! Thanks very much indeed! I had genuinely never seen such things.

On reading them, on the other jand, I can't help feeling that if you strip out the pompous drivel, they don't expand all that much on what I said: don't lie, and behave like a decent human being.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Generally speaking any statement that won’t fit on a A4 sheet I find suspicious, it usually means someone is concealing something in the small print
 
This is the National Press Photographers' Association code of ethics stolen from their site. There is one.

Code of Ethics
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
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 misrepresent subjects.
Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
Ideally, visual journalists should:

Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.
Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media.
Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view.
Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence.
Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects.
Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.
Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. Visual journalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it.
 
I should also mention that at the time some of the photographs in the OP's link were made at a time when there was no cut and dry "code of ethics". How should one act when there is no reason to think setting up a scene is immoral.

I'm sure the civil war photographers mentioned in the OP's link had no second thoughts on setting the scenes.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Fascinating! Thanks very much indeed! I had genuinely never seen such things.

On reading them, on the other jand, I can't help feeling that if you strip out the pompous drivel, they don't expand all that much on what I said: don't lie, and behave like a decent human being.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

indeed roger! when the you know what hits the fan your version is far easier to remember.
 
A wonderful collection of weasel words, for which I thank you very much. Herewith a lightly annotated version. Some letters are omitted in the A-X sequence.


Code of Ethics
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions areaccountable [to whom?]for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. [A: Yeah, right. As already agreed, you can't report everything. You choose what to report -- and there will always be someone who whines and snivels that you're biased, because your biases aren't theirs]

Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. [B: Think!]

Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. [C: as 'A' above]

Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. [D: If necessary, let them do that for themselves. Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.]

Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. [G: Why?]

Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. [H: Including of course people who are proud of their role in 'ethic cleansing', massacres, running gas chambers, etc.]

Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. [J: Be a decent human being]

Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. [K: As 'J' above. And are you SURE you're qualified to judge what's 'overriding and justifiable'?]

While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. [K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]

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 misrepresent subjects. [Eh?]

Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. [L: Probably a good idea but what about buying 'em a drink, lunch, etc.?]

Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. [M: More accurately, don't give them or their opponents the chance to look as if they've bribed you. But if you followed this course of action scrupulously, you couldn't accept e.g. a journalist visa from the Chinese authotities.]

Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. [N: Oh, come on. Where's the line between 'one upmanship' and sabotage?]

Ideally, visual journalists should:

Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.

Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. [P: Proactively' is a clear sign they're running out of ideas and vocabulary]

Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media. [R: Vacant drivel. If you don't already do this, a worthless exhortation ain't gonna change your ways]

Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view. [S: Oh, yeah. I really ought to give white supremacists and religious extremists plenty of time to spout their hatreds]

Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence. [T: Don't actually DO anything. Just moan about it.]

Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects. [U: Unobtrusive? You're asking about matters of life and death, and you're going to be unobtrusive? And if striving to be humble means giving arrogant politicians, business leaders, etc., the chance to get away with things, what is the use of 'humble'?]

Respect the integrity of the photographic moment. [V: Pure drivel]

Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. [W: High-flown drivel.]

Visual journalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it. [X: Because if you don't study the craft, you won't get work, and if this load of drivel tells you much about ethics, you probably don't understand the word anyway]
 
Last edited:
I applaud debunking and snide-wise commentary on a bunch of high-flown motherhood statements as much as the next bloke. As regards "the problem" that many have with journalism, though, I want to select out one comment:

Roger Hicks said:
[K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]
Click to expand...

Firstly, let me say I agree entirely with your sentiment.

But I want to go on to something else: that "journalism" encompasses many things, including the "crusading" kind you talk about and also, for that matter, including editorial and opinion pieces. Too many people (I don't mean you, Roger, but do include the authors of high-flown codes of ethics) confuse such aspects of journalism with "reporting" - sometimes conflating the two and sometimes ignoring the distinction.

