Crop and Chop

[dminton]

Interesting piece by an incredible photojournalist about ways that photos sometimes get used out of context and altered to help editorialize in ways that are out of the photographers hands, and the dangers thereof. And also cropped to death.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/essay-9/?hp

[Comanche]

Thanx for the link, David.

The comments may be more interesting than the original post. I thought the quote in the OP from Edward R. Murrow a good one, though I like another thought - one espoused by the NPPA's John Long. While acknowledging what Morrow was trying to say, Long thinks we should leave seeking truth to philosophers and religious leaders and instead, PJs should seek accuracy in their photos.

I don't know about others, but I've had some of my photos used inappropriately (though obviously the editor didn't think so) and I've had cutlines altered. The editor was publishing what s/he thought to be the truth, but the result wasn't accurate.

[johnastovall]

This makes all the discussion about Photojournalism ethics pointless if the editors don't respect them.

[CaptainTom]

Once you've sold your image to the highest bidder, you are part of the process.

Should Kennerly be offended by their crop of his image ? Yes.
Should they be allowed to use the cropped image for that story ? Yes.
Should we believe everything we read in the media ? NO
Should we take advice from somebody we don't know via the internet? NO
Is this really a political discussion ? Not yet, but it will be.
Do the Cowboys have a chance at the SuperBowl ? NO.

[Anthony Martinez]

I would object to your last question/answer Tom, but the last 14 years tell me it's the sad truth :(

[mhuebner]

Using the kitchen setting from the article, here are some other examples which could have happened. Imagine the photographer had taken a picture of Cheney stuggling to open a bottle and he had a tense grimance on his face. If the editors had cropped to show only the face and used it with a heading "Cheney struggles with enemy resistance", the reader would naturally assume that the specific emotion captured in that picture reflected Cheney's personal stuggle with that topic.

Imagine he had accidently spilled food on himself and had that wide-eyed surprised reaction caught in a photo. If the editors cropped it to show only the expression and used the title "Cheney surprised by public outcry on the war", then the reader would assume that this was Cheney's reaction to the public outcry.

While editors have the authority to crop photos to fit the space requirements and to focus he attention to a specifc area of the image, they also have the responsiblity that make sure that photo represents what the article "states" it represents. In this case, I'm sure Newsweek had access to literally thousands of photos of Cheney and could have selected one that represented him in his political environment and would have been more accurately interpretted by the reader. Having him chopping up meat and using a subject matter of prisoner torture is something you would expect from a political cartoon not a leading photo in an article. I think that this was a poor choice by Newsweek and likely done to invoke the negative response that it has received.

It is however a fine line which editors face everyday. When the rights to a photo are signed away, its use and interpretation are in someone else's hands. We can only hope that they are used responsibly.

Mike

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

This makes all the discussion about Photojournalism ethics pointless if the editors don't respect them.

Bingo.