View Full Version : Photojournalism: Fact vs Fiction (NY Times)
bmattock
07-23-2009, 05:47
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/essay-4/
Think of all the famous pictures that serve as both documentation and verification of historic events: Mathew Brady’s photographs of the Civil War; Lewis Hine’s chronicle of industrial growth in America; the birth of the civil rights movement documented in a picture of Rosa Parks on a segregated city bus in Montgomery, Ala. Aren’t they proof of the facts in real time, moments in history brought to the present?
Interesting NY Times Photo Blog today.
Thanks for that Bill.
Good article and just continues to reinforce my current belief on "photojournalism" in today's culture.
The concept that a person, who raises a camera to their eye OR even has their hands on a camera when walking down a street can 'blend into the background' or is 'incognito' is a load of horse dung. The general public are FAR more camera aware today than they have been at any time in history and the prevalence of digital cameras makes it all the more difficult to capture the moment as it happens without someone in the scene being aware that their photo is being taken.
I've found that the best tool for street photography now is no longer a film Leica but a small digital P&S. Go figure.
Cheers,
Dave
victoriapio
07-23-2009, 06:21
Appreciate the link. Very interesting.
I got a degree in Photojournalism from University of Texas and spent 20 years living off my cameras. In college were taught to capture the moment, keep it real. But photo editors typically want more and just as there is little to no real objective written journalism any more, the same can be said of photographs. Photo editors can select/reject photos (perhaps better/worse than the photo that is actually used) that do not fit the political stance of the publication, the story subject or the "slant" of the article they will accompany. That is the real world.
The Capra photo is very polarizing because of his fame and IMHO, because posing someone's death in war clearly crosses the boundary of journalism ethics, although it appears there are very few "ethics" left in journalism. I have a hard time believing Capra posed it but evidence certainly opens up that possibility.
Pickett Wilson
07-23-2009, 06:27
I think this is an excellent example of why photos are not good at narrative. It is impossible to understand the context of a photo without explanation.
Appreciate the link. Very interesting.
I got a degree in Photojournalism from University of Texas and spent 20 years living off my cameras. In college were taught to capture the moment, keep it real. But photo editors typically want more and just as there is little to no real objective written journalism any more, the same can be said of photographs. Photo editors can select/reject photos (perhaps better/worse than the photo that is actually used) that do not fit the political stance of the publication, the story subject or the "slant" of the article they will accompany. That is the real world.
The Capra photo is very polarizing because of his fame and IMHO, because posing someone's death in war clearly crosses the boundary of journalism ethics, although it appears there are very few "ethics" left in journalism. I have a hard time believing Capra posed it but evidence certainly opens up that possibility.
Objectivity is a fig leaf that the establishment tries to put over the bits it’s embarrassed about, why on earth would a European socialist Jew try to be objective about the Spanish civil war?
I think this is an excellent example of why photos are not good at narrative. It is impossible to understand the context of a photo without explanation.
And yet many are willing to stand by the age old axiom that "a picture is worth a thousand words" - go figure.
Cheers,
Dave
Roger Hicks
07-23-2009, 06:47
Objectivity is a fig leaf that the establishment tries to put over the bits it’s embarrassed about, why on earth would a European socialist Jew try to be objective about the Spanish civil war?
Dear Stewart,
Absolutely.
Also, 'objectivity' is meaningless. You can't report/photograph EVERYTHING: you have to decide what's relevant. As soon as you do, someone is going to scream that you are no longer being 'objective'.
My wife, who lived the first 30+ years of her life in the United States, believes that Americans are far more seduced by the myth of objectivity than Europeans.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
07-23-2009, 06:57
Also, 'objectivity' is meaningless. You can't report/photograph EVERYTHING: you have to decide what's relevant. As soon as you do, someone is going to scream that you are no longer being 'objective'.
And it is this which makes the often-heard tirade against digital photography meaningless. The one which claims digital photography cannot be 'true' like film photography, because it can be so easily manipulated and it does not have the authenticity or inherent trustworthiness of film.
bmattock
07-23-2009, 07:19
That is something many seem to ignore, the staged photo, the out of context photo, the photo that ignores reality, you name it. And at a time when fictional photography in the art world is being shown everywhere.
I think digital has become the whipping boy because the changes seem so trivially easy to make, but in reality, because so many images are taken digitally they are less likely to be changed, because they are seldom a single frame.
I read a lot of books about the history of photography, including those written back in the beginning ("History of Photography," by Josef Maria Eder) and they often point out what is seemingly lost on today's photographers - that there is nothing new under the sun. Even in the very first days of photography, photographers were having fun experimenting with methods to change what reality appeared to be. This included cutting and pasting prints, altering negatives, double-exposures, and so on. The 'spiritualist' explosion in the UK of the late Victorian era was primarily driven by faked photos that were purported to be of spirits. By the early 20th century, people no longer implicitly trusted the photograph to tell the objective truth without question. Somehow, that was lost.
It must be especially difficult for Hartshorn.
“Everyone engaged with this photograph is trying to find out the truth,” Willis Hartshorn, the director of the center, said in a phone conversation. “The new information about the landscape is compelling.” Nothing is conclusive yet, Mr. Hartshorn added “We’re all trying to build the research together,” he said.
