PROOF 87654321012345678

2/12/95

AUS 23-SEP-2004

22 22

AC

3 4 Drop PUB: AUS 23-SEP-2004 ED: 1 2 AC

OK

E CORRECTION SIGNATURE: ED

AD

PROD

CMYK

CMYK 2

5

6

7

8

15

25

50

75

98

dmin

dmax +

+

22

THE

AUSTRALIAN — Thursday

Media

September 23 2004

www.theaustralian.com.au

Fuzzy rules on digital images Ethics go into soft focus on acceptable discrepancies between digitally retouched photographs and reality, writes Kerri Elgar WHEN it comes to Photoshop, who is more likely to remove that lamp post, tweak smiles or add a criminal handshake? In the US, the first time a digital manipulation caused a scandal was in 1982, when National Geographic magazine changed its cover photograph of the Pyramids of Giza to make the original horizontal photograph fit the vertical cover. The change was hardly monumental — the apex of one pyramid was moved ever so slightly into the magazine’s yellow cover frame. But digital technology was brand new. The photographer complained and this was followed by public outcry. Despite editor Wilbur Garrett’s defence that the effect would have been the same had the photographer moved a couple of metres, senior management later acknowledged that the incident had damaged the magazine’s credibility. Would the same incident have created a fuss in another media culture or in another country? In Australia, one of the first and most disputed digital scandals erupted the day Martin Bryant’s crazed eyes stared out from the front page of The Australian. This, the headline told us, was the ‘‘FACE OF A KILLER’’. It was April 30, 1996, two days after the Port Arthur massacre, and no charges had been laid. The contrast between this use of the image and that of other News Limited newspapers on that same day was striking. Much speculation followed about whether the deranged effect was intentional manipulation or a mistake on the part of an overzealous computer technician preparing the photo for production, as The Australian’s editorial management maintained. What is perhaps more interesting is that, in many ways, the change was relatively slight, a simple lightening of the eyes. You didn’t need to be a whiz at Photoshop. Indeed, any darkroom technician could have done the same, which brings the issue back to the

Ethics in photojournalism The study used quantitative and qualitative research techniques, based on established methodology in Australia and the US (including Reaves, Griffin, Henningham and Newton). The research was part of a University of Queensland PhD thesis on photojournalism ethics under the supervision of Geoff Turner and John Henningham. Newspapers participating in the research were: (Australia) The Australian , The Australian Financial Review , The Sydney Morning Herald , The Age , Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph ; (UK) The Times and Daily Mirror ; (France) Le Parisien and Liberation ; and (US) The Los Angeles Times and The San Jose Mercury News . need for those who carry out the work to have appropriate training and to be aware of what their public might see as unethical standards. These standards may differ from newspaper culture to newspaper culture and from country to country. For example, in Britain, it seems to take much more than skewing an apex or lightening eyes to get anyone upset. Politics will do it, as editorial staff at the Evening Standard found out in 1996 when they doctored a photo of John Prescott to replace a bottle of beer with a bottle of bubbly and labelled him a ‘‘champagne socialist’’. So will sport: in 1998, The Sun removed a photograph of a woman in a wheelchair from the crowd in the background of a photo of the

English cricket team. Her complaints about the newspaper’s discrimination against the disabled were reported throughout Europe. On the other side of the channel, the French are a cultural exception apart. In the country that led the photographic art movement and where definitions of truth are less rigid, photographers are less concerned about aesthetic touch-ups (such as intensifying colour and improving complexions) providing the photograph tells its intended story. Liberation ’s photographic department head, Laurent Abadjian, commented that when he was presented with a portrait photo of a beautiful girl with bad skin, he knew readers would prefer the picture be touched up to remove imperfections. If ethical standards differ, then by how much? Does the kind of newspaper you work for or the country you live in make a difference? Most important, has digital technology started a revolution in photojournalism ethics? Or an evolution? From 1997 to 2002, I put these questions to photographers, journalists and editors in Australia, Europe and the US. The interviews included a scenario-based questionnaire in which respondents were asked to mark whether they approved of specific manipulation techniques (for example, blurring, stretching a photo 10 per cent to fit a layout, removing distracting telephone poles or wires). The findings were: ➤ The ease and speed of digital technology mean the risks ( ethical and legal) of deceptive manipulation occurring have increased since these systems were introduced into newsrooms in the 1980s and ’90s. ➤ At the same time, awareness of ethical issues in photojournalism in the newsroom has also increased. With this comes a new willingness to categorise photographs (often with labels such as ‘‘photo illustration’’) to distinguish images with heavy modifications from those news images where imaging has

