Blog 2-Doctoring Photos

The case study that I am focusing on is from Chapter 8 called “Manipulating News Photos: Is It Ever Justified?” (205). This case involves a staff photographer from the Los Angeles Times who had taken a photo during the 2003 Iraq War. The image was powerful, yet profound. However, it was discovered that this photographer had combined elements of two photos, in order to improve the composition. He was immediately fired and apologized for tarnishing the name of the Los Angeles Times.

Since this is a piece concerning photojournalism, I will use the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. This code states journalists have a responsibility to the following four objectives:

1.     Seek truth and report it, or tell their stories even when it is unpopular to do so (Plaisance, pg. 29)

2.     Minimize harm; journalists do not need to avoid all potential harm but just try to be aware of the fact that their stories could hurt others.

3.     Act independently

4.     Be accountable, or as Plaisance puts, “abide by the same high standards to which they hold others” (29)

People hope and assume that journalists are going to be truthful when writing an article or creating an image, yet this is not always the case, as we can see from this particular case study. I think this code of ethics is helpful in evaluating this case study because clearly, the photographer did not follow the guidelines of the code. He intended to report truth but since the photo was edited, it was not the entire truth. Moreover, he did not minimize harm since he sullied the reputation of his employer and obviously, lost his own job because of it.  Lastly, I don’t believe this photographer held himself fully accountable because although he ended up apologizing for his actions, I would imagine he did not follow the same standards in which he held his colleagues and boss.

I think if we looked at this in terms of Kant, he would not fully support this photographer’s actions. Although Kant is about the action and not about the consequences, he does also want to know “is this action good”? Patterson and Wilkins say that according to Kant, “journalists can claim few special privileges, such as the right to lie or the right to invade privacy in order to get a story” (10). This photographer did not intend to make a mistake but even so, he falsified a photograph and allowed it to be published in a national newspaper. Journalists have a moral obligation to tell the truth and in this case, Kant would say the act was unethical since it everyone did what this photographer did, it would not bode well.

Let's now turn to another philosopher: Mill. While Kant focused on the action, Mill focused on the outcome, which in this case, was not positive.  Mill believed that an act was wrong if it contributed to unhappiness or pain; this photographer’s act of falsely editing a photo caused both unhappiness and pain for all parties involved. Walski, the photographer in this case, said after this incident "I went from the front line of the greatest newspaper in the world and now I have nothing" (Plaisance & Wilkins, 206). Mill believed that if a situation had negative consequences, it was not ethical, and if it had positive consequences, it was acceptable. The very fact that this case has negative consequences shows that Mill would not agree with this situation.

In terms of this particular case, I think the journalist code of ethics was actually most helpful in helping me evaluate it. The code very clearly states four specific objectives and the photographer in this case simply did not follow them. While it wasn’t done intentionally, his job was to remain accurate and true and to uphold the credibility of the newspaper. One shouldn’t alter a photograph to make it more appealing or more popular. As New York Times photographer Laforet stated, "Our credibility is all we have" (Plaisance & Wilkins, 206).