I know Mr. Hartshorn will support the truth of the matter.
The truth was that Franco was about to establish a forty year tyranny in Spain, and Mussolini was heading for north Africa, via Albania and Greece, both with Hitler’s help and not to be left out Hitler was busy sticking pins in a map of Europe. That was one of the photos which alerted the rest of world to those facts, and helped persuade it to oppose them. Mr. Hartshorn truth is irrelevant in that context.
Objectivity is a fig leaf that the establishment tries to put over the bits it’s embarrassed about, why on earth would a European socialist Jew try to be objective about the Spanish civil war?
I believe your words to be poorly chosen and your reasoning to be suspect -- simplistically smearing the whole history of photojournalism, in tactics very similar to those you purport to deplore.
I suppose Capa was not objective with his D Day photos as well, are you suggesting that the same photographer cover "both" sides in a shooting war simultaneously?
I do not think Franco and his Nazi/Fascist allies overall are favorably recounted in history along with the rest of non- "European socialist Jews" historians' general accounts of Fascism of this period.
In journalism, the goal was to be objective in that words and photos portray as accurately as possible what actually occurred at the time of the event, while being a bystander or witness if you will. If you can interject some art in to it, you may be considered a better photographer or writer. Observing something changes it, but the degree is what is important. I doubt that the Zapruder film changed much of what really happened in Dallas. I do not know if Abraham Zapruder was a socialist, never occurred to me to think much about it.
With the alleged, by some, "staged" shot of the soldier dying, Capa may have been in the process of shooting one thing, troops training, but by all accounts the soldier did die by enemy fire at that moment. His name is known and witnesses accounts recorded, some quite recently. I somehow doubt the sniper knew Capa was there and vice versa.
The lines today are certainly blurred between opinion and fact in terms of contemporary reportage, leaving what passes today in all areas of journalism in a different view. Interesting that this comes up the week that Walter Cronkite dies. I really have no other examples handy with any confidence of straight news.
At the very least it is a style change, at the worst "news" today is simply an op ed story marketed sometimes as news. Unfortunately much of photography is so common and photographers numerous as to almost create the event it is supposed to cover.
This does not change what happened in front of the cameras during many historic moments, nor does it release observers from thinking critically regarding the data they are presented with.
Sorry for the long post.
Regards, John
Well true, but Cornell Capa was the founding director of the International Center of Photography.
Sibling rivalry?
Al Kaplan
07-23-2009, 07:44
Check out the photographs by Jerry Uelsmann, the photography prof at the University of Florida. Lots of books and on-line pix. They were done with a Bronica and three enlargers, not P-shop back when PC stood for Politicaly Correct and Apple was a fruit.
Can we say that "photojounalism" should encompas the pictures we have in our minds, recording them for posterity?
I believe your words to be poorly chosen and your reasoning to be suspect -- simplistically smearing the whole history of photojournalism, in tactics very similar to those you purport to deplore.
I suppose Capa was not objective with his D Day photos as well, are you suggesting that the same photographer cover "both" sides in a shooting war simultaneously?
I do not think Franco and his Nazi/Fascist allies overall are favorably recounted in history along with the rest of non- "European socialist Jews" historians' general accounts of Fascism of this period.
In journalism, the goal was to be objective in that words and photos portray as accurately as possible what actually occurred at the time of the event, while being a bystander or witness if you will. If you can interject some art in to it, you may be considered a better photographer or writer. Observing something changes it, but the degree is what is important. I doubt that the Zapruder film changed much of what really happened in Dallas. I do not know if Abraham Zapruder was a socialist, never occurred to me to think much about it.
With the alleged, by some, "staged" shot of the soldier dying, Capa may have been in the process of shooting one thing, troops training, but by all accounts the soldier did die by enemy fire at that moment. His name is known and witnesses accounts recorded, some quite recently. I somehow doubt the sniper knew Capa was there and vice versa.
The lines today are certainly blurred between opinion and fact in terms of contemporary reportage, leaving what passes today in all areas of journalism in a different view. Interesting that this comes up the week that Walter Cronkite dies. I really have no other examples handy with any confidence of straight news.
At the very least it is a style change, at the worst "news" today is simply an op ed story marketed sometimes as news. Unfortunately much of photography is so common and photographers numerous as to almost create the event it is supposed to cover.
This does not change what happened in front of the cameras during many historic moments, nor does it release observers from thinking critically regarding the data they are presented with.
Sorry for the long post.
Regards, John
I don’t deplore anything I just hold an opinion, as you do, I simply don’t believe in objectivity.
And I can make a bloody strong case for asserting that both the dissident group of radicals displaced Jews and the odd middle-class Frenchman who took those pre-war photos around Europe, and the readers of Picture Post understood those prejudices at the time.
Had, Cronkite been reading the news the day after Pearl Harbour how do you think it would have gone? Much the same as the day before?
Dear Stewart,
Absolutely.
Also, 'objectivity' is meaningless. You can't report/photograph EVERYTHING: you have to decide what's relevant. As soon as you do, someone is going to scream that you are no longer being 'objective'.
My wife, who lived the first 30+ years of her life in the United States, believes that Americans are far more seduced by the myth of objectivity than Europeans.
Cheers,
R.
