Photojournalism performs an important role in society by shaping how we understand events in the world. Photojournalism provides a form of visual truth that can bring depth and insight to the news. As “the eyes of the world”, photojournalism is an extension of a representational system which broadens the scope of our vision beyond words, opinions and descriptions. At the same time, photojournalism can also distort context and reality.Increasingly, photojournalism, as a representational system, seems to be increasingly subjugated by a shift toward producing less controversial and less offensive content. Photojournalism, like other communication formats, has been used to increase corporate profits and, as Dan Gillmor argues, "crowds out depth." Consumers of visual information remain, through blind faith, committed to the belief that “seeing is [still] believing” and that “a camera never lies.”
At the heart of this belief resides the assumption that photojournalists are thoughtful, professional and ethical about doing the things they do—recording reality. I would suggest that this assumption, for the most part, is largely true. Most photojournalists are highly moral and ethical individuals who believe in telling the truth, as they perceive it, with a camera. However, once an image moves beyond the control of the photographer through selection, sizing, caption and headline writing, as well as placement on a page, context and meaning shift and change.
When questioned about their interest in photojournalism as a profession, students overwhelmingly state that they see photography and journalism as a way of making a difference in the world. Very rarely do students confess an interest in making a lot of money in photojournalism. Students contend, as I do, that meaningful images can make world will be a better place. Students believe, as I do, that pictures can bring people together in understanding for the good of a shared common humanity. In this way, photojournalism becomes an extension of our humanity toward each other and the earth.
Photojournalism, at its best, traffics in the moral currency of truth telling, fact-finding, and acting as a compassionate witness to everyday events, at home and abroad. Albeit, a naïve and idealistic assessment, this conviction still drives young people to the field during a time when competition for jobs increases and the space dedicated to photojournalism in publication decreases. This reality alone would seem enough to deter even the most persistent and determined individuals to consider other career options, yet interest in the field remains high.
For nearly a decade, some observers have predicted the death of photojournalism, as we know it. Perhaps photojournalism is dying in some way or at least reinventing itself these days. Photojournalism, as an occupation, is learning to adjust to many things including, the added pressures of working in an-all digital media environment and corporate downsizing. Although digital technology may seemingly contribute to changes in the way people gather images, it is not killing photojournalism. Mediocrity and greed are killing photojournalism. Photojournalism’s real enemy is capitalism and corporate greed. The real enemy of journalism, in general, in the United States has been and remains the insidious nature of corporate greed that seeks to spin news into gold.
If you don’t believe this just turn on the television to watch the horde of reporters and photographers waiting to get a glimpse of Michael Jackson coming and going from court. If you don’t believe that big media is more concerned about making profits rather than providing consumers with useful and factual information, just turn on the television to find out what Martha Stewart is wearing on the day she is released from prison. The formulaic content production of big media turns newsgathering into a cookie-cutter spectator sport. People are now looking elsewhere to inform themselves. Audiences are searching multiple sources for thoughtful and factual interpretations of world events. Mass media is increasingly becoming less mass and more targeted to specific groups of people in this country. This is a trend that began with placing information into content sections in the newspaper based on preconceived interest groups. When we categorize types of pictures and stories we are in a sense placing information into a hierarchy that undermines the value of journalism in society.
Big media is more concerned about celebrity causes than it is with providing consumers with news. Over average, a photojournalist working for a daily newspaper will spend about 60 percent of their time what dedicated to making portraits and feature photographs rather than covering news.
So who determines what “news” really is. When Martha Stewart’s poncho is given “news “precedence over other issues such over social security, health care, education, environment degradation, or the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there is something wrong with the big picture. Since when does Martha Stewart's weight become more important than U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq or elsewhere around the globe?
How can we expect the public to trust journalism when news values are driven by the banal or sensational?
The credibility of the photojournalist resides in the blind faith relationship built between the observer and observed, the producer and consumer of visual information. The blind faith relationship that once placed the authority of witness into the hands of a few highly motivated and creative people with cameras has been declining for at least the past two decades. Television news, which helped to visually bring the Viet Nam war into the living rooms for million during the 1960s, now appears more interested in entertaining than in edifying viewers.
Credibility in photojournalism continues to be under attack with the advance of digital technologies – technologies which make the seamless manipulation of images easier and harder to detect. Newsweek’s cover of a slimmed-down Martha Stewart, a photograph that combines Stewart’s head with a model’s body, is a case in point. Although Newsweek denies it intentionally set out to mislead the public or cross any ethical lines with the manipulation, this incident will not serve effort to reinsure the public that the media is a credible source of information. Newsweek’s assumption that viewers will turn inside to discover the disclaimer that the image was an illustration and not an actual image displays how disconnected some mainstream media have become estranged from the values of transparency in journalism.
Image manipulation, along with the speed and immediacy of image-recording devices such as the camera phone or mini-digital video, complicates photojournalism but it should not influence cultural practice. In the culture of photojournalism long-standing tenets of accuracy, fairness and balance, must be defended against attempts to control content through the push for profits or government regulation.
