Sunday, February 28, 2016

Media Ethics: Issues and Cases - Blog Post 3

Case Study 8-D: Manipulating News Photos: Is it Ever Justified?
In my last blog post, I wrote about the manipulation of a photo of Hilary Clinton and other advisors to Barack Obama and why I thought that manipulating photos of historic events is problematic and unethical. This case study is about a photo published in 2003 by the Los Angeles Times depicting a scene during the war in Iraq. Brian Walski, a staff photographer, spent days in the desert “under harsh conditions with little sleep and food and under enormous pressure” (206). During his time there, he sent Colin Crawford, Los Angeles Times director of photography, 13 photos. One of these photos was chosen to run alongside a story the newspaper published. Later on, a Hartford Courant employee, noticed there was a duplication of Iraqi citizens in the background, and brought it to the attention of Thom McGuire, the Courant’s assistant managing editor of photography and graphics. The photo was proven to be altered, with Walski having spliced two images together to create a more compelling one. Walski was fired.

Left: the two original photos, Right: edited photo that was published and subsequently retracted
Image Source: unfiltered.sjmc.umn.edu


Micro Issue #2
Should Walski have been fired? Why or why not?
Yes, I believe he should have been fired. News media has an obligation to uphold the truth and part of that truth relies on visual aides to amplify the power of news stories. Many people still believe that photographs must be absolute truths, and “as long as readers hold the view that ‘seeing is believing,’ that view—whether based in reality or not—becomes a promise between the media and their audiences that photographers and videographers should be hesitant to break” (196). News photography is held to a different standard than photography as art because “while art may be manipulated, information may not” (195). Because of this manipulation, Walski failed to accurately represent the information he was presenting.

Midrange Issue #3
Should employees blow the whistle on colleagues when they think there has been an ethical breach? If not, why not? If so, how should the do it?
I believe that journalists and other staff at news organizations are responsible for reporting any instances they see of ethical breaches by their fellow colleagues. News media should ultimately be accountable or loyal to the public and to their profession. The public’s trust in news organizations is reliant on those news organizations being as truthful and unbiased as possible. Because we (the public) don’t see what goes on throughout the editing process, it is up to those that do to hold one another accountable.

Macro Issue #2
Eric Meyer, who commented about the issue on the Poynter Web site, said, “A photo is like a direct quote. You chose what to quote or what to photograph. But, when you run a direct quote or a photograph, you don’t alter it to ‘make it better.’” Evaluate this statement.
I think that what Eric Meyer is saying relates back to the concept I addressed in Micro Issue #2 in that information cannot be manipulated. In discussing the “selective editing” of photos and videos, our textbook presents an important thing to consider: “The issue is who does the selecting, and what predispositions they bring to the process” (195). In editing a video or photo, the editor effectively changes the information through omission or manipulation.

Conclusion
Truth should not be subjective. By editing photos and videos, a version of truth is being created rather than presenting the truth as it is in reality. It is unethical to manipulate news photography because it misrepresents information and impacts the viewer’s ability to comprehend and decipher the information that is being presented to them as fact.

Case Study 10-D: Schindler’s List: The Role of Memory

Pictured: Liam Neeson and Stephen Spielberg on set of Schindler's List

Stephen Spielberg, in 1982, directed Schindler’s List, a film based on a novel by Thomas Keneally about Oskar Schindler, a man who was responsible for more than 1,000 Jews surviving the Holocaust in Poland. The film was an emotional and thought provoking representation of the tragedy of the Holocaust. At times, it was hard to watch due to the violence depicted.

Micro Issue #1
Should a film like Schindler’s List receive the same “R” rating as films such as Road Trip?
Micro Issue #3
Would you allow a child under 17 to see this film?

Image Source: mpaa.org

According to the Motion Picture Association of America’s website, an “R” rating: “Contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their young children with them.” Also, within the rating image is a space where the reasoning for the rating is explained (ie: sexual content, graphic violence, etc.). Because of the explanation, and the lack of further categorization on behalf of the MPAA, these two movies would both fall under the “R” rating. Children under 17 should see this film with further contextualization provided to them by their family, teacher, or other adult and/or mentor in their life. As Spielberg said in regard to the film: “Maybe it won’t be seen by millions of people who see my other movies, but it might be the kind of movie shown one day in high schools” (276).

Midrange Issue #2
Are docudramas that focus on social issues such as spouse abuse or child molestation the appropriate mechanism to engage the public in debate or discussion about such serious questions?
Rather than exploiting actual victims through the use of their photo, story, or name, docudramas can provide a medium through which audiences can connect, relate to, and further comprehend sensitive issues such as spouse abuse or child molestation. Regarding such works, our textbook asserts that they “remind readers and viewers of the moral power of art by putting us in touch with characters and situations sometimes more complex than our own lives. By thinking about these fictional characters, we enlarge our moral imaginations” (256).

Conclusion

Films like Schindler’s List create a space for viewers to relate to and comprehend important events. However, the blurring of art and entertainment can at times be problematic and the “possibility for abuse of an unsuspecting audience exists” (262). This is because such films invoke “the license allowed entertainment programming while retaining the authority of fact”. Some films do a better job of representing truth, such as Schindler’s List, while others omit or manipulate events and people to make them more entertaining, such as Danny De Vito’s Hoffa. Because of the fact that there are no rules or regulations setting a standard for films based on true stories, it is impossible for audiences to know where certain liberties have been taken by the producers and where reality diverges to fantasy for entertainment purposes.

No comments:

Post a Comment