Touch-ups: National Geographic ’s pyramid cover, far left; a modified image from Spain’s railway bombing in The Daily Telegraph and with a body limb near the tracks as published in The Australian , centre; mass-killer Bryant as he appeared originally, right and The Australian ’s manipulated image, top

been used for only the strictest technical reproduction purposes. There was wide agreement among photographers and their editors that, to this extent, the ethical issues involved have become more transparent than when photographers worked in their darkrooms. ➤ American photo-journalists were most likely to disapprove of specified manipulation techniques in news photographs (2.1 per cent), whereas British and French photographers were the most likely to believe the same practices were justified (31.7 per cent). Australian photographers’ approval rating for manipulation techniques in news photographs fell between these extremes (9 per cent) but was closer to the American ideals. However, when it came to news feature photographs, British photographers supported far higher levels of manipulation without acknowledgment (58.5 per cent approval), compared with Australian and French photographers (38 per cent). However, American photographers were still reluctant to use any enhancement techniques on their feature photographs (9.7 per cent). These differences could be traced to different media cultures, educa-

tional training of photographers and their managers, and to historical ideas of truth in photography. ➤ There is great confusion over what is or is not acceptable photo retouching. Many newsrooms have produced rather vague codified principles or staff memos stressing the need to abide by previous ‘‘darkroom standards’’. Yet these old practices are sometimes just as deceptive as digital techniques. For example, in certain British newspaper darkrooms it was common practice for sports photographers to use cut-out sports balls (Daily Mirror staff referred to a stock of cut-out cricket and footballs of different sizes used by all photographers to add to their photos). ➤ There was no notable difference in the ethics of tabloid v broadsheet photographers. In Australia, Fairfax newspapers were more likely to provide training to photographers in technical aspects of photomanipulation than News Limited, although no more likely to provide ethical guidance. Fairfax newspapers were also slower to provide codes of ethics, with management preferring to rely on the integrity of photographers and photo editors. News Limited photographers

were generally given less control over their final image than their Fairfax colleagues and this perceived lack of trust was a source of frustration among them. Several News Limited photographers were not aware there was a company code of ethics. This was countered by a view from News Limited management that technicians were versed in ethical boundaries and unlikely to be tempted to overcorrect or improve on images. ➤ Ethical training for photographers was extremely limited in all countries except the US, where 91.7 per cent had received tertiary training in photojournalism ethics. In other countries surveyed, the difference was striking (between 0 per cent and 2.8 per cent of all photographers surveyed had received any tertiary training in photojournalism ethics). In Australia, on-the-job guidance in ethics was negligible. Even where formal technical training courses in Photoshop were routinely offered (Fairfax newspapers), none of the photographers surveyed had received any formal training in journalism or photojournalism ethics. ➤ Archiving emerged as a significant potential problem on legal and

ethical grounds. Newspapers usually stored only the final digital image that appeared in the newspaper, as opposed to the analogue storage system, where original negatives were preserved as a reference. While the technology existed to address this problem, newspaper management saw the cost and storage implications as prohibitive factors. Sourcing (verifying internet and freelance images) also emerged as a significant problem, particularly in Britain where images are increasingly obtained from freelancers or the web and there was strong competitive pressure to publish quickly. This was also less of a concern in US newspapers, where most images came from staff photographers.

Kerri Elgar, an Australian journalist and researcher living in France, has lectured in media ethics at the University of Queensland and London Institute, and was a member of the drafting committee for the Australian Journalists Association Revised Code of Ethics.

LINKS [email protected].

Just like leaving us off your media plan. For real impact, make sure you’re in NSW’s highest selling newspapers.

SMART_NEWS5075A

+

+