Dennis Dunleavy

Explicit and Implicit Bias: Pictures and Trust

 

 

There are several forms of favorable and unfavorable bias affecting public perception of the media in terms of digital manipulation. Here's a chart illustrating the possibilities of explicit and implicit bias in attitudes toward photojournalism.

 

Related articles

Bias and Photo Manipulation: Can you tell when a picture is a fake?

Implicit Bias and Why It Matters to the Field of Political Methodology

Imperfect Cognitions on Implicit Bias

Is There Anything We Can Do to Correct for the Fact That We're All a Little Bit Prejudiced?

Playing "god" in a digital age: The thin line between art and the subjectivity of photojournalism

Jarle recently commented on the post  "Crazy light", in which I wrote: "We are constantly challenged to make scenes that are less than interesting, more interesting." The question that this raises, however, is when and how are the conventions of honest visual reportage bent for the sake of making images more compelling? 

Jarle continues:

Correct. We all strive to make our photos more interesting. But, ethically and philosophically speaking, isn't this in direct conflict with the "our pictures must always tell the truth" mantra?

There's often a thin line between photojournalism, "art" and subjective, commentary photography.

And, playing the devil's advocate, what's the difference between adding motion blur in Photoshop and using a slow shutter speed?

I'll start out by agreeing with much what Jarle has said here. From a purist perspective, "Straight" photography should be a style of photography that records what the eye witnesses without elaboration or embellishment. For the most part, this form of photography, what is photojournalism today, has remained pretty much true to form. At the same time, it is possible to find quite a few examples of photojournalism from the 1980s to the present day, that deviate from the normal conventions.

Photo Credit: Craig Aurness/National Geographic

As Jarle notes, "ethically and philosophically speaking, isn't this in direct conflict with the "our pictures must always tell the truth" mantra?"

Perhaps.

The image above (shown only partially scanned here) was made in 1987 by Craig Aurness and featured in National Geographic's 100 best pictures (2002).

According to the NPPA Code of Ethics, photojournalists should "Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects." The language here seems a bit vague. The language is vague because ultimately it is up to the photographer or his or her editor to determine what  "accurate" and "comprehensive" really mean within a specific context. Is Aurness' image and honest, fair-minded and "accurate" representation according to National Press Photographers Association guidelines?  In a sense, Aurness has created for the viewer an image that human eye is incapable of seeing. The human eye captures motion at 1/10th of a second, but it also has the capacity to follow a scene without disruption. The optics and mechanics of a camera far exceed the eye in this manner. Therefore, in a case like this, what constitutes a comprehensive and accurate representation?

This issue may actually be more about cultural tastes and values than it is about ethics. Cultural conventions and tastes change over time, but at the heart of any photographer/audience relationship is whether or not the image is deceptive and misleading. Digital manipulation has created a crisis of conscience for many photographers, simply because it has become so cheap, fast, and easy to embellish, construct, and correct images. So much depends on the context in which the picture is made. Motion blur in news photography has been an accepted practice for many photographers for decades. Motion emphases action and helps to make the reading of a scene more meaningful and comprehensive. Just as depth of field can add 3-dimensionality to a two-dimension image, adding motion is a "trompe le oile" or a photographer's way of tricking the eye.  However, is it appropriate or ethical to create motion after the fact -- in PhotoShop?   Most photographers would probably say no, it's unethical to manipulate images in order to produce an effect after the picture was captured.                

                                                               

Stephen Krasemann's 1985 award-winning picture of a leopard running with a recent kill was made before PhotoShop techniques came into vogue.  Today, however, viewers are more sensitive to representations they perceive as manipulated or altered in some way. Whether, the general public perceives motion blur and panning as a manipulation remains to be resolved.

Analyzing the image above, can we say unequivocally that a breach of ethics has occurred? Has the context in which the event took place been manipulated by my choice to employ a slow shutter speed? Is the scene somehow more inaccurate and less comprehensive a representation give the fact that the human eye is limited by how much motion it can see at a given point in time?  Should photojournalists be required to photograph scenes at 1/10th of a second or higher to ensure that they are more truthful to the human eye?