"Reporting" is a sub-set of "journalism" and, as such, needs to conform to a set of requirements that are different from and somewhat more restrictive than "journalism" writ large. If someone reports that something happened then the ideal is that it did, indeed, happen and that there be evidence of such, the more compelling the better. Objectivity (while never being achievable) should be something to aspire to, and bias on the part of the reporter should be something they attempt (however imperfectly) to leave at the door.

Abandoning that, to me, means abandoning everything. What should I do about the journalist who crusades against cruelty to goldfish if, as it turns out, no goldfish have been harmed? And the crusading journalist knew that, but didn't think it would help his case to tell me so.

"Reporting" should attempt to establish the facts, and crusading, or ideological committment and all those other things should follow the facts, or be argued based on them. "Facts" should not be created out of whole cloth to advance the agenda of a crusade or an ideology.

And the truth that objectivity can never be achieved, nor bias eliminated, should not be used as an excuse for not trying, or for manufacturing stories to suport an agenda.

IMHO, one of the reasons that journalism has lost respect is because the trade itself has allowed the distinction between "reporting" and other aspects of journalism to blur so badly that in too many minds it has disappeared.

...Mike

[EDIT]P.S. OTOH, trying to hold all journalism to the standards of "straight reporting" is not only futile, but wrong in it's own and different way.[/EDIT]
 
Last edited:
Art commentary: Facts Vs Fiction

Art commentary: Facts Vs Fiction

Some times the NYT publishes higly good articles about issues related to photography, like the one written by Randy Kennedy, about Danny Lyon http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/arts/design/26kenn.html?_r=1&ref=arts. Some times terrible-empty-contents but rich-in-twisted-phrasing articles are published, and sometimes there are articles in the middle.

Like photographers, writers have to earn their living too, and each one extracts the honney either with the machete or with his dirty nails, according to his skills, ambition and honesty.

Having said that I would locate the article subject of this thread, quite in the middle. Not just an article playing with words but devoid of info, nor one presenting some interesting new view or pointing the finger to somewhere new, beyond what every pal knows. Am I wrong ? was there a big new revelation ?

Lots of gossip, not a single substantiated fact. The technical structure of this imressionist style article is simple to death. After giving detailed circumstancial only detailing about the controversy over Capa's picture, the following quoted cases, even less substantiated are supposed to gain the reader's legitimacy by the domino effect.

What, that a few folks are claiming money from Doisneau herency ? That the actual place of the Spanish loyalist death was 25 km aside ? Are you really serious ? That according to Mrs X, Mrs Y whispered her that blah blah blah. Is this factual evidence ? Or gossip ?

Gossip to my judgement, sorry. That photography lies, or better said - can lie, is a message quite dumb after all, at this stage of world technology. Only photographers can lie? Journalists are vacinated ?, businessmen ? Berlusconis ? Judges ?

Photographers have lied. Big deal ! Big discovery ! Let's open a beer !

Some may get impressed by the inflated wording, others may even enjoy the inflated wording, and some times I do - but dear folks, let's be serious. Before pointing the finger, the writer may have done better by detaliling a proven example, or providing proof himself about a new case. This is harder, not ?

There are famous cases of photographic forgeries, somehow skipped in the article who targeted Capa, the famous and self declared leftist. An example of this kind of forgeries is the famous disapearing of Trotzki from the photo of Lenin during a speech. Another was the staged positinioning of the red flag over the Reichstag, and a third, it seems to me, is related to a similar case with an American flag at a big Japanesse island.

Quite boring an article for me, with a slight political spicing.

Btw, political spicing is legitimate in my book, provided neutrality is not claimed. Capa never claimed neutrality by the way. Unlike the writer of the boring article. Nevertheless, partisanship is no umbrella for forgery, be it crystal clear, nor for gossiping.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From your post Roger:

Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable [to whom?] for upholding the following standards in their daily work

--Accountable to the public and themselves. If you screw this up you lose your job and respect. Don't manipulate your photos or the scenes if they are to be published as news.

Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. [A: Yeah, right. As already agreed, you can't report everything. You choose what to report -- and there will always be someone who whines and snivels that you're biased, because your biases aren't theirs]

--Because some may whine about biases does not mean you should give in. This line says nothing about choosing which stories to cover. It means don't leave something out when your on assignment.

Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. [H: Including of course people who are proud of their role in 'ethic cleansing', massacres, running gas chambers, etc.]

--The public will form their own opinions based on unbiased reporting one's own opinions need not be inserted. Your not going to get the story by being a jerk to the guy even though you may find his ideals deplorable.

While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. [K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]

--I don't see what is wrong with this rule. I don't read it as asking me to be neutral on the subjects you mention. As I said before let the readers form their own opinions that is what photojournalists are for.

Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. [N: Oh, come on. Where's the line between 'one upmanship' and sabotage?]

--Don't put your hand in front of the other guy's lens, but if you find your way into a story you don't need to tell the other guy how you did it. Thats the line.

Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects. [U: Unobtrusive? You're asking about matters of life and death, and you're going to be unobtrusive? And if striving to be humble means giving arrogant politicians, business leaders, etc., the chance to get away with things, what is the use of 'humble'?]

--Unobtrusive and humble will get you a story. The subject of your story may like or respect you giving you the chance to write/photograph more in depth thereby giving your readers more to form their own opinions.

Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence. [T: Don't actually DO anything. Just moan about it.]

--Don't run for Mayor because your gonna have to report on the Mayor. Journalism doesn't moan it describes.

Much of your post is very negative, and blown out of proportion in my opinion.
 
Roger Hicks said:
A wonderful collection of weasel words, for which I thank you very much. Herewith a lightly annotated version. Some letters are omitted in the A-X sequence.


Code of Ethics
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions areaccountable [to whom?]for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. [A: Yeah, right. As already agreed, you can't report everything. You choose what to report -- and there will always be someone who whines and snivels that you're biased, because your biases aren't theirs]

Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. [B: Think!]

Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. [C: as 'A' above]

Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. [D: If necessary, let them do that for themselves. Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.]

Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. [G: Why?]

Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. [H: Including of course people who are proud of their role in 'ethic cleansing', massacres, running gas chambers, etc.]

Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. [J: Be a decent human being]

Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. [K: As 'J' above. And are you SURE you're qualified to judge what's 'overriding and justifiable'?]

While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. [K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]

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 misrepresent subjects. [Eh?]

Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. [L: Probably a good idea but what about buying 'em a drink, lunch, etc.?]

Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. [M: More accurately, don't give them or their opponents the chance to look as if they've bribed you. But if you followed this course of action scrupulously, you couldn't accept e.g. a journalist visa from the Chinese authotities.]

Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. [N: Oh, come on. Where's the line between 'one upmanship' and sabotage?]

Ideally, visual journalists should:

Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.

Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. [P: Proactively' is a clear sign they're running out of ideas and vocabulary]

Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media. [R: Vacant drivel. If you don't already do this, a worthless exhortation ain't gonna change your ways]

Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view. [S: Oh, yeah. I really ought to give white supremacists and religious extremists plenty of time to spout their hatreds]

Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence. [T: Don't actually DO anything. Just moan about it.]

Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects. [U: Unobtrusive? You're asking about matters of life and death, and you're going to be unobtrusive? And if striving to be humble means giving arrogant politicians, business leaders, etc., the chance to get away with things, what is the use of 'humble'?]

Respect the integrity of the photographic moment. [V: Pure drivel]

Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. [W: High-flown drivel.]

Visual journalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it. [X: Because if you don't study the craft, you won't get work, and if this load of drivel tells you much about ethics, you probably don't understand the word anyway]
Click to expand...

"weasel words" wow. well Roger i am normally one to engage in a conversation regardless if i am defending a position. what you have presented amounts to pure curmudgeon and with that i take my leave.
 
Here in the UK we have the benefit of BBC, controlled by charter, funded by the public and fiercely independent of government it strives to be completely balanced in its output.

