The scary thing about a credible news publication such as Newsweek using a doctored image is the thought of how many other publications have used doctored images as well. How many other doctored images have we seen that we believed to be reality? I understand that they were trying to be humorous with the Martha Stewart picture which does provide some justification and they did publish that the image was edited but I expected more out of Newsweek or another respectable publication.
The second article was interesting also. I enjoyed how they showed the images and listened to the responses. I do see how the featured photographs could have completely different impressions on people.
It is wrong to change photographs that are altered because they are not the truth. When publishing a photo you are giving your readers the impression that the image you are publishing is the truth. But if you are changing that photo around you are lying. It is wrong because it is misleading.
Images can be edited to a degree and I think small changes are okay as long as they do not change the meaning of a photograph. For example taking a pimple off of someone’s face before publishing a photo is okay because in most cases that would not change the meaning of a photo or even the way that someone may interpret it. However adding extra people into a picture completely changes a situation. I think a lot of photo editing can be deceptive but as long as it is not changing the way that someone may interpret a situation I don’t see harm in removing a blemish or changing lighting or something small.
The photos shown in these articles were deceptive. They changed how everyone saw them. They made people have completely different ideas of what really happened in these situations. As for the whole Martha Stewart thing… well come on Newsweek was that really necessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good points.
ReplyDelete