Photo Credit: Ronald Reagan by David Hume Kennerly/Tear by Tim O'Brien
In today's hyper-mediated world of images, truth has become a casualty of commerce.
It is more important today, it would seem, to sell us an image representing a concocted truth, than it is to make images that honestly portray reality and that earnestly speak truth to power.
Ever since an altered picture of OJ Simpson appeared on the cover of TIME nearly 15 years ago, magazine editors and designers have been continually pushing the boundaries of believability and authenticity.
It's now appears acceptable to use images that once functioned within the context of news as something far more rhetorical in nature. From a rhetorical perspective, the the Reagan Team image is loaded with meaning. Therefore, the interpretation of the image goes far beyond the literal and moves in the realm of the figurative and symbolic.
We've seen this over and again when iconic images such as Rosenthal's "Iwo Jima flag raising" and Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" are altered to illustrate a specific idea or concept.
In other words, editors have been extending the meaning of news images for a very long time by adding and subtracting elements, changing the tone, and most especially altering the context. In this instance, it's interesting to note that the editors credited not only the photographer for the portrait of Reagan (David Hume Kennerly), but also the photographer who made the image of the tear drop (Tim O'Brien) running down Reagan's cheek.
For photographer Patrick Ryan the manipulation does a disservice to a profession that has seeks to maintain its credibility in the eyes of the public.
"I'm insulted and, frankly, disappointed," Ryan write on a post to the National Press Photographers Association list-serve.
Ryan continues:
"I expected better. Our credibility is being challenged more and more everyday, and Time goes and adds fuel to the fire. If you are going to clearly alter the intent of a photograph, you better label it an illustration or such."
From a sociological perspective, the public's capacity to distinguish between legitimate and an altered new pictures is unclear. In today's hyper-saturated visual culture people have developed a tolerance for ambiguity between what is real and what it fake.
As time blurs perception and reality , Reagan's tear may be perceived as authentic by many. The collage presents Reagan as something other than what we have come to understand through his media-mediated public persona.
In this sense, TIME, with its altered image, constructs how we think about Reagan. Even lacking verisimilitude, the assemblage of the two distinct visual elements -- Ronald Reagan face and Ronald Reagan's tear -- is confounding.
As Ryan contends, "I used to trust the content of images in print, but with the ease of Photoshop, etc., it's harder and harder to believe what I see. Time is supposed to be above that."
Another interesting point concerning this illustration is the placement of the tear. In the picture, the tear seems to be away from the tear duct. For example, in this image from "Feed the Children," it is clear that tears begin to well up at the tear duct.
Photo Credit: Feed the Children
The design of the TIME cover is clearly driven by the rationale of aesthetics and persuasive determinacy. It has long been argued that magazine covers do not function primarily as news. Instead, many designers will tell you, magazine covers are designed to attract attention and sell magazines.
Writing on the same NPPA list-serve thread Gregory David Stempel sums up this issue well when he observes:
"Keep in mind, we have reached a point in our society where the foremost goal of any business (including "the news") is share holder satisfaction. And to that end it appears, anything goes. Just about everyone in the developed economies of this planet have figured out a way to justify almost anything they desire. We have without much hesitation, compromised truth, integrity, ethics, decency and fairness."