Harper's Magazine is planning to offer a clarification over the use of a digitally altered image of a US Marine on its March cover. However, just a little forward thinking could have helped this situation tremendously.
The image showing a blurred out Marine in a line of recruits at Paris Island was intended to illustrate a story on desertion. The debacle came to light after the family of Pvt. Britian Kinder, 19, of Pinch, West Virginia recognized him as the blurry metaphor of an AWOL Marine in the picture. The news image was altered in order to illustrate an idea, in this case disertion, which raises concerns for professionals and scholars alike.
“Audiences deserve journalistic integrity and context,” said Kenny Irby Visual Journalism Group Leader at The Poynter Institute in a phone interview Wednesday afternoon.
“Projecting innocent individuals in a false light is very deceptive,” Irby said.
Harper’s indiscretion places the cart – one which values aesthetics and marketability -- before the horse – one which undermines journalistic integrity and ethical principles.
Using images made within the context of visual reporting the news for illustrations or "decorations" is stretching the truth beyond what is journalistically and ethically acceptable.
At issue here is how decisions to pass off news images as cover art increasingly circumvent long-standing journalistic tenets. How the audience ultimately comes to trust the integrity of a publication resides in the unfettered transparency and open discourse between editors, photojournalists, designers, artists and marketers.
I am presuming, that in this case, no photojournalists were given a say in the selection of the image. Rather, the responsibility of image choice was passed along to art directors, editors and digital imaging experts.
As Irby contends, “The individuals are used for a clearly illustrative purpose and become guilty by association.”
For Irby, Harper’s visual options were numerous, yet the decision to run the image seemed to be based on a decision-making process where "the graphic and aesthetic impact of the image is paramount and journalistic principles tertiary.”
“I think it was a poor choice in terms of all the visual journalistic options available,” he said.
For me, the problem resides in the fact that the general public remains visually illiterate and ignorant about how easily images can be manipulated. Lack of transparency on the part of the publication leads to misrepresentation and disbelief.
As Betts (2003) notes, "While photo manipulation is more prevalent than ever in this digital age, when many laptops come with software to help get the red out of your mother-in-law's eyes, the extent of retouching practiced by glossy magazines is still little understood by readers."
In this incident, which follows close on the heals of the Martha Stewart Makeover controversy on the cover of Newsweek, Michelle Malkin quotes Giulia Melucci, Harper's vice president for public relations:
"We are decorating pages," said Giulia Melucci. "We are not saying the soldiers are AWOL. Our covers are not necessarily representative."
Nevertheless, Melucci’s claim suggests that Harper’s doesn’t necessarily need to play by the same rules as everyone else. Magazines and newspapers are learning lessons the hard way by constantly pushing the boundaries between fact and fiction.
Despite the fact that Harper’s is planning a clarification in it’s next issue, I get the feeling of a “No Big Deal” defense often used by those not willing to come to terms with a lapse of ethical and journalistic judgment. Using real people to illustrate a concept that electronically transports meaning from the literal to the figurative may be construed as misleading and deceptive.
It's just not cool to use images out of context and manipulate them, even if it may be artistic.
Sources:
"What's wrong with this picture" by Kate Betts (2003) The Age
Photo tampering at Harper's (2005) on Michelle Malkin's Blog