# Fact and Fiction in Modern Photography



## cgw (Apr 24, 2015)

Worth a look:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/fact-and-fiction-in-modern-photography/


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2015)

If one reads that collection of brief comments from people in or related to photojournalism, there's an undercurrent trying to say that photographers feel like the reason their pictures are not being "picked up" (published) is because their images are old-school, factual, and are not, let's just say "_*adequately theatrical*_" to get editors to select them. I sense a burning desire on the part of some of these people to have somebody, anybody, or everybody, release them from the bonds of the rules of journalistic ethics. It seems like what we're getting more and more of are people who want to call themselves photojournalists--but who want to stage shots, re-create scenes, do digital manipulation and significantly alter the toning/lighting/exposure of scenes, and they keep using the code-words _*personal*_, and also _*story-telling, *_as a sort of shorthand for being allowed to editorialize out the wazzoo.

Reading through the essays, there are appeals that the old ways are meaningless, that new ways of shooting, new ways of relating the news are needed; I see this as coming from PJ's whose work is being picked up by fewer and fewer outlets, as more and more user-generated content (read: cellphone photos submitted by the public) prevents their work from being published. It's all being phrased to sound noble, and to present a justification for being allowed to fake, stage, doctor, edit, color-correct, lighten/darken,crop,clone, and in a nutshell--to *editorialize in NEWS images.* That is unacceptable.

It's interesting--the editor...he's saying that basically, NO, you people need to present honest photos, honest captions, and NOT alter the lighting, not alter photos, and keep your go******d feelings out of your work, and STOP your whining about being constrained by the rules of ethical journalism. In a sense, what the editor is saying is that it is his job to stop this new digital-era idea that a photographic image can be manipulated, staged, edited, extensively toned, and still be "real", still be "honest", still have "credibility". And that's what the new generation of PJ's seems to want to be freed from--they want to be allowed to distort, to editorialize, to show their "personal vision"....as if the media is some f****ng art school spring show, as if the events in some far-off corner of the world are not going to have any impact on viewers unless they can be shown the news events in these "exciting, new ways", these "creative" ways. 

In short, there's a new generation of people who are confused about why their work is not gripping the whole world; they want to say that the single image is dead...that the old rules force them into cliche...and now, now they want to be able to be given series, sequences, and the freedom to be their own editors, their own artsy-fartsy peoples' advocates. In short, we're seeing a bunch of people who are trying to bring their OWN interpretations of world events to the media, as if those media outlets are the personal Instagram or Facebook pages of the shooters. In a word, these people are mostly lobbying AGAINST the ethics of journalism, and want to be told it's okay to stage things....because, hey, it's okay in your *personal projects*...

There is indeed, a strong undercurrent among a segment of photographers who are desperate to be allowed to present their own fiction as "fact".


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2015)

Derrel said:


> If one reads that collection of brief comments from people in or related to photojournalism, there's an undercurrent trying to say that photographers feel like the reason their pictures are not being "picked up" (published) is because their images are old-school, factual, and are not, let's just say "_*adequately theatrical*_" to get editors to select them. I sense a burning desire on the part of some of these people to have somebody, anybody, or everybody, release them from the bonds of the rules of journalistic ethics. It seems like what we're getting more and more of are people who want to call themselves photojournalists--but who want to stage shots, re-create scenes, do digital manipulation and significantly alter the toning/lighting/exposure of scenes, and they keep using the code-words _*personal*_, and also _*story-telling, *_as a sort of shorthand for being allowed to editorialize out the wazzoo.
> 
> Reading through the essays, there are appeals that the old ways are meaningless, that new ways of shooting, new ways of relating the news are needed; I see this as coming from PJ's whose work is being picked up by fewer and fewer outlets, as more and more user-generated content (read: cellphone photos submitted by the public) prevents their work from being published. It's all being phrased to sound noble, and to present a justification for being allowed to fake, stage, doctor, edit, color-correct, lighten/darken,crop,clone, and in a nutshell--to *editorialize in NEWS images.* That is unacceptable.
> 
> ...


welcome to the photoshop generation!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2015)

Yes. I just want to state that virtually ALL media outlets of any standing have specific, strict prohibitions against altering scene lighting and color tone; that means that if a news event occurred under dull, overcast skies, that the news images had damned well better not be portrayed as having taken place under 7,500 degrees Kelvin, warm, evening "golden lighting" conditions. I saw some faked news images from the last Israeli/Palestinian conflict which were most definitely FAKED as far as lighting. Burning down a whole crowd scene, darkening a mass of 300 people in a funeral procession, but then selectively lightening up the anguished face of a father carrying his dead child through the streets is not "personal style"--it is journalistic fraud. That's why reputable media outlets prohibit manipulation of exposure and lighting conditions.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 24, 2015)

I think this video is relevant.






One interesting thing about some types of photojournalism is that those being photographed will often "put on a show" for the photographers.

It's hard to tell a truthful story when your ego and Pulitzer lust is giving you tunnel vision. Having a whole group of photographers making a spectacle out of a potentially sellable scene threatens this ideal, because, if the scene was actually "Danger danger war war, death, destruction," then why would photographers be nonchalantly standing off to the side?