Roger, it may well be that we, in general, are far more easily seduced by everything here at times.
The eventual saving grace, if any, may be that we strive to get much of things right. The process may be corrupted beyond repair.
Our intentions are often clouded by the flood of conflicting data.
In the past, when I was shooting a group of people at an event, with a few drinks under their belts, and was critically focusing at wide open, (think old days, slow films, no WA lens, large groups, 25 feet) looking for people poorly positioned or with their hand in front of something they appeared to be scratching, someone would try to hurry me ( one or two minutes was far too long) , and I used to nicely reply, they could have it fast or they could have it good, my job was to get it good.
I find it appalling that the news media solicit "Tweets" etc. during most broadcasts, the "best" to be read at the end. What kind of significant "poll" or conclusions to some developing worldly event could be added in several minutes, and anonymously? Bit hard to look at the quality of the source, or the selection process? The evolution of style over substance occurs very quickly.
I see much of this style spreading very quickly over Europe during my last 20 years of visits.
Regards, John
Good article.
It made me think of 911.
I don’t deplore anything I just hold an opinion, as you do, I simply don’t believe in objectivity.
And I can make a bloody strong case for asserting that both the dissident group of radicals displaced Jews and the odd middle-class Frenchman who took those pre-war photos around Europe, and the readers of Picture Post understood those prejudices at the time.
Had, Cronkite been reading the news the day after Pearl Harbour how do you think it would have gone? Much the same as the day before?
I believe in thinking critically, and choosing words carefully.
Cronkite was one of the originals who did much more than "read" the news.
You left out the socialist Britains and New Deal Democrats from your group? Perhaps there were a few more people involved in setting the stage for the disasters of those times.
I think you focus too much blame on too few select groups, or it appears that way, almost in a conspiracy theory plot.
Have no idea what you reference in your Pearl Harbor quote. As I understand it, there was no real national news desk at that time, and I do not think Monday Dec. 8 was a typical Monday.
Regards, John
John, I’ve come to the conclusion that photojournalism was corrupted by objectivity not the other way round.
When the press were freed at the end of WWII, they went back to work telling stories with pictures and even more annoyingly along came TV with more pictures, civil rights, industrial disputes, Suez, Vietnam …. And politicians reacted by denigrating anything that wasn’t “objective” what other defence had they?
So in the end we got Sky and you got Fox, and I go to the FT for my news because I know what angle it’s coming from
I was making the point that Cronkite would have been as effected by circumstance as they were, one or two of his Vietnam stories actually were.
Capppa, et al, at the time were really the only mass media there was, I believe you to be under estimating their importance.
regards
Stewart Ditto --
how the guy was killed aside. I have too many friends who are journalists to believe in complete objectivity, you tell your story the way you see it, simple as that.
I do not say this lightly I lived with a journalist for many years, a good honest/smart/very successful one, who I respected deeply. But everything is clouded by the moment.
I have no problem with the "complete objectivity" assertions, perhaps a lofty goal rarely if ever achieved.
I understand what it means to respect the honesty of an observer, especially a professional one. Objectivity in terms of human observation will always be relative to the observer, which begins to sound a bit oxymoronic or circular at best. Ideally a journalist would be able to detect degrees of veracity in what he observes, and appropriately qualify as needed.
In the case of instrumentation, as in photography, there should be a greater expectation of veracity, depending on the related written context.
The appeal of the tabloid style today is hard for me to understand, though I suppose it generates revenue, which seems to be the dominant goal?
If the goal is political, then it is propaganda, unless you agree with it? ;-)
Regards, John
emraphoto
07-23-2009, 09:00
Stewart Ditto --
how the guy was killed aside. I have too many friends who are journalists to believe in complete objectivity, you tell your story the way you see it, simple as that.
I do not say this lightly I lived with a journalist for many years, a good honest/smart/very successful one, who I respected deeply. But everything is clouded by the moment.
i cannot support this more fred. it is very, very difficult to prevent some of the things you witness from invading upon your perspective. perhaps there are a few "grizzled" few who have the ability to but sadly i cannot count myself among them.
emraphoto
07-23-2009, 09:26
forgive me Fred but you're not a robot.
i have seen things that have swayed my heart and mind in directions i didn't want them to go. it is a natural process.
where the media industry must step up is understanding what they ask of the men and women who do these jobs. they have created a ferociously competitive environment, have shown there willingness to abandon the people (for "citizen" journalism) who have committed their lives to school, ethics and often lay their lives on the line for the story. this in turn has put a LOT of pressure on folks to produce razzle dazzle.
I think that is at the heart of Bill's original and subsequent posts, your expectation should be distrust of the image, veracity can only be determined by comparison of multiple images and sources.
The demise of multiple news sources is one of the most worrisome developments in the US. When I grew up in St. Louis the Post Dispatch and Globe always took a different slant, and as much as I like the Post today, it cannot be completely "honest" without the Globe.
I worked for one paper, and we sure did not want to be caught not "getting it right" by the other one.
Today major factual errors are made, and no one points them out.
They used to have things-- Editorial Pages as I recall -- where you went if you wanted to know their opinions. ;-)
Reporters were not expected to unduly interject their opinions, especially political ones, -- though sometimes the joke was made --" Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" -- it was not always a joke.