These questions, and so many others, evoke a great deal of thought and emotion. At the same time, this "thin line" between photojournalistic convention and subjective "artistic" approaches mentioned by Jarle remains unresolved, because ultimately the decision resides with what the photographer believes to be right or wrong. So much of our decision to frame, freeze and fix a moment in space and time depends not only on context, but also on our motivation for being there in the first place.

Annual survey on photo manipulation: When to draw the line on digitally altered images

As our visual culture becomes accustomed to digital photography, are people becoming more apathetic about the digital alteration of pictures in the media? Will people come to expect that most of the pictures they view in the media today have been electronically enhanced in some way? If so, how will this acceptance, impact journalism and photography as a source of information and reportage?

Last year, I surveyed photographers about their attitudes and perceptions concerning the digital manipulation of photographs, especially within the context of news reportage. This year, I would like to continue to ask respondents about the alternation of images with a brand new survey. However, the questions in this survey are far broader with the hope of collecting responses from a wider audience. Just how serious are people about photo digital manipulation?

Click Here to take the survey

What I discovered last year was that only about half of the more than 480 respondents believed they could detect a picture when it was digitally altered. Only 6 percent strongly agreed with the statement, "I can tell when a photograph has been altered."  At the same time,  85 percent of the respondent agreed that they had seen a digitally manipulated picture in the media within the last five years.

This year's annual survey is different in that it seeks to understand how people define photo digital manipulation. The survey also explores how significant digital manipulation is as an issue in society. Further, at the bottom of each question is an area for comments, which is something last year's survey lacked.  Broad participation in this survey is encouraged as it is not only designed for professionals, but for enthusiasts as well.

The demise of photojournalism is not all about the threat from citizen journalism

There has been so much discussion about the demise of photojournalism related to the growth of citizen journalism recently –  a discussion centered around the idea that just about anyone with a camera phone or digital camera can be published. Citizen shutterbugs cannot replace photojournalists entirely, but this newly created stream of images does present a few challenges to the profession. Chief among the problems with a citizen-centered influx of images for news publication is the question of credibility and authenticity. Editors seem to be having their hands full these days just making sure their own professionals are playing by the rules without the burden of checking on the veracity of Uncle Jim Bo’s pictures from the county fair.  Having acknowledged this argument as simplistic and reductive, more attention must be paid to other more systemic issues facing news operations in general, and photojournalism specifically.

If photojournalism is truly dying the slow death so many seem to be predicting then we must look at the economics of an entrenched media industry that is finding it hard to adapt and cope in a faster, leaner digital world.

In an effort to clarify some of the issues facing photojournalism today it may be helpful to construct a list of the top ten influences on the field in the past 20 years. As a disclaimer, as well as an advanced apology to those who know better, making any sort of list is problematic. Here  are some of the major influences affecting photojournalists worthwhile considering.  Some of these influences are more obvious than others.

1.    Media consumption habits and a decreased demand for full-time photojournalists at the daily newspaper.
2.    Media Consolidation
3.    Digital Photography
4.    Electronic photo manipulation
5.    Wireless Internet
6.    Citizen Journalism
7.    Broadband Internet Access
8.    Mini-digital video
9.    Picture Editing

Media Consumption

First to be considered in terms of influences are changes in the ways people consume media. With a decline in daily newspapers fewer photojournalists will be needed. This does not mean that photojournalism is dead, but it does mean few traditional job opportunities for competent individuals. Traditionally, newspapers have hired the greatest number of photojournalists, but of this number (between 6,000 - 10,000 newspaper photographers in the late 1990s), nearly 40 percent, were freelancers.

The decline of the U.S. daily newspaper during the period 1986 – 2006 illustrates a shift away from reading daily newspapers to the use of multiple sources such as the Internet, cable, broadcast, and radio. Even though there are far more media channels available to consumers than there were 20 years, the number of photojournalists entering the field far outnumbers the opportunities.