What sucks the most is that it's not necessarily the photographers' faults. They're trying to make images that they can sell to wire services and publications because they want to eat and they want recognition. Those dramatic, cinematic, semi-staged photos sell. That's the point here. If they didn't, this might not be as big of an issue as it is. I'm not sure I can really blame the photographers for just trying to survive in a culture that's attitude already pushes against journalistic integrity.

The public wants drama at the cost of truth. The news companies and photographers are giving them that because they don't have a choice if they want to survive.


----------



## Designer (Apr 24, 2015)

cgw said:


> Worth a look:


I presume the take-away is that the NYT wants authentic photographs, but the newbies want to editorialize photographically.

What standards are being debauched when _Rolling Stone Magazine_ can publish an invented story as if it were true?

*See B. S.* (you know, the "eye" channel)  has "invented" many stories over the years, to the point that we cannot believe anything from them anymore.

Editorializing is done all the time.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> I think this video is relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agree with this to a large extent it is very feasible. But how do get around they are being paid by someone asking for authentic photographs?  And if you let this slide then who IS the one suppose to guard journalist integrity. Someone needs to. If i look at a more credible news agency, i don't expect to see doctored photos.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2015)

Designer said:
			
		

> What standards are being debauched when _Rolling Stone Magazine_ can publish an invented story as if it were true?



Pretty much* EVERY standard* of reporting, editing, and fact checking. That story was not rushed to print...it was developed over literally months and months, and the "reporter" adopted the empathetic, unquestioningly accepting attitude and approach of a sexual assault counselor--not that of a reporter. At least that's what an expert in journalism practices and ethics told Katie Couric in a lengthy interview I saw on Yahoo News,in Couric's ongoing Yahoo vehicle, in which she tries to explain stories to her viewers and give them some context that's typically missing in mainstream, straight news reporting.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 25, 2015)

Fictionalized stories, like that in the Rolling Stone, are uncommon, which are why such stories are so alarming and garner a high level of interest.  In the news business, The Rolling Stone was never held in high regard as the poster child of stellar journalism. RS always held a position somewhere between a tabloid and a legitimate news magazine. I cannot imagine any legitimate news organization which would not fired the author of a fictionalized story represented as true. 

I was a photojournalist. Accuracy was drilled repeatedly into me in school and by my editors.  Accuracy ... Accuracy ... Accuracy ... period. While the internet and digital have change how we capture our stories, it is hard to believe that the foundation, ethics and fundamentals of journalism have changed because the tools of the trade and marketplace have changed.

When I was working news, back in the dinosaur days of film-only, we were journalists first and photography was secondary.  We photojournalist were/are always looking for the exceptional image ... but we were taught and trained that we are there to record ... not to stage or fictionalize the story. Electronic media has always been shallow and sensationalistic. News ... real news is being confused with non-news editorialization and opinions stemming from bloggers, talk radio, et al.

As tradition newspaper and magazine marketplace dries up and news staffs are reduced ... as corporate greed dictates the use of non-professionals and freelancers for news gathering ... professional ethics takes a back seat to being published and getting paid.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 25, 2015)

I'm thinking that the fault, dear reader, is in us, the readers.  We have adopted the "consumer" attitude, that we "consume" the news and information.  Inherent in that mindset is the choice a consumer has in what they "consume" and how they consume that information.  It's not about being educated or informed, it's about taking in what the reader finds interesting or worthy of attention.  And so, some readers/viewers choose the Daily Show because they want their "news" to be delivered with attitude and snark.  Those with "right-wing" tendencies generally look only at sources that reflect that world-view.  Those with "left-wing" tendencies do the same.  So do the 'environmental advocates".  In fact, probably every group that can be identified has "their" authoritative sources .  The point of this is that the viewers do NOT seek out a balanced and nuanced view - they look for sources that in essence confirm their own ideas of how the world works.

Another approach to civic engagement is "citizen" where the individual has both rights and responsibilities.  The rights come with option of choosing what you want to hear and are comfortable with, but the responsibility requires making sure that information is factual and that all the different points of view are explored.  And that means reading and viewing stuff that may not bring comfort or pleasure (predominant in the "consumer" approach), but does give a deeper understanding of the issues.  In this view, unbiazed and content free of editorializing is absolutely essential to convey the reality as it is, not necessarily as we would want to have it.  The responsibility of a citizen to be fully informed means that they need to get past the propaganda (whether commercial, political, religious, or other), and try to uncover the unvarnished truth however ugly and unappealing it may be.


----------



## Designer (Apr 25, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Pretty much* EVERY standard* of reporting, editing, and fact checking.


My point being that the "standards" have been lowered already.


----------



## Designer (Apr 25, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> In the news business, The Rolling Stone was never held in high regard as the poster child of stellar journalism.


Another point that I would like to make is; the average low-information "consumer" of news sources may not realize that he/she is reading junk, and taking it for Gospel.


----------



## Designer (Apr 25, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Those with "right-wing" tendencies generally look only at sources that reflect that world-view.  Those with "left-wing" tendencies do the same.