I 'll tweet you when I hear what everyone else in Ohio thinks. ;-)
Regards, John
Well yes... but even PBS wants revenue. Good or bad, journalism is very expensive, even if your research consists of hanging out, waiting for Britney's underwear.
"Pie in the sky" I suppose, but we had delusions of adequacy in that we aspired to be more than a money generating organization. Still, we all cashed the paychecks.
We, perhaps at one time, would have called it selling out, there was a report that the Paris Hilton coverage was interrupted for some news thing, an assassination of some leader somewhere, for about 30 seconds.
Regards, John
MinorTones
07-23-2009, 10:20
where the media industry must step up is understanding what they ask of the men and women who do these jobs. they have created a ferociously competitive environment, have shown there willingness to abandon the people (for "citizen" journalism) who have committed their lives to school, ethics and often lay their lives on the line for the story. this in turn has put a LOT of pressure on folks to produce razzle dazzle.
As a working photojournalist myself this is the crux of a huge problem in my opinion. At least from what I have seen in my five years in the American newspaper industry.
Al Kaplan
07-23-2009, 10:26
Competition in a two paper town did tend to keep things more honest but it sure as hell made life miserable for the local political structure. That was a good thing. Now it's looking like soon there'll be no newspapers left at all. Local TV coverage is pure crap.
what I want to know is who decided that "photojournalism" is the same thing as actually being there? I mean, some pictures were taken. Who actually thinks those pictures were of a crime scene, as it were, and not intended for publication from the get-go? Why are people constantly stunned by the revelation that scenes are often arranged to make a good shot? What did they *think* the photographer was doing out there?
I just think it's stupid to expect any published photo or article to be unvarnished truth.
Why do people blame the U.S. American media for their own obsession and ignorance? I don't get it. I read my local paper daily, and make a point to sample news from various sources on a regular basis to be sure I am getting a variety of viewpoints. I cannot grasp the mentality of someone who blames other people for their unwillingness to exercise their own mind. It's one thing to disagree with an opinion, quite another to blame a media outlet for your continued support.
emraphoto
07-23-2009, 14:27
what I want to know is who decided that "photojournalism" is the same thing as actually being there? I mean, some pictures were taken. Who actually thinks those pictures were of a crime scene, as it were, and not intended for publication from the get-go? Why are people constantly stunned by the revelation that scenes are often arranged to make a good shot? What did they *think* the photographer was doing out there?
I just think it's stupid to expect any published photo or article to be unvarnished truth.
believe it or not there is a code of conduct when one speaks of journalism. of course if we closed all those schools then perhaps the code would no longer be relative.
now one thing to keep in mind is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of working photojournalists out there. many are doing very, very important work and remain dedicated to "truth". i would suspect more than those that choose to stray from the "truth". i would never expect anyone to be a blind follower and on the flip side i wouldn't expect anyone to allow isolated cases to taint a whole field of people. it is right to condemn and ALWAYS question what you are looking at but much as you remain entrusted to you family doctor, despite many documented character flaws within that career path, it would be in everyones best interest if journalists were afforded the same.
Roger Hicks
07-23-2009, 23:08
believe it or not there is a code of conduct when one speaks of journalism.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure that I do believe it.
There is enlightened self interest when it comes to news reporting: if you consistently make things up, people stop believing you and there's a risk of getting sued.
The rest of it comes down to behaving like a decent human being: not unnecessarily intruding on people's grief, not stealing private property, etc.: nothing specifically to do with journalism -- though I suppose even stealing might be OK if it exposes a major scandal.
What else might there be? I cheerfully admit I have not thought deeply about this -- it's too early in the morning -- but although I've often heard of a 'journalistic code of ethics' (or 'conduct') I've never seen it spelled out anywhere.
Cheers,
Roger
emraphoto
07-24-2009, 03:02
i assure you there are. those schools spend a great deal of time re-enforcing them.
www.media-accountability.org/library/Canada_CEP.doc
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/cabethics.php
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
and perhaps more pertinent
http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html
Roger Hicks
07-24-2009, 03:26
i assure you there are. those schools spend a great deal of time re-enforcing them.
www.media-accountability.org/library/Canada_CEP.doc
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/cabethics.php
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
and perhaps more pertinent
http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html
Fascinating! Thanks very much indeed! I had genuinely never seen such things.
On reading them, on the other jand, I can't help feeling that if you strip out the pompous drivel, they don't expand all that much on what I said: don't lie, and behave like a decent human being.
Cheers,
Roger
i assure you there are. those schools spend a great deal of time re-enforcing them.
www.media-accountability.org/library/Canada_CEP.doc
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/cabethics.php
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
and perhaps more pertinent
http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html
Wow, I bet those proved invaluable as a quick reference when people were being shot around Capa that day outside Cordoba or wherever
Fascinating! Thanks very much indeed! I had genuinely never seen such things.
On reading them, on the other jand, I can't help feeling that if you strip out the pompous drivel, they don't expand all that much on what I said: don't lie, and behave like a decent human being.
Cheers,
Roger
Generally speaking any statement that won’t fit on a A4 sheet I find suspicious, it usually means someone is concealing something in the small print
MinorTones
07-24-2009, 03:49
This is the National Press Photographers' Association code of ethics stolen from their site. There is one.