Digital Photography

Digital photography is has had an enormous impact of the field of photojournalism. Photojournalists are as productive, resourceful, and creative as ever but digital photography has intensified the process, especially in the area post-production. Photojournalists are now expected to know more and work harder on deadline than ever before. Many photojournalists are their own lab techs and editors now. They stay later on assignments, work from remote locations longer and more often, and are expected to turn around images in an instance. These pressures have transformed and challenged photojournalism.

In other words, the digital camera intensifies photojournalism by increasing efficiency, encouraging creativity and experimentation, and redefining the boundaries of autonomy in the relationship between subject and photographer. The key distinction between film and digital camera use is the immediacy of results and output. The digital camera allows the photographer to see images on-the-scene immediately after capture through an LCD monitor on the back of the device. The immediacy of the digital camera impacts how photographers make images and interact with subjects differently than previously experienced with the film camera. Digital cameras enable photojournalists to review, edit, delete and transmit images immediately after capture. The level of immediacy in digital photography means that photographers do not have to wait for their results to be processed, edited and printed, as previously experienced with film. The digital camera’s level of immediacy takes the guessing game out of photography in terms of content, composition and technique, i.e., “what you see is what you get.”

Photo Manipulation

Altering images to change the meaning of a frame is not at all new to photojournalism. However, what is new is the speed at which manipulations can occur.

The seamless and malleable nature of digital information presents great opportunities as well as challenges for a profession, which prides itself on producing accurate and timely visual reportage. What seems at odds here are the conditions and conventions in which photojournalists engage in photographic routines. Photojournalists adhere to professional codes of conduct that can be observed through the expectations and obligations imposed on individuals by the occupational group. Further, the de-centralization of post-production processes signifies a disruption in previously experienced routines and rituals through the elimination of mechanical processes related to film and print development. Previously, it was harder to get away with manipulation because there were always several other sets of eyes involved in the post-production process. This may no longer be true as seen in the case of Los Angeles Times photographer Brian Walski in Iraq. Even more recently the Reuters debacle over manipulated images from Lebanon points out how easy it is to mislead the public.

Wireless Telephony

In 2000, Swedish telecom giant Ericsson teamed up with camera manufacturer Canon to that will combine the technology of a cellular phone with that of a digital camera. Ericsson’s press statement after the company signed the agreement notes. “This technology will enable simple, fast and reliable transfer of images from digital cameras to wireless devices as well as to other consumers or the Internet.''

For years later, Canon introduced its EOS-1D Mark II with its WFT-E1 wireless transmitter. Along with the tethered LAN, the camera can transmit images immediately back to a server for editing and storage.

According to the Mobile Internet Technology Website, “Already today, digital imaging products and wireless devices are two rapidly growing categories of consumer products, and the merging of these two technologies will create entirely new products and applications, such as multimedia messaging.”

Over time as the technology improves, the ability to transmit images back to a server means that communication between photographer in the field and editors back in the newsroom should improve.

Broadband

Up until lately, the ability to send high quantities of information across the Internet has been limited by bandwidth issues. However, broadband access, the telecommunication frequencies available to distribute  information is increasing rapidly. In 2006, the largest number of boardband subscribers, 57 million users, live in the United States.What this represents for photojournalists is that more markets for images will emerge. At the same, the Internet is still in its infancy in terms of monetizing returns on investments. Even though photographers may benefit from having electronic means of promoting themselves and selling images, there is no guarantee that they will find gainful employment.

Former Ohio University Photojournalism Professor Back in the News

Larry Nighswander, formerly the director of Ohio University’s School of Visual Communication, is being sued again by Rebecca Humes after settling a sexual harassment suit out of court in 2005 for $350,000. Humes' latest suit against Nighswander charges, according to an NPPA report, that he failed to comply with a court settlement and "destroy any images he had of her from a topless photo session that triggered her original complaint."

