[promacjoe]

journalists have been staging photos, since the first photos were able to be printed In news papers. One particular scene that was proved to be staged during the Civil War was of a So-called sniper. It was proven that a mans body had been drug and placed in the proximity of the weapon that was proven to be from the other side. Much of the wild West stories were not true as well. They called it artistic license. Unfortunately that artistic license, got some people killed. Bonnie and Clyde was another example of bad journalism in general. They had them robbing banks and killing people in multiple states at the exact same time. Staging photos is nothing new. When I was younger, a car came up the street and hit my house. When the Local news man arrived the photographer spun one of the wheels so we would think that he got there just as it happened, even though the man had been arrested and taken to jail already.
This practice is unfortunate because it leaves a lot of stories suspect. there should be a law against it. Photojournalism should not be staged in any way. a journalist should not have an opinion on the subject. They should report the news, in its entirety, without commentary. if they want to express an opinion they should do so in a commentary and state that it is their opinion.

and by the way, one of the most famous photographs in US history was staged. The picture of the Marines raising the American flag during World War II was re-created.

---

Last edited by promacjoe; 10-22-2015 at 03:35 PM.

[lesmore49]

Interesting link. Many, many years ago, I was in the publishing business, albeit in a minor photojournalist position. I decided to leave the field for a number of reasons, some of which are similar to those discussed in the attached link.

Some might say, that things really never change.

[normhead]

Some of us are of the opinion that the picture should help tell the story, even if a few things are put in different places to convey the truth. Of course one of the more famous manipulations in history, was the reversing the order of the MrGruder film after Kennedy was shot, in the Warren Commission report, to make it look like he was hit from behind, where Oswald was, instead of in front, from the grassy knoll in front of the police compound. One journalist was allowed to see the footage, Dan Rather and he lied to keep the official story alive. And went from being an unknown reporter to a national news anchor. Not that anyone cares anymore. These days, you can just make up weapons of mass destruction. You don't even need to bribe a journalist. Then there was J Edgar Hoover, having the FBI hold Bonnie and Clyde at their death scene so he could be photographed standing beside their dead bodies when the headlines broke.

My favourite though was back when I lived in Columbus Ohio. The guy who owned the newspaper, a republican was running for mayor. There was a banquet attended by all he candidates. His opponent, who was ahead in the polls sat down for his meal, two twenty-ish girls in very small bikinis jumped into his lap, a news reporter hopped up and snapped a picture and it was half the front page of the Dispatch the next day. The newspaper owner won. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks they are seeing integrity in photojournalism is naive. The protestations of integrity launched by various organizations and individuals are what makes it possible for the frauds to perpetrate these injustices. Telling people they can actually trust photos to tell the story is just setting them up to be manipulated.

Now of the various hoaxes and lies I have pointed out above, has any major news or photojournalism organization come against this type of manipulation? The only motto that comes up here is "trust no one." To teach otherwise is to be tool of the powers that be.

And as for photoshopping landscapes , what is wrong with that? There's a spot down at the river where painters sit and paint the rapids on the Madawaska, while staying at the Outdoor Adventure Lodge, with it's hot tubs, log cabins and fireplaces. In not one of those paintings, do the branches that would ruin any picture I took get painted into those paintings. If they don't paint them in, that's just good art. If I clone them out, I'm some kind of photography criminal? When I was in school the course I took was in photo-arts. "Art" people. It was about how do you use photography to make good art. So from my perspective, I'll tell you who's criminal. People who take photos that have incongruous elements and try to pass them off as art, because "that's the way it was'" That's what is criminal. There is quite possibly very little artistic merit in "the way it was." As photographers we find the angles, use the lens, control the DoF and Field of View, to make art. "The way it was", is irrelevant.

[promacjoe]

My favourite though was back when I lived in Columbus Ohio. The guy who owned the newspaper, a republican was running for mayor. There was a banquet attended by all he candidates. His opponent, who was ahead in the polls sat down for his meal, two twenty-ish girls in very small bikinis jumped into his lap, a news reporter hopped up and snapped a picture and it was half the front page of the Dispatch the next day. The newspaper owner won.

There is a difference between manipulating a photo, and creating a fraudulent news story. the newspaper owners should have been prosecuted. He should have been in jail instead of running the city. and his newspaper should've been boycotted until it closed.

[normhead]

There is a difference between manipulating a photo, and creating a fraudulent news story. the newspaper owners should have been prosecuted. He should have been in jail instead of running the city. and his newspaper should've been boycotted until it closed.

Or as I said, people should learn to trust no one. If something doesn't seem right, it probably isn't, even if there's nice picture.

[Lowell Goudge]

Through all of this, there is a discussion that needs to take place, but hasn't

Are photojournalists specifically, and news reporting agencies in general supposed to simply report the news, or do they make the news.

The unfortunate events of the last year in the us, where many news agencies reported a police officer shot a black man in the back while running away is a case in point.

The trial revealed many of the witnesses that were talking to the press were actually NOT at the scene at the time. The press coverage and bias on the events was a major contributor to the unrest in the area.

That generated more unrest (but for the newsies better stories) that the original event. Yes it brought some attention to a situation that in general needed to be addressed, but the end does not justify the means , and the end result likely could have been achieved easi and better, if the press covered the issue properly, not promoting their own slant on the events to achieve their goals, not the publics

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Perfect illustration of the point. The news industry seems to be like any other industry...it's profit driven. This isn't a problem when you're selling groceries or designer jeans, but when you're competing to sell so-called news, it's a major problem.

