On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures
shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture isaltered?
The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. He or she
presents their work to be published by a news organisation. It is up to
the integrity and honesty of that news organisation to be questioned, if
necessary.
The profession is dedicated to providing visual actuality for
reproduction. It would be very easy for any link in that chain to be
corrupted and misrepresent the facts as they were witnessed. In my
experience, this would be a very rare occurrence, and the result would be
a disgraced and unemployable individual. Most people working in news
pride themselves in their work (I do) and strive to excel in being the
first and the best. Reputations stand or fall on this, and any hint of
tampering with the truth would invite the most serious of consequences in
terms of credibility and commercial viability.
Look at the paps - how easy would it be to superimpose a library shot of
a semi-naked actress on a few different beach scenes? Yet the paps are
out there stalking their prey (much as I personally disagree with such
activity) in new and different situations. Even the lowest of the low
have standards!
So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, no point of view? I don´t believe you. I still ask if we should stop believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without removing it from his interpretation of the truth.
Of course the news organization plays a similar part and the same question applies to them.
DagT