Links to this story:

The Columbus Dispatch
The Athens News
 

Sportsshooter Website Features commentaries on digital manipulation

Two weeks ago, I was asked to contribute an article to Sportsshooter, an online community of photojournalists and students interested in sports photography and other matters in the field. Thanks to Kim Komenich of the San Francisco Chronicle and Robert Hanashiro of USA today to allowing me to write more about photo manipulation in terms of what I have been finding on my survey. There are more than a dozen commentaries available on the site and it's exciting to see this level of engagement and concern.  Here's what I sent to Sportshooter:

Digital Manipulation: 'I believe the hiring of freelancers, in this case, may be partially responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in as professionals.'


In the weeks following revelations of digitally altered news photographs from the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, a great deal of criticism has been aimed at the practice of photojournalism.
 
Those who believe that photojournalism has failed in its mission to fairly and accurately report world events in this instance may feel justified, but is the profession doomed? Can public trust and credibility ever be restored, or was it ever there to begin with?
 
For the purposes of argument I would like to suggest that discussions involving the credibility and believability of photojournalism must be expanded beyond the blogospheric banter of manipulating images in Photoshop.
 
For many scholars, as well as professionals, this conversation remains important, but there is also a need to include other factors negatively influencing public attitudes toward the media in general and toward photojournalism specifically.
 
Photojournalists, in my opinion, must help educate the public to understand an array of complexities comprising visual reportage including, photo manipulation, subject/photographer interaction, as well as the socio-economic pressures facing the media today.
 
For decades, photojournalism has been challenged by the way in which technologies impinge on professional practices and conduct. Beyond technological considerations, however, there are a host of other ideological and sociological factors confronting professionals today. Not only should we be concerned with altering images, but we also must consider how easily photojournalists seem to be exploited by political and business interests.
 
In an on-going survey, conducted for my Weblog, respondents (n=421) reveal a variety of attitudes toward photojournalism.
 
Although not representative of any particular group, the survey calls attention to several concerns that have not completely surfaced in the current debate. Despite the focus on post-production alterations---adding and removing objects, darkening skies, etc., there are other issues involved in the creation of news content that deserve greater reflection as well as public attention.
 
For example, early in the debate, I wrote about how Western news services have become overly dependent on non-western-trained photojournalists for images.
 
Needless to say, this idea did not win much sympathy with professionals who believed that I should just stick to focusing on digital manipulation and not go deeper into the structural issues plaguing the media today.
 
For the sake of this argument, I would like to persist a bit further with this issue since I believe the hiring of freelancers, in this case, may be partially responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in as professionals.
 
Not all professional photographers share the same ideals and values.
 
Specifically, the practice of hiring of freelancers who have access to Hezbollah controlled areas in the conflict were not held up to the same level of ethical or professional scrutiny as their Western competitors. In the race to acquire images with the most impact, wire services put themselves into a difficult, but often very cost-effective, position of paying freelancers who may have political connections and biases.
 
The practice of hiring "in-country" freelancers for images that big news organizations find difficult to obtain for an array of reasons has been going on since the Vietnam War.
 
However, with the immediacy of the digital camera and the ability to transmit pictures instantly, conventional methods of editing and oversight have been set aside. At least this is what we are told was the case in at least two photo-manipulation cases. The practice of hiring freelancers in war zones makes sense to big cost-conscious news sources. Without being overly callous here, in-country freelancers are also seem incredibly disposable when compared to the life of a Western journalist. This is not necessarily a criticism of the individuals who risk their lives daily to provide the West with fresh reportage, but more of an indictment of commonplace business practices used by an industry obsessed with getting images, video, sound, and information on the cheap.
 
While we should condemn photojournalists, in the case of the Lebanese conflict, who mislead the public through poorly executed Photoshop skills; we must also look beyond individual behavior so that we can understand the social, political, economic structures embedded within corporate news organizations that are enabling this sort of behavior. Of course, it is much easier to condemn an individual for an indiscretion than it is to seek to change an entire industry.
 
About the Survey
 
Some of the more interesting findings on the survey to date suggest that a majority of respondents (83 percent) believe they have seen digitally altered pictures in the news within the past five years. More than 95 percent of people surveyed believe that adding or removing objects from a picture is a form of manipulating reality. At the same time, only 55 percent feel that changing the color of the sky to make a picture appear more realistic is a manipulation.
 