This is true, and in my case it progressed from my worldview to the reading material.  

I can't help but speculate that in some cases it would work in the other direction.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 25, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> Fictionalized stories, like that in the Rolling Stone, are uncommon, which are why such stories are so alarming and garner a high level of interest.  In the news business, The Rolling Stone was never held in high regard as the poster child of stellar journalism. RS always held a position somewhere between a tabloid and a legitimate news magazine. I cannot imagine any legitimate news organization which would not fired the author of a fictionalized story represented as true.
> 
> I was a photojournalist. Accuracy was drilled repeatedly into me in school and by my editors.  Accuracy ... Accuracy ... Accuracy ... period. While the internet and digital have change how we capture our stories, it is hard to believe that the foundation, ethics and fundamentals of journalism have changed because the tools of the trade and marketplace have changed.
> 
> ...



The Rolling Stone story, the falsified fraternity gang rape story, is a real outlier (pun  intended). It is NOT the norm.

Some of the claims made in the NYT's collection of short pieces are just lame excuses...we now have PJ's who are seeking the fame and followers that the big Instagram posters have. One of them expressly mentions the benefits associated with Instagram and Twitter, for God's sake! This is a case of modern PJ's craving fame, notoriety, and viewers for their work--the way the biggest Instagram and Twitter posters get. and let's face it: the bigger Instagram and Twitter people have followers into the many hundreds of thousands, on a daily basis. The bigger, better images on IG and Twitter are re-blogged all over the world, almost instantly.

I think there are some very confused new-era PJ's who are confusing a job, a responsibility, a career, with *the stars in their eyes, seeking fame and notoriety*, and confusing the IG filters and square format, and the no-real-caption-needed freedom of Instagram and Twitter. YES--IG and Twitter are HUGE platforms, with more reach world-wide than ANY magazine has ever had, or ever has had. Daily  and Sunday newspaper circulation here has plummeted. I see people making excuses, and trying,desperately and pathetically, to rationalize that the reason their pics are not being picked up is because they do not have the "freedom" that the Instagram snappers have...

I have to agree with Gary when he writes, "_Electronic media has always been shallow and sensationalistic. News ... real news is being confused with non-news editorialization and opinions stemming from bloggers, talk radio, et al._" That is exactly the problem with some of these people working today. 

Here is what I would say to that segment complaining about the need to follow those old _fuddy-duddy ethics thingies_:  I do not need, nor do I want 'creative' coverage on a bombed-out apartment building, or a hurricane's devastation. Your application of filters,or heavy toning,whatever...none of that will rebuild the lost circulation! None of your excuses and pleas will affect the fact that I DROPPED the daily newspaper that formerly might have carried your wire service image! You flew in there 14 hours AFTER I saw the real, on-the-ground events LIVE, after a hashtag search. Your ability to fake or to stage "creative shots" is not the issue with your reduced circulation and reduced sales, so show us the truth, and write some captions...do your JOB...don't whine that it's not Instagram, and you can snap, filter, and upload without doing even a half hour gathering info and giving me a caption I can trust."


----------



## cgw (Apr 25, 2015)

Anyone interested in pursuing these issues further should consider Errol Morris's "Believing is Seeing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/b...-seeing-by-errol-morris-book-review.html?_r=0


----------



## bribrius (Apr 25, 2015)

pgriz said:


> I'm thinking that the fault, dear reader, is in us, the readers.  We have adopted the "consumer" attitude, that we "consume" the news and information.  Inherent in that mindset is the choice a consumer has in what they "consume" and how they consume that information.  It's not about being educated or informed, it's about taking in what the reader finds interesting or worthy of attention.  And so, some readers/viewers choose the Daily Show because they want their "news" to be delivered with attitude and snark.  Those with "right-wing" tendencies generally look only at sources that reflect that world-view.  Those with "left-wing" tendencies do the same.  So do the 'environmental advocates".  In fact, probably every group that can be identified has "their" authoritative sources .  The point of this is that the viewers do NOT seek out a balanced and nuanced view - they look for sources that in essence confirm their own ideas of how the world works.
> 
> Another approach to civic engagement is "citizen" where the individual has both rights and responsibilities.  The rights come with option of choosing what you want to hear and are comfortable with, but the responsibility requires making sure that information is factual and that all the different points of view are explored.  And that means reading and viewing stuff that may not bring comfort or pleasure (predominant in the "consumer" approach), but does give a deeper understanding of the issues.  In this view, unbiazed and content free of editorializing is absolutely essential to convey the reality as it is, not necessarily as we would want to have it.  The responsibility of a citizen to be fully informed means that they need to get past the propaganda (whether commercial, political, religious, or other), and try to uncover the unvarnished truth however ugly and unappealing it may be.


don't even pay attention to news much anymore. when i did i followed over seas news coverage about the u.s.a and north america more than american media. I know it seems odd, but the overseas coverage of u.s. events seemed to narrow it down to the more important things that at least i cared about, with less slant. I will admit though to watching the daily show with stewart a tad though. Hilarious sometimes. Not even sure that is still on the air been a while since i looked.


----------