It was in fact so balanced in reporting a single doctor’s misguided concern about the MMR vaccine it’s uptake fell to the point we now have children dying from measles. I have agree with Roger’s scepticism here

Objective reporting is just editorial pretending to be a virgin
 
mfunnell said:
"journalism" encompasses many things, including the "crusading" kind you talk about and also, for that matter, including editorial and opinion pieces. Too many people (I don't mean you, Roger, but do include the authors of high-flown codes of ethics) confuse such aspects of journalism with "reporting" - sometimes conflating the two and sometimes ignoring the distinction.

"Reporting" is a sub-set of "journalism" and, as such, needs to conform to a set of requirements that are different from and somewhat more restrictive than "journalism" writ large. If someone reports that something happened then the ideal is that it did, indeed, happen and that there be evidence of such, the more compelling the better. Objectivity (while never being achievable) should be something to aspire to

[EDIT]P.S. OTOH, trying to hold all journalism to the standards of "straight reporting" is not only futile, but wrong in it's own and different way.[/EDIT]
Click to expand...

Dear Mike,

Absolutely.

I may have overstated my case, but hey, I'm a journalist: I get paid to do that. And if it's curmudgeonly, I get paid for that too. But it's also the way I am, as evidenced by the fact that I'm writing this for free.

One kind of reader ignores me because they don't agree with me and are afraid of thinking about which of us is right.

The other kind reads my stuff because regardless of whether they agree with me or not, they appreciate the stimulus of what one described as 'a mental kick up the bum'.

I assume that my readers get their information from multiple sources of varying reliability, and then assess the likelihood of what they read being actually true. If they don't, they're either fools, or don't care about the subject (nothing wrong with the latter: I don't care about sport, for example, and a single source is more than interests me).

Obviously I'm talking about the op/ed stuff (Amateur Photographer, Land Rover World) but even when I'm reporting (Shutterbug photokina coverage) I have to choose what to cover. Do I describe every stand equally? Of course not. There's not space, and even if there were, it would be boring beyond belief.

Likewise, if I'm writing about Tibet, how much time need I dedicate to Chinese propaganda? There's plenty of that, without my giving them extra paper.

Journalism is a dialectic. Anyone who can't handle that should stop pretending that they're reading the news. They're not. They're demanding to be spoon-fed pap that suits their preconceptions.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Sparrow said:
It was in fact so balanced in reporting a single doctor’s misguided concern about the MMR vaccine it’s uptake fell to the point we now have children dying from measles.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "report the controversy" trick - that's the third time we've fallen for it this week (with apologies to Maxwell Smart).

In order to avoid accusations of bias, you "report both sides of the argument". You listen to one group, write down what they say, then move on to the next group - and repeat as many times as needed. The recorded statements are then published - as purported "journalism" though it is much more akin to stenography. You never report that one group is lying, another is mistaken, another plain loopy etc. If you did so, no matter how accurately, or with however much evidence, they would accuse you of bias, and we couldn't 'ave that, now, could we?

...Mike
 
MinorTones said:
I should also mention that at the time some of the photographs in the OP's link were made at a time when there was no cut and dry "code of ethics". How should one act when there is no reason to think setting up a scene is immoral.

I'm sure the civil war photographers mentioned in the OP's link had no second thoughts on setting the scenes.
Click to expand...

Well, let's not start by assuming your idea of "morality" is inherently valid in all cases 🙂

Consider the case of a war photographer of the 1800's. Their job/hope is to return with photos that tell a story that cannot be told in print alone. To that end, it makes little difference if the bodies have been moved or if they were the first on the scene. They are still dead. In fact, such things as bodies lined up in a row actually help tell the story of what happened there that day. Who actually believed they just fell over dead that way? Seeing dead soldiers in a line draws a parallel between the living soldiers as they must have looked marching to their doom and the sad spectacle in the aftermath. It is useful and eloquent and not "immoral."

What would be served by refusing to take pictures of any scene if a body had been moved or first aid administered or a path cleared?