Code of Ethics
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:
Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
Ideally, visual journalists should:
Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.
Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media.
Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view.
Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence.
Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects.
Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.
Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. Visual journalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it.
MinorTones
07-24-2009, 04:00
I should also mention that at the time some of the photographs in the OP's link were made at a time when there was no cut and dry "code of ethics". How should one act when there is no reason to think setting up a scene is immoral.
I'm sure the civil war photographers mentioned in the OP's link had no second thoughts on setting the scenes.
emraphoto
07-24-2009, 04:10
Fascinating! Thanks very much indeed! I had genuinely never seen such things.
On reading them, on the other jand, I can't help feeling that if you strip out the pompous drivel, they don't expand all that much on what I said: don't lie, and behave like a decent human being.
Cheers,
Roger
indeed roger! when the you know what hits the fan your version is far easier to remember.
Roger Hicks
07-24-2009, 05:25
A wonderful collection of weasel words, for which I thank you very much. Herewith a lightly annotated version. Some letters are omitted in the A-X sequence.
Code of Ethics
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions areaccountable [to whom?]for upholding the following standards in their daily work:
Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. [A: Yeah, right. As already agreed, you can't report everything. You choose what to report -- and there will always be someone who whines and snivels that you're biased, because your biases aren't theirs]
Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. [B: Think!]
Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. [C: as 'A' above]
Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. [D: If necessary, let them do that for themselves. Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.]
Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. [G: Why?]
Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. [H: Including of course people who are proud of their role in 'ethic cleansing', massacres, running gas chambers, etc.]
Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. [J: Be a decent human being]
Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. [K: As 'J' above. And are you SURE you're qualified to judge what's 'overriding and justifiable'?]
While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. [K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]
Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. [Eh?]
Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. [L: Probably a good idea but what about buying 'em a drink, lunch, etc.?]
Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. [M: More accurately, don't give them or their opponents the chance to look as if they've bribed you. But if you followed this course of action scrupulously, you couldn't accept e.g. a journalist visa from the Chinese authotities.]
Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. [N: Oh, come on. Where's the line between 'one upmanship' and sabotage?]
Ideally, visual journalists should:
Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.
Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. [P: Proactively' is a clear sign they're running out of ideas and vocabulary]
Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media. [R: Vacant drivel. If you don't already do this, a worthless exhortation ain't gonna change your ways]
Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view. [S: Oh, yeah. I really ought to give white supremacists and religious extremists plenty of time to spout their hatreds]
Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence. [T: Don't actually DO anything. Just moan about it.]
Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects. [U: Unobtrusive? You're asking about matters of life and death, and you're going to be unobtrusive? And if striving to be humble means giving arrogant politicians, business leaders, etc., the chance to get away with things, what is the use of 'humble'?]
Respect the integrity of the photographic moment. [V: Pure drivel]
Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. [W: High-flown drivel.]
Visual journalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it. [X: Because if you don't study the craft, you won't get work, and if this load of drivel tells you much about ethics, you probably don't understand the word anyway]
mfunnell
07-24-2009, 06:06
I applaud debunking and snide-wise commentary on a bunch of high-flown motherhood statements as much as the next bloke. As regards "the problem" that many have with journalism, though, I want to select out one comment:
[K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]
Firstly, let me say I agree entirely with your sentiment.
But I want to go on to something else: that "journalism" encompasses many things, including the "crusading" kind you talk about and also, for that matter, including editorial and opinion pieces. Too many people (I don't mean you, Roger, but do include the authors of high-flown codes of ethics) confuse such aspects of journalism with "reporting" - sometimes conflating the two and sometimes ignoring the distinction.
"Reporting" is a sub-set of "journalism" and, as such, needs to conform to a set of requirements that are different from and somewhat more restrictive than "journalism" writ large. If someone reports that something happened then the ideal is that it did, indeed, happen and that there be evidence of such, the more compelling the better. Objectivity (while never being achievable) should be something to aspire to, and bias on the part of the reporter should be something they attempt (however imperfectly) to leave at the door.
Abandoning that, to me, means abandoning everything. What should I do about the journalist who crusades against cruelty to goldfish if, as it turns out, no goldfish have been harmed? And the crusading journalist knew that, but didn't think it would help his case to tell me so.
"Reporting" should attempt to establish the facts, and crusading, or ideological committment and all those other things should follow the facts, or be argued based on them. "Facts" should not be created out of whole cloth to advance the agenda of a crusade or an ideology.
And the truth that objectivity can never be achieved, nor bias eliminated, should not be used as an excuse for not trying, or for manufacturing stories to suport an agenda.
IMHO, one of the reasons that journalism has lost respect is because the trade itself has allowed the distinction between "reporting" and other aspects of journalism to blur so badly that in too many minds it has disappeared.
...Mike
P.S. OTOH, trying to hold all journalism to the standards of "straight reporting" is not only futile, but wrong in it's own and different way.
Some times the NYT publishes higly good articles about issues related to photography, like the one written by Randy Kennedy, about Danny Lyon http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/arts/design/26kenn.html?_r=1&ref=arts. Some times terrible-empty-contents but rich-in-twisted-phrasing articles are published, and sometimes there are articles in the middle.
Like photographers, writers have to earn their living too, and each one extracts the honney either with the machete or with his dirty nails, according to his skills, ambition and honesty.
