Response Essay 2

Changing the content of a photograph that is published in a magazine or newspaper is wrong because it depicts a false illusion, and it is essentially a lie. Dictionary.com defines lying as “to express what is false, or to convey a false impression.” Altering images does just that. The purpose of newspapers and most magazines is to inform the public with facts, not lies. From the article “NPPA Calls Newsweek's Martha Stewart
Cover ‘A Major Ethical Breach,’” is the following quotation, “We try to make the point that photojournalism is about truth. It's about reality.” Editing images to portray something that did not happen or altering an event to persuade the audience to a certain side is not being truthful and undermines the very purpose of the media.

The article “Pictures May Not Lie But Doctored Photos Change History,” explains how doctoring photographs have a more severe consequence than simply breaking ethical standards. Changing a picture, which is supposed to be a representation of reality, not only changes the truth, but also changes opinions, memories and emotional responses of the audience. These changes are not just speculations, but are backed up by research outcomes. This research evidence is described in the same article’s beginning statement, “Doctored photos of past public events can influence what people think they remember of the incident, as well as altering their attitudes and any subsequent responses, according to research published today in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology.” With these new findings, the media has an even bigger responsibility to portray facts because it is not only reporting what will become history, but the media is ultimately shaping history. Franca Agnoli, the supervisor of this research supports this idea with her statement, “One major result was that viewing modified images affected not only the way people remember past public events, but also their attitudes and behavioral intentions.”

Based on the known consequences of editing images, I think that very minimum doctoring should be allowed. I feel that editing should only take place to enhance an image in terms of lighting, exposure and cropping out unnecessary material. I also think that any editing that changes the original purpose, content or emotion of an image should not be allowed. For example, the darkening of the O.J. Simpson mug shot, which was featured in the “NPPA Calls Newsweek's Martha Stewart
Cover ‘A Major Ethical Breach’” article, should not be allowed because it gives off a negative connotation about O.J Simpson, instead of accurately portraying his picture. On the other hand, I feel that the edited version of the picture that we viewed in class of the baseball team was acceptable because it only erased a very small portion of the picture (a pair of legs on the other side of the fence), and did not alter the overall feeling, purpose or expression of the photo.

When it comes to magazines featuring models and celebrities, I find altering their bodies and faces to be completely deceptive because this action does not accurately depict what they look like. Instead, these pictures are considered illustrations. I feel that these changes are deceiving because the “illustrations” are conceived by the public eye as a true photograph. The article from the NPPA discusses the composite of Martha Stewart fused onto a model’s body. The article states, “NPPA finds it a total breach of ethics and completely misleading to the public.” I agree with this statement because the majority of readers hold these photos to be true.

I feel a photo can be considered legitimate if it has very little or no editing done to it before it is published. The lighting or shading a picture might need to be edited to improve the quality of the picture, but I find using PhotoShop excessively to completely change the composition of a photo or its subject is completely deceiving and unethical.