What are the ways readers can judge the credibility of an image even in this era of digital manipulation?
Let me first share an image.
Image from museumofhoaxes.com
This picture of Martha Steward on Newsweek was actually digitally manipulated. She did not actually pose for the photo (walking out of the curtain). The Newsweek editors have actually attached her head to the body of a model. On top of that, there was also no indication on the cover that the image was a composite.
From the above, the only reason I thought why such a picture was actually necessary was because it complements the headline which reads "Martha’s Last Laugh: After Prison She’s Thinner, Wealthier & Ready for Prime Time”. I guess it was afterall a sales pitch used by the company to boost their sales based on this headline news.
Just by looking at this picture, I do not think any readers will be able to judge whether this picture was manipulated or if it was a geniune credible picture used to complement the news story. In today's context, many journalist uses photos to complement the headlines and not the other way round. Photo manipulation has brought news reading to another level. Now readers have to decide for themselves - is this real?
Many would argue that a picture speaks a thousand words. But in this era where picture manipulation is rampant, it would help if one is more opionionated and to a certain extend, exercise a certain level of self-assertion when reading or viewing a picture shown in the media or even just anywhere.
Personally, I think "matching" the photos with the main story itself would not be able to proof that the picture used for that story is credible. The example of Martha Steward shared above is an example. Images can be manipulated to complement the story inorder to highten the convinencing level of the article and as a result, the viewer might be deceived.
1) One way for readers to judge the credibility of an image would be to look up for other images related to the topics online.
Photos from Associated Press, Reuters, International Herald Tribune can be used as a source of reference. Such large international press usually have their own inhouse photophotographers and thus, the angle the photos shot should vary between publishing house. Base on reader's judgement after comparing the photos with various sources, readers should be able to get a better and more diverse sense of the whole scenario when the picture was taken.
2) In recent years, new technology has also emerged that can help news organisations identify photoshop fakes. For organisations that value ethics, they must deploy this type of technology to their newsroom to prevent the errosion of credibility.
To a certain extend, readers who obtain information from an organistation who uses such technology should be more assured of a credible photo used. At the end of the day, it is still about being selective on where you get your information from and in this case, preferably from a reputable news organisation who practices strigent checks on their photos used before release.
Surfice to say, on the other hand, not many people are that technology savvy in today's era. Lets not forget the older generations who do not use the internet. So is there a way they can judge the credibility of the images? I doubt so. They are made to believe "what they see is what is real".
"While ethical decisions have long played a central role in the business of newsgathering, journalists have never been governed by formal ethical standards. This is a key reason that journalism, by definition, is actually not a profession. You can’t be disbarred or lose your license as a journalist." - Anh D. Stack and Black Star Rising editor Scott Baradell from the book Is Photoshop Killing Photojournalism?
Techonology can be a means to an end. In this case, it can serve to inform and it can serve to kill.
Imagine yourself as a reader representative for a newspaper. What would you tell a reader who complained to you about a picture of a car wreck that was particularly upsetting?
Firstly, I have to be very clear and make my stand based on two ethical issues.
1) Are the photographs altered?
- Ethical photojournalist do not alter photographs beyond what is necessary to optimise the technical quality of the images.
2) Are the photographs staged?
- Ethical photojournlists do not stag, create or alter a scene for news photography.
If both above are not commited, I would just tell the reader that I am doing my job to bring the facts and reality of life to them. Granted the pictures might be upsetting but in reality, no one wants to see only a picture of a punctured tyre in a car accident. There is a saying which goes "Where is bleeds, it leads." These photos though disturbing, serves their purpose very well to tell the story that is not encapsulated by the text.
However, I think there has always been a dilemma between using photos which can potentially benefit the mass from viewing (telling a better story) vs. what might be seen as upsetting to the family and friends of the victims. But when due considerations is done and measured against the individual's and the publics' motivations, I think one would be able to become more aware of the meanings and motives that may lie beneath the surface of any picture and this would better justify their stand on the usage of the picture.
