A Picture Worth a Thousand Lies

So, let me get this straight, Walski was fired for manipulating a graphic image to tell a story. Sounds like journalism. The implication is that we should trust images to be 'true', and not question what they show. OK. What about the written or verbal reports? How many journalists have been sacked for adding 'spin' or 'colour' to an article to tell a story, to impress upon people, rightly or wrongly, the 'facts'. If the image was proven to 'lie' then fair enough. If it illustrates the true state of affairs, then he's doing a good job. Journalism is about communication, and in the digital world, that includes images, like it or not.

Hi PlbMak. What about our own "BBC", they are always lying about something. Spencer.

Well, We have all heard about media subversiveness (or what ever it is called!) Being intelligent people, it is up to us to decide what the real deal is! Gulf war, WMD, JFK! it is never as straight forward as you think! a story can sell a paper, a middle man gets his cut, owner of the paper gets richer, dinner with the president, whose he going to try and please! If the news people told the truth then possibly the world would not be in such a mess!

But this is only my view as I see it! you make up your own minds!

Again, it's journalism! Believe it at your peril! All we can do is gather as much info as possible and make up our own minds. As it happens, I don't think any of the news agency's in the UK are bad as such. Take the case of Andrew Gilligan. This is the reporter who supported the gulf war, but found that the gov.coms leading expert in WMD, Dr David Kelly, was alarmed at the spin the gov.com was putting on the intelligence data. The Government's response was ruthlessly to publish his, Kelly's, name, in the hope that he would knock the story down. Dr Kelly ended up dead, and Gilligan was sacked. Further, the Hutton inquiry terms of reference did not allow any real investigation into the WMD issue, even though reports (there we go again) suggested it did.

Who are you going to believe? Journalists? The gov.com?

I believe Gilligan acted in good faith, and got screwed. Kelly acted in good faith and with integrity, and got dead.

And the gov.com? Got away with starting a war on a false pretence, that would have been supported had they told the truth!

Oh! Non of this has been said directly! But if you are interested - http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

Hi PibMak. Yes, you are right! As you said, the war in Iraq or at least against Saddam would have been supported by the vast majority of our poulation if they(gov.com) had told the truth right from the beginning. I worked for a government agency for a while, and it done me no good whatsoever to tell the truth. In fact, gov.com does not want to know the truth, they often beleive their own lies after a time! This has led us into a catch 22 situation when it comes to Iraq, we are buggered if we do, and we are buggered if we don't, the media only writes what it see's and hears not what the government tells it to. Spencer.

Trust is main issue here. The reader can expect 'spin' in the written word and every judicious reader will always consider the source. However, we have a reasonable expectation that images are an extension of our own witness. To deliberately manipulate an image and present it as news is a deplorable breach of trust. Of course with any image, the astute reader will always need to consider what was not shown as much as what was presented. That he illustrates the true state of affairs (only true in his mind) is not a necessarily a good job. For far too many, the ends are justifying the means. This is clearly miscommunication and not journalism, and I don't like it.

Exactly! This is the thing I find fascinating. WHY do we have a higher expectation of the factualness of an image then we do the written word? Hasn't Hollywood taught us not to believe everything we see? Is it because we learn from an early age that lying is a social skill, and so we expect to be weary about written or verbal info, but not what is seen? Haven't we yet learnt that visual images are only one perspective, and the meaning can be distorted just as easily as by 'spinning' a story. I think we all have 'seeing is believing' hard wired into us, but we should treat the visual media with as much scepticism as we do written and spoken reports.

The very best journalists will try to convey the facts of an event by telling a story. If a visual aid assists in the telling, should we be that concerned if the images are manipulated? As long as the integrity of the person is concerned is not in question, I don't see a real problem.

If the photographer knows for a fact that an event happened but was unable to actually photograph it, is it a lie to show the event to his readers using a manipulated photo? I think it is not the best practice, but if there is no intent to deceive, then whats the fuss about?

Just in case anyone thinks photographic manipulation is new, look at this iconic picture of Lincoln. It's a composite of Lincoln's head and the Southern politician John Calhoun's body. This was made in the 1860's.