A photojournalist makes choices about what to shoot. They or someone else makes choices about what to print. What comes out in publication is hardly the sum total of the story at the scene. Isn't this something we all know by the end of grade school? Especially on RFF as people who routinely use cameras for our own ends?

It does no-one any good if the photographer refuses to take a picture because people have already started picking up. Are we all idiots?

See these examples: http://www.slublog.com/archives/2006/08/the_passion_of.html
Can't we all pretty much guess the teddy bear perched on the wreckage of a collapsed building is put there for effect? Is there any thinking adult who would believe such a thing would just "happen"?!? IMHO, any outrage stems from your own embarassment for being so naive, and is not the fault of others. Just because you feel hurt and lied to doesn't mean anyone was lying or trying to mislead.

Once we get past the misguided moral outrage and naivete, is it possible the shots are useful from a photojournalist stand? They obviously tell a story. We don't have any idea *what story* when taken out of context, but when associated with a tale of an earthquake or battle, it can be illustrative. We don't have to believe the toy was found in that spot for the image to be useful. Toy or not, the shot of rubble is real enough.

Obviously we as the reader/viewer have to place enough stock in the outlet to trust the content. We don't need to pretend photographs are somehow magic windows always showing "truth." We KNOW they don't show truth, they show ***whatever the shooter wants them to show.*** It's not our job to assume all kinds of things that aren't being claimed, to read too much into every image.

And quite obviously, the first people on the scene of carnage are probably dead or injured. The second group to arrive are going to start cleaning up and helping. The photographer is coming with the gawkers and trying to leave with something someone would pay to look at. They are NOT forensic scientists making as accurate a record of the scene as they found it, because they went to a JOURNALISM school that teaches photographers to make "pictures that tell a story," not merely record a scene clinically. And rightfully so.

Let's not start crucifying photographers for delivering the goods. How about we stop pretending to be idiots?
 
Last edited:
"And quite obviously, the first people on the scene of carnage are probably dead or injured. The second group to arrive are going to start cleaning up and helping. The photographer is coming with the gawkers and trying to leave with something someone would pay to look at. They are NOT forensic scientists making as accurate a record of the scene as they found it, because they went to a JOURNALISM school that teaches photographers to make "pictures that tell a story," not merely record a scene clinically. And rightfully so."

A good education, even if self-educated, helps tell the story.
 
I think that there are 2 major problems and several people have touched on them. First and as yet not mentioned is that in the early days...a photo essay was used in an effort to show a event in a more complete manner. Then when the editors jumped into a story "they" were a different group who were looking to create political reactions and filtered what honest effort an "eyewitness" objective photographer was. This twisting by editors for a enhanced "truth" by a person who was not there is the real posion.

Next we have after WWII we have politically biased publications that had an adjenda that was to attach blame..as the editoral staff deemed. This created the more dangerous problem and that was the efforts to stage photos. Which to some degree is how the "trash" gossip papers got traction. In the end the broadcast networks really killed the public's faith in news after being caught over and over faking footage. These are not small cracks in credibility.

So in the end print must make 1 photo do the work of what should have ben an untampered photo essay! Next TV News was forced to become entertainment that had to have sensalism, that was reenforced by "focus" groups...in turn kept budgets for 6pm News. Facts were not good enough as then did not create ratings...and advertising from higher ratings. Truth has no glamor...and creating sensalism does not serve anyone. That is where the phrase...."I Panic News Team"!!

So again the little guy who is pressured to come up with a killer photo is being intimated by some clown behind a desk..who does not care about anything but SALES!! Very Sad. When freelance photographers came along the papers only wanted photos as an exclusive feature...or value added over competition papers! Nothing more. If TV had been invented first ...think about how that would have changed the world of still photograpy.


Can we change the effects of publishing as it impacts photography as a tool of honesty for recording history...sadly I do not think so.

All the Best....Laurance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Frank Oscar Larson: 1950s New York Street Stories at Queens Museum of Art
Replies
0
Views
2K
artphotogirl
A
Back
Top Bottom