Having said that I would locate the article subject of this thread, quite in the middle. Not just an article playing with words but devoid of info, nor one presenting some interesting new view or pointing the finger to somewhere new, beyond what every pal knows. Am I wrong ? was there a big new revelation ?
Lots of gossip, not a single substantiated fact. The technical structure of this imressionist style article is simple to death. After giving detailed circumstancial only detailing about the controversy over Capa's picture, the following quoted cases, even less substantiated are supposed to gain the reader's legitimacy by the domino effect.
What, that a few folks are claiming money from Doisneau herency ? That the actual place of the Spanish loyalist death was 25 km aside ? Are you really serious ? That according to Mrs X, Mrs Y whispered her that blah blah blah. Is this factual evidence ? Or gossip ?
Gossip to my judgement, sorry. That photography lies, or better said - can lie, is a message quite dumb after all, at this stage of world technology. Only photographers can lie? Journalists are vacinated ?, businessmen ? Berlusconis ? Judges ?
Photographers have lied. Big deal ! Big discovery ! Let's open a beer !
Some may get impressed by the inflated wording, others may even enjoy the inflated wording, and some times I do - but dear folks, let's be serious. Before pointing the finger, the writer may have done better by detaliling a proven example, or providing proof himself about a new case. This is harder, not ?
There are famous cases of photographic forgeries, somehow skipped in the article who targeted Capa, the famous and self declared leftist. An example of this kind of forgeries is the famous disapearing of Trotzki from the photo of Lenin during a speech. Another was the staged positinioning of the red flag over the Reichstag, and a third, it seems to me, is related to a similar case with an American flag at a big Japanesse island.
Quite boring an article for me, with a slight political spicing.
Btw, political spicing is legitimate in my book, provided neutrality is not claimed. Capa never claimed neutrality by the way. Unlike the writer of the boring article. Nevertheless, partisanship is no umbrella for forgery, be it crystal clear, nor for gossiping.
Cheers,
Ruben
MinorTones
07-24-2009, 06:27
From your post Roger:
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable [to whom?] for upholding the following standards in their daily work
--Accountable to the public and themselves. If you screw this up you lose your job and respect. Don't manipulate your photos or the scenes if they are to be published as news.
Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. [A: Yeah, right. As already agreed, you can't report everything. You choose what to report -- and there will always be someone who whines and snivels that you're biased, because your biases aren't theirs]
--Because some may whine about biases does not mean you should give in. This line says nothing about choosing which stories to cover. It means don't leave something out when your on assignment.
Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. [H: Including of course people who are proud of their role in 'ethic cleansing', massacres, running gas chambers, etc.]
--The public will form their own opinions based on unbiased reporting one's own opinions need not be inserted. Your not going to get the story by being a jerk to the guy even though you may find his ideals deplorable.
While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. [K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]
--I don't see what is wrong with this rule. I don't read it as asking me to be neutral on the subjects you mention. As I said before let the readers form their own opinions that is what photojournalists are for.
Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. [N: Oh, come on. Where's the line between 'one upmanship' and sabotage?]
--Don't put your hand in front of the other guy's lens, but if you find your way into a story you don't need to tell the other guy how you did it. Thats the line.
Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects. [U: Unobtrusive? You're asking about matters of life and death, and you're going to be unobtrusive? And if striving to be humble means giving arrogant politicians, business leaders, etc., the chance to get away with things, what is the use of 'humble'?]
--Unobtrusive and humble will get you a story. The subject of your story may like or respect you giving you the chance to write/photograph more in depth thereby giving your readers more to form their own opinions.
Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence. [T: Don't actually DO anything. Just moan about it.]
--Don't run for Mayor because your gonna have to report on the Mayor. Journalism doesn't moan it describes.
Much of your post is very negative, and blown out of proportion in my opinion.
emraphoto
07-24-2009, 07:03
A wonderful collection of weasel words, for which I thank you very much. Herewith a lightly annotated version. Some letters are omitted in the A-X sequence.
Code of Ethics
Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions areaccountable [to whom?]for upholding the following standards in their daily work:
Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. [A: Yeah, right. As already agreed, you can't report everything. You choose what to report -- and there will always be someone who whines and snivels that you're biased, because your biases aren't theirs]
Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. [B: Think!]
Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. [C: as 'A' above]
Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. [D: If necessary, let them do that for themselves. Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.]
Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. [G: Why?]
Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. [H: Including of course people who are proud of their role in 'ethic cleansing', massacres, running gas chambers, etc.]
Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. [J: Be a decent human being]
Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. [K: As 'J' above. And are you SURE you're qualified to judge what's 'overriding and justifiable'?]
While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. [K: Has the person who wrote this ever even heard of crusading journalism? Sure, let's maintain a neutral stance on death camps, genocide, forcing young girls into prostitution, etc.]
Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. [Eh?]
Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. [L: Probably a good idea but what about buying 'em a drink, lunch, etc.?]
Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. [M: More accurately, don't give them or their opponents the chance to look as if they've bribed you. But if you followed this course of action scrupulously, you couldn't accept e.g. a journalist visa from the Chinese authotities.]
Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. [N: Oh, come on. Where's the line between 'one upmanship' and sabotage?]
