Thanks for the response -- it's very interesting to me to hear from a working photojournalist on this topic. I had written: ><<...it still wouldn't be accurate to say that >the entire scene was staged -- only the kissing couple are actors, for >example, and for me the most interesting part of the photo is the reaction >of the bystanders, which was not "staged" at all...>> And then Rich replied: > >As a photojournalist I have to disagree. The image was originally used >in a magazine and, as far as I know, carried no disclaimer telling viewers >it was staged. So, if I wanted to do a story on car fires, would it be >ethically correct for me to set a vehicle ablaze in a busy intersection if >the reactions that followed were the "truth?" A couple of points: 1) throughout your post, you seem to possess a great faith in the complete objectivity of journalistic reporting, which is somewhat refreshing, if surprising, to me; 2) if you wanted to take a photo of how people _reacted_ to seeing a car on fire, then I guess it's up to you to decide who you want to set the car on fire, but if you wanted to take a _news photo of a car accident_, then I would agree that it would seem ethically questionable to set a car on fire yourself; and 3) in my post, I allowed for some distinctions to be made between an impressionistic cultural piece (i.e., Doisneau's take on Paris) and "hard news" photos for a newspaper (which is the direction in which you seem to want to shift the discussion with your example) -- the context matters -- so while I understand that your journalistic hackles are raised by staging photos, it's not really what's at issue here in the Doisneau discussion. After all, when people look at the Doisneau photo, they are not looking at it for its "objective news value," so to apply the same standards to it as you try to do with the car fire news example is to misunderstand the context of the reception of the photo. >The point is the content of the image was a lie, regardless of arguments >about choice of lens, film or post-capture darkroom work. Thet's why >the term photo-illustration was coined--to account for situations where >an image is staged, faked or excessively manipulated. Once more, a couple of comments: 1) the statement "the content of the image was a lie" is probably not accurate -- I have never heard that the people in the photo were not actually present or that they weren't actually doing what they seem to be doing in the photo, so the content doesn't seem to be the issue; and 2) as for the rest, I must admit that you leave me a bit confused here -- first off, you seem to reject out of hand the argument that I made in my last post about how all photos are manipulated when you write "regardless of arguments about choice of lens...," then you seem to accept that all photos are manipulated when you use the expression "excessively manipulated." Do you mean to reject my argument that all photos are manipulated or do you agree with it? As a follow-up, then, if you do accept it, at what point would you draw the line between acceptible manipulation and excessive manipulation? >Your example of documentary literature would depend whether the work >is labeled as fiction or non-fiction, and whether the author was open >about any fudging of the facts--it's a matter of ethics. Of course it's a matter of ethics; to my mind, that's what makes it worth discussing in detail. It is very frequent that documentary literature is categorized as fiction even when it is not, in the strictest sense, imaginative writing -- it's a commonplace in the academy to do so, with a typical example being the field of testimonial fiction (Menchu being a good example, also many of the slave narratives, captive narratives, and so on, would fall into this category). And often the expression "based on a true story" is used in films and movies to finesse the issue, as well. >Some photojournalists and reporters have been fired for alterations >such as you mentioned: "characteristics of a number of different >people portrayed in a single character" Once again, your argument fails to account for the context -- a journalistic piece in a newspaper is different than a testimonial novel, or even a lifestyle piece in US magazine, for that matter. We routinely apply different rules for evidence in journalistic newpaper articles than we do in opinion pieces, for example, and that seems just fine to me. >Read an excellent column on the ethics of staging here: >http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/toy_gun.html > >Read more columns on the ethics of photojournalism by Deni Elliot >and Paul Martin Lester here: >http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/nppa.html Thanks much for the links, I'll look forward to reading them. And I know that there are some articles on recent trends in documentary photography that I want to look at too, so if you have more links or bibliographic suggestions, I'd love to hear them. At the end of the day, what makes this discussion interesting for me is that these are difficult questions with no easy answers -- I have a strong interest in documentary photography, a genre of photography that makes claims to truth, objectivity, and transparency, but I am also aware that nothing about photography is objective and transparent. It's a bind that I'm trying to come to grips with and discussions like this help. Thanks again! Keith ___________________________________________________________ Keith Alan Sprouse / Department of Modern Languages 176 Hampden-Sydney College / Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943 (o) 434.223.6335 / (f) 434.223.6347 / (h) 434.244.0465