Interestingly, nearly 78 percent of respondents confided that a lot more photographers than most people believe have manipulated images in terms of altering content or changing the tone of the picture to make it more dramatic. This revelation, for me, suggests that the people who took the survey have may have become more cynical with the profession then in the past. This same group (88 percent) also revealed that they think news pictures can and do influence foreign policy decisions.
 
When asked if the general public doesn't care if a photographer alters an image to make it more dramatic, more than 70 percent disagreed. Respondents think the public does care if pictures are altered.
 
One of the more surprising results coming out of this study relates to whether people think photo-ops arranged for the media are a form of manipulation. In this small survey, 41 percent (n=131) agree, while another 27 percent (n=81) strongly agree. This means that neatly 70 percent of respondents feel that pictures that are managed and staged for the media are forms of manipulation.
 
Being a person that attempts to connect the dots whenever possible, it seems pretty clear to me now that definitions concerning forms of photographic manipulation need to be expanded upon and clarified by news organizations, professional groups, and the public as well.
 
Without considering the complexities involved in the visual practice of photojournalism that include but are not limited to pre-visualization, image capture, and post-production processes, public confidence in the profession may be impossible to regain in the near future.

Click here to take the survey

For Latest Results on the survey click here.

Cloning Lebanon in Context

Here is the photo that has led to a storm of controversy in mass media world, especially in the blogosphere.

According to the BBC, "The news agency Reuters has withdrawn from sale 920 pictures taken by a photographer [adnan hajj],after finding he had doctored two images taken in Lebanon."

Click here to take a survey on photo manipulation.

Despite the reaction and response to the recent manipulation of a Reuters image, many people are missing an important issue.

Over the past few decades the MSM has come to depend on outsourcing many of its most dangerous reporting assignments to in-country freelancers -- people who take far more risks, are paid less, far less educated, and far more likely to be treated like disposable commodities than their Western colleagues.

The big picture issue here is more about the political-economics of doing business in times of war, than it is about one person's journalistic integrity. Let's get this straight. 

One of the most important issues facing the media today is credibility, yet Western wire services continue to utilize labor practices that exploit people.

Shouldn't wire services and the editors who work for them be held as equally accountable to the public as the photographer?

What needs to be discussed here is the reality that our wire services  exploit freelancers who end up assuming all the risk of working in extremely dangerous situations. Consider for a moment the number of Iraqi journalists, many of them working for Western news agencies, that have died in the past four years. In-country photojournalists, be it in Iraq or Lebanon, risk their lives every day so that we can be better informed.

The reality of the situation is that these freelancers are typically paid far less than Western photojournalists, become targets of political reprisals, and are rarely covered by any sort of health insurance policy.

In this case, even if the freelancer is fired and all his or her pictures removed from circulation, the wire services will inevitably hire another freelancer with the same language, cultural, and technological skills to take his place.

Firing the freelancer is a knee-jerk, sort of "cover our butts", reaction to a even more insidious situation that has been overlooked in the industry for decades. Outsourcing what is the equivalent of photo-mercenaries in order to save money and Western lives.

Freelancers need the same training, pay, educational opportunities, and health coverage as any other human being needs in this sort of situation. However, all of this costs money, and the bottom line in the news business these days is pretty much do news fast and do news cheap.

The message that Reuters is sending to the public by firing the freelancer is that they can be counted on to take care of individuals who make them look bad. 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.

What needs to the discussed here is the bigger and meatier issue of  how the wire services out source the most dangerous and difficult assignment to freelancers who are more or less treated like a disposable commodity.

Even though Reuters publicly apologized for the picture that got out, where were editors who cleared the image for distribution?  In this case, a first-grader could have done a better cloning job on the image, and at the end of the day it is the editors, not just the photographer, that have failed us. What we need now is an honest discussion about the use of in-country hires and freelancers by media giant who exploit them in order to feed the beast that our insatiable appetite for images in this country has become.

We should not, in this case, be shooting the messenger (the freelancer), but rather the companies that fail to educate their content providers in understanding the importance of balanced, fair-minded, and ethical visual practices.