Ideally, visual journalists should:
Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.
Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. [P: Proactively' is a clear sign they're running out of ideas and vocabulary]
Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media. [R: Vacant drivel. If you don't already do this, a worthless exhortation ain't gonna change your ways]
Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view. [S: Oh, yeah. I really ought to give white supremacists and religious extremists plenty of time to spout their hatreds]
Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence. [T: Don't actually DO anything. Just moan about it.]
Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects. [U: Unobtrusive? You're asking about matters of life and death, and you're going to be unobtrusive? And if striving to be humble means giving arrogant politicians, business leaders, etc., the chance to get away with things, what is the use of 'humble'?]
Respect the integrity of the photographic moment. [V: Pure drivel]
Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. [W: High-flown drivel.]
Visual journalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it. [X: Because if you don't study the craft, you won't get work, and if this load of drivel tells you much about ethics, you probably don't understand the word anyway]
"weasel words" wow. well Roger i am normally one to engage in a conversation regardless if i am defending a position. what you have presented amounts to pure curmudgeon and with that i take my leave.
Here in the UK we have the benefit of BBC, controlled by charter, funded by the public and fiercely independent of government it strives to be completely balanced in its output.
It was in fact so balanced in reporting a single doctor’s misguided concern about the MMR vaccine it’s uptake fell to the point we now have children dying from measles. I have agree with Roger’s scepticism here
Objective reporting is just editorial pretending to be a virgin
Roger Hicks
07-24-2009, 10:23
"journalism" encompasses many things, including the "crusading" kind you talk about and also, for that matter, including editorial and opinion pieces. Too many people (I don't mean you, Roger, but do include the authors of high-flown codes of ethics) confuse such aspects of journalism with "reporting" - sometimes conflating the two and sometimes ignoring the distinction.
"Reporting" is a sub-set of "journalism" and, as such, needs to conform to a set of requirements that are different from and somewhat more restrictive than "journalism" writ large. If someone reports that something happened then the ideal is that it did, indeed, happen and that there be evidence of such, the more compelling the better. Objectivity (while never being achievable) should be something to aspire to
P.S. OTOH, trying to hold all journalism to the standards of "straight reporting" is not only futile, but wrong in it's own and different way.
Dear Mike,
Absolutely.
I may have overstated my case, but hey, I'm a journalist: I get paid to do that. And if it's curmudgeonly, I get paid for that too. But it's also the way I am, as evidenced by the fact that I'm writing this for free.
One kind of reader ignores me because they don't agree with me and are afraid of thinking about which of us is right.
The other kind reads my stuff because regardless of whether they agree with me or not, they appreciate the stimulus of what one described as 'a mental kick up the bum'.
I assume that my readers get their information from multiple sources of varying reliability, and then assess the likelihood of what they read being actually true. If they don't, they're either fools, or don't care about the subject (nothing wrong with the latter: I don't care about sport, for example, and a single source is more than interests me).
Obviously I'm talking about the op/ed stuff (Amateur Photographer, Land Rover World) but even when I'm reporting (Shutterbug photokina coverage) I have to choose what to cover. Do I describe every stand equally? Of course not. There's not space, and even if there were, it would be boring beyond belief.
Likewise, if I'm writing about Tibet, how much time need I dedicate to Chinese propaganda? There's plenty of that, without my giving them extra paper.
Journalism is a dialectic. Anyone who can't handle that should stop pretending that they're reading the news. They're not. They're demanding to be spoon-fed pap that suits their preconceptions.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
07-24-2009, 10:32
I read it though and would not have used the phrase "weasel words" but I have to say there was not much of substance there.
"
Dear Fred,
By 'weasel words' I mean words that can easily be moulded to fit the situation: "highest standards" . . . "as a student of" . . . "overriding interest to know" (or whatever it was) and so forth. It reminded me of Tom Lehrer (I quote from memory)
We are the Folk Song Army/Ev'ry one of us cares
We're all against poverty, war and injustice/Unlike the rest of you squares
If you have any decency or ethics, you're going to learn little or nothing from the code quoted or from the other codes cited; if you don't, you're going to ignore them anyway. (Obviously 'you' as 'one', not as 'Fred').
As for 'responsible to the public', it's high-faluting twaddle. What is The Public going to do to you? At worst they may stop buying the magazines that feature your work. Or maybe it could be worse: they'll buy more of them. National Enquirer, anyone?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
07-24-2009, 10:34
Objective reporting is just editorial pretending to be a virgin
Dear Stewart,
Great! I'll steal that!
(Oh; I'm not allowed to; the Code says so. But thanks anyway).
Cheers,
R.
mfunnell
07-24-2009, 13:40
It was in fact so balanced in reporting a single doctor’s misguided concern about the MMR vaccine it’s uptake fell to the point we now have children dying from measles.Ah, the old "report the controversy" trick - that's the third time we've fallen for it this week (with apologies to Maxwell Smart).
In order to avoid accusations of bias, you "report both sides of the argument". You listen to one group, write down what they say, then move on to the next group - and repeat as many times as needed. The recorded statements are then published - as purported "journalism" though it is much more akin to stenography. You never report that one group is lying, another is mistaken, another plain loopy etc. If you did so, no matter how accurately, or with however much evidence, they would accuse you of bias, and we couldn't 'ave that, now, could we?
