Ethics and Photography

Jeff_56 wrote in post #18873627
IMO it is commonly known that stories and photos are manipulated by journalists. That has greatly contributed to the lack of respect for journalism. One man's existential truth is another man's bald faced lie. I've seen too many journalists try to frame a story to suit their bias. It isn't journalism when they do that. It's propaganda.

I've watched events live then seen the press totally distort everything that happened at that event. Propaganda is not a good thing for journalists. Those that do it give all journalists a bad name. Where do you draw the line when framing a story as you see it instead of what really happened? We've seen that question apparently ignored completely sometimes by so called journalists. Journalists report. They shouldn't distort.

Bias is and always will be part of the process. Thanks God for Edward G Murrow. There aren't enough like him today.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18873679
Bias is and always will be part of the process. Thanks God for Edward G Murrow. There aren't enough like him today.

Yellow journalism has always been a problem.

Jeff_56 wrote in post #18873703
Yellow journalism has always been a problem.

Again thank God for Murrow to stop the likes of McCarthy. The likes of Robert Frank and his book The Americans. All the journalists that were appalled by the treatment of African Americans in the US before and during the civil rights movement. We need more voices with an agenda like that today.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18873679
Bias is and always will be part of the process. Thanks God for Edward G Murrow. There aren't enough like him today.

Edward Murrow represented a blip in the history of journalism. There had not been "disinterested journalist" before him, and it didn't last very long after him. To a certain degree, journalism cannot be truly disinterested because all other sources will forcefully present their own interests.

So in the late 60s, American journalists become more and more adversarial in their relationship with the government because the government was going to force its own agenda for its own purposes.

In the end, good journalism cannot be mechanistic--which is what we wish a picture represented. We would like a picture to represent a mechanistic, objective, agenda-free, emotion-free facts.

But it doesn't.

That's why a photograph introduced as evidence in court must be accompanied by the statement of the photographer that it represents what he saw--just as though he were there giving eyewitness testimony. The worth of a photograph as evidence is no better than the word of the photographer.

All we can really have is the hope of people of integrity and honesty--as we hope from any eyewitness--who will try to show us what he or she observed in a picture rather than a thousand words. But we can never lull ourselves into thinking the picture is more truthful than their thousand words would have been. It always depends on the photographer, not the camera.

BTW, let's not conflate "documentary photography" with "photojournalism." They are different. Documentary photography is essentially the same thing as an essay.

RDKirk wrote in post #18873743
Edward Murrow represented a blip in the history of journalism. There had not been "disinterested journalist" before him, and it didn't last very long after him. To a certain degree, journalism cannot be truly disinterested because all other sources will forcefully present their own interests.

So in the late 60s, American journalists become more and more adversarial in their relationship with the government because the government was going to force its own agenda for its own purposes.

In the end, good journalism cannot be mechanistic--which is what we wish a picture represented. We would like a picture to represent a mechanistic, objective, agenda-free, emotion-free facts.

But it doesn't.

That's why a photograph introduced as evidence in court must be accompanied by the statement of the photographer that it represents what he saw--just as though he were there giving eyewitness testimony. The worth of a photograph as evidence is no better than the word of the photographer.

All we can really have is the hope of people of integrity and honesty--as we hope from any eyewitness--who will try to show us what he or she observed in a picture rather than a thousand words. But we can never lull ourselves into thinking the picture is more truthful than their thousand words would have been. It always depends on the photographer, not the camera.

BTW, let's not conflate "documentary photography" with "photojournalism." They are different. Documentary photography is essentially the same thing as an essay.

From my post #25 in this thread
Some other thoughts to think about.

An interesting thought by John Szarkowski.
"What the photographer taking the picture and the historian viewing it must understand is that while the camera deals with recording factual things and events that form the subject of the photograph, it only produces a perceived reality that is remembered after the thing or event has passed. While people believe that photographs do not lie, this is an illusion caused by the mistaken belief that the subject and the picture of the subject is the same thing."- John Szarkowski

"Because we see reality in different ways, we must understand that we are looking at different truths rather than the truth and that, therefore, all photographs lie in one way or another. Today's technological advances in digital manipulation of images that the public sees regularly in photographs and films now only makes it easier to understand what has always been true."- John Szarkowski

"All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." - Richard Avedon

Garry Winogrand at 2min 24 sec in
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

Interesting thoughts here. I this week had a project I had to work on documenting the closure/relocation of a car dealership that had been in town for decades. It has been sold for new higher value development to move in. I scheduled my shoot from about 7 pm until 9 pm. If I was just "documenting" the building before it is torn down, that is one photo. Rather I was supposed to document the ending of a chapter of a business that has been a staple in the city for a long time. Entirely different "mood".

I basically ended up taking two sets of images. One set just documented that the building had been there and its state when closing. The other set an hour later, heavier and more dramatic skies, more shadows, heavier tons, shot much lower emphasizing the emptiness of the lot and the empty show room.

Both