As expected, folks have started to respond to my commentary on the recent Reuter's photo-manipulation situation.
Peter Clarke, Assistant Professor at Belmont
Technical College wrote in response to my post with the following comment.
Professor Clarke notes:
"I feel a deep sense of sadness for the freelancer who probably didn't even know that he was doing anything wrong in the first place". Are you kidding? You are being laughably naive. Of course he knew he was doing something wrong! He was trying to make the damage look worse than it was, regardless of who he was attempting to influence.
It is not the responsibility of the news agencies to provide for all of its freelancer's needs. The freelancer is 'free' to take or leave the work, and the rate of pay or benefits he receives from Reuters or anyone else is his own personal concern. Only by firing him will the message be reinforced to not 'doctor' photos, not by ensuring that freelancers have health insurance. You're apparent good-heartedness is pathetically misplaced.
I think it is important to take my lumps on the perspective I presented in my previous post.
I am grateful to Professor Clarke for pointing out what he feels are feable ideas on my part. Maybe they are, but having a conversation about differing perspectives is what blogging is all about.
Although my statement about feeling "sad" for the freelancer may sound stupid and naive, I think it is important to look at the context in which this incident happened.
My point is simply that maybe the guy had an agenda to slant the news in the direction he wanted people to lean. That would be unethical and wrong without question. I don't feel sorry for anyone that would do that, but I do believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.
The problem is that if he did have an agenda, why wasn't he called on it earlier?
Why did it take so long for him to be discovered by a blogger? The wire service, I claim, has a responsibility here and must be held accountable for selecting and training individuals that are willing to follow commonly accepted ethical standards.
Nevertheless, I do feel sorry for this guy. I feel sorry for him because he has become a scapegoat for an industry that has failed to make sure he wasn't using the power of the camera and all the technology that goes with it to tell us lies.
How many other pictures are being manipulated every day that we don't know about and who is ultimately responsible for allowing these images to slip through as representative of what can only be called a constructed social reality.
In the end my apparent good-heartedness may be pathetically misplaced, but I also think I might be pathethically misunderstood here. What I am getting at is that there are journalistic practices today that are being driven by economic concerns. This is what I need to make people understand -- journalism is a business run by businessmen.
What I am trying to say is that this industry must be made more accountable for providing us with information that can be trusted, despite what it may end up costing them. There are hundreds of well-trained photojournalists in this country that would love to have the opportunity that the freelancers have, yet will never do so for a variety of reasons.