...Mike
I should also mention that at the time some of the photographs in the OP's link were made at a time when there was no cut and dry "code of ethics". How should one act when there is no reason to think setting up a scene is immoral.
I'm sure the civil war photographers mentioned in the OP's link had no second thoughts on setting the scenes.
Well, let's not start by assuming your idea of "morality" is inherently valid in all cases :)
Consider the case of a war photographer of the 1800's. Their job/hope is to return with photos that tell a story that cannot be told in print alone. To that end, it makes little difference if the bodies have been moved or if they were the first on the scene. They are still dead. In fact, such things as bodies lined up in a row actually help tell the story of what happened there that day. Who actually believed they just fell over dead that way? Seeing dead soldiers in a line draws a parallel between the living soldiers as they must have looked marching to their doom and the sad spectacle in the aftermath. It is useful and eloquent and not "immoral."
What would be served by refusing to take pictures of any scene if a body had been moved or first aid administered or a path cleared?
A photojournalist makes choices about what to shoot. They or someone else makes choices about what to print. What comes out in publication is hardly the sum total of the story at the scene. Isn't this something we all know by the end of grade school? Especially on RFF as people who routinely use cameras for our own ends?
It does no-one any good if the photographer refuses to take a picture because people have already started picking up. Are we all idiots?
See these examples: http://www.slublog.com/archives/2006/08/the_passion_of.html
Can't we all pretty much guess the teddy bear perched on the wreckage of a collapsed building is put there for effect? Is there any thinking adult who would believe such a thing would just "happen"?!? IMHO, any outrage stems from your own embarassment for being so naive, and is not the fault of others. Just because you feel hurt and lied to doesn't mean anyone was lying or trying to mislead.
Once we get past the misguided moral outrage and naivete, is it possible the shots are useful from a photojournalist stand? They obviously tell a story. We don't have any idea *what story* when taken out of context, but when associated with a tale of an earthquake or battle, it can be illustrative. We don't have to believe the toy was found in that spot for the image to be useful. Toy or not, the shot of rubble is real enough.
Obviously we as the reader/viewer have to place enough stock in the outlet to trust the content. We don't need to pretend photographs are somehow magic windows always showing "truth." We KNOW they don't show truth, they show ***whatever the shooter wants them to show.*** It's not our job to assume all kinds of things that aren't being claimed, to read too much into every image.
And quite obviously, the first people on the scene of carnage are probably dead or injured. The second group to arrive are going to start cleaning up and helping. The photographer is coming with the gawkers and trying to leave with something someone would pay to look at. They are NOT forensic scientists making as accurate a record of the scene as they found it, because they went to a JOURNALISM school that teaches photographers to make "pictures that tell a story," not merely record a scene clinically. And rightfully so.
Let's not start crucifying photographers for delivering the goods. How about we stop pretending to be idiots?
35mmdelux
08-04-2009, 21:20
"And quite obviously, the first people on the scene of carnage are probably dead or injured. The second group to arrive are going to start cleaning up and helping. The photographer is coming with the gawkers and trying to leave with something someone would pay to look at. They are NOT forensic scientists making as accurate a record of the scene as they found it, because they went to a JOURNALISM school that teaches photographers to make "pictures that tell a story," not merely record a scene clinically. And rightfully so."
A good education, even if self-educated, helps tell the story.
larmarv916
08-04-2009, 21:45
I think that there are 2 major problems and several people have touched on them. First and as yet not mentioned is that in the early days...a photo essay was used in an effort to show a event in a more complete manner. Then when the editors jumped into a story "they" were a different group who were looking to create political reactions and filtered what honest effort an "eyewitness" objective photographer was. This twisting by editors for a enhanced "truth" by a person who was not there is the real posion.
Next we have after WWII we have politically biased publications that had an adjenda that was to attach blame..as the editoral staff deemed. This created the more dangerous problem and that was the efforts to stage photos. Which to some degree is how the "trash" gossip papers got traction. In the end the broadcast networks really killed the public's faith in news after being caught over and over faking footage. These are not small cracks in credibility.
So in the end print must make 1 photo do the work of what should have ben an untampered photo essay! Next TV News was forced to become entertainment that had to have sensalism, that was reenforced by "focus" groups...in turn kept budgets for 6pm News. Facts were not good enough as then did not create ratings...and advertising from higher ratings. Truth has no glamor...and creating sensalism does not serve anyone. That is where the phrase...."I Panic News Team"!!
So again the little guy who is pressured to come up with a killer photo is being intimated by some clown behind a desk..who does not care about anything but SALES!! Very Sad. When freelance photographers came along the papers only wanted photos as an exclusive feature...or value added over competition papers! Nothing more. If TV had been invented first ...think about how that would have changed the world of still photograpy.
Can we change the effects of publishing as it impacts photography as a tool of honesty for recording history...sadly I do not think so.
All the Best....Laurance
politically biased publications existed long before WW2. Propaganda is not a new invention.
I guess my whole perspective is that it is foolish to think any photograph is somehow an event in entirety. People get so bent out of shape at the idea a scene might have looked/been different than the photo implies. Um, hello? It's a photograph, not the event itself :) Welcome to the 19th century, already :cool:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.