It's also the idea of "If it bleeds, it leads." That concept alone is bad enough, but now, if it doesn't bleed, they'll make it look like it does, or pick at it until it does.

As far as I can tell, their intention is not to report what happened...their intention is to attract attention and sell advertising and influence.

[Winder]

Perfect illustration of the point. The news industry seems to be like any other industry...it's profit driven. This isn't a problem when you're selling groceries or designer jeans, but when you're competing to sell so-called news, it's a major problem.

It's also the idea of "If it bleeds, it leads." That concept alone is bad enough, but now, if it doesn't bleed, they'll make it look like it does, or pick at it until it does.

As far as I can tell, their intention is not to report what happened...their intention is to attract attention and sell advertising and influence.

Companies are a reflection of their consumers. They produce the products that are in demand. If the majority of the population really wanted hard media coverage, then the major networks would provide it. The majority of the population tune into FOX or MSNBC so that their predetermined paradigm can be reinforced. They don't want hard news. They want the media to confirm their own bias.

The way companies make a profit is by giving the public what they really want. It doesn't matter if you are a drug dealer or a preacher. They only reason people will show up and put money in your pocket is if you are giving them something they want and value. If Ricoh produces a camera or lens that enough people want, then they will make a profit. IF they don't produce a product that people want, they go out of business. Profits are simply and indicator of who is most efficient at meeting the wants of the consumers.

[normhead]

Or more to the point, there have been lots of attempts to create an unbiased, un-sensational press. They do not receive public support. Of all the startup publishers that tried to put the truth first, were hurt by not getting advertisers, but were her more because the public wouldn't pay for what it costs. You can build the most credible team of honest journalists ever assembled, but if sales doesn't pay their salaries, how are you going to keep them. 'The truth? You can't handle the truth." The reason for all these ideologies, religions etc. is that people seem to have to simplify the truth to make a go of it. We pay people to make it simple, by applying cliches and over simplifications. Of course when we have a difficult situation, like "weapons of mass destruction" the over simplifications fail us horribly.

[TaoMaas]

The question of, "Can photojournalism be trusted?" depends upon your point of view. If you think everything is a lie...then, no, it can't be trusted. But if you accept that photos are our best means of recording the past...and trust that news organizations are doing everything they can to insure the integrity of the photos they post...yeah, you can.

[normhead]

It only depends on your point of view, if you ignore history. The simple fact is, photo-journalism has been from time to time entrust worthy... and can be again at any time. Anyone who relies on just the photo to come to a conclusion, is going to get mislead. There is always a bigger reality. Trusting photo-journalism is like trusting one witness at a trial. There's a reason why you have to have at least two reliable witnesses to make a case. So, no it's not a matter of point of view. It's a matter of understanding that a picture can never be more than half the story an dis usually considerably less.

However some are entitled to hold different views. Just the have no basis in law, historically or in any other arena. The fact that something is totally erroneous and folks believe it, doesn't take away from the fact that they are entitled to their opinion. And other people are entitled to point out the flaws in their opinion, to help them grow. That's how opinions work.

The fact that many people hold an opinion in no way suggests that opinion is right. In many cases, popular opinion has been in the past and will be in the future dead wrong. People are entitled to be dead wrong if they so choose. I do take steps to make sure they aren't dead wrong in my presence. It's kind of "do it in the privacy of your own home " thing.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

But if you...trust that news organizations

Yeah, that ship has sailed a long time ago, if it was ever even in the harbor to start with.

[TaoMaas]

Yeah, that ship has sailed a long time ago, if it was ever even in the harbor to start with.

LOL It very much was. I've seen guys fired for staging tiny things. But...believe what you want to belive.

[normhead]

LOL It very much was. I've seen guys fired for staging tiny things. But...believe what you want to belive.

That's not the point. I've seen people fired for lots of spurious things. It the always came down to "the boss didn't like them" and it was his company. What the excuse was, is pretty much irrelevant.

[Winder]

The question of, "Can photojournalism be trusted?" depends upon your point of view. If you think everything is a lie...then, no, it can't be trusted. But if you accept that photos are our best means of recording the past...and trust that news organizations are doing everything they can to insure the integrity of the photos they post...yeah, you can.

Yes. I have known a couple of reporters who probably damaged their own careers because they would not sensationalize a story. One of them is now a professor of journalism. There are people out there who have the ethical standards, but the population really doesn't care about truth. The population wants their own view of the world reinforced and different news outlets have evolved to cater to different groups. Its a lot like religion. Historically people have conformed their life around their religion. Today people seek a church that conforms to what they want to believe. Its the same way with news. People seek the media source that tells them what they want to believe. This is why we have a thousand different churches and media outlets. Ultimately you can't blame the media or the churches for offering people what they want. The United States is having one of the longest most peaceful periods it has ever had. Violent crime is half of what it was in the 1960's. Looking at modern news you would think this was one of the most violent times in American history. Nothing makes the media more money than death and destruction and they take every opportunity to sensationalize it. The modern media should make populists very happy.

Yes. There are people you can trust, but it would be rare to find them working in the mainstream media. When you to the trash bin and read sources like Politico it gets even worse. Emails Show Politico?s Mike Allen Promised Positive Coverage of Chelsea Clinton The media needs access, and they will trade their credibility for that access.
CNN Reporter Coordinated With Hillary Aide To Hit Rand Paul | The Daily Caller

Gregory Heisler's Controversial Photo of President George H.W. Bush for TIME This picture got Heisler's White House credentials revoked. If you don't do as you're told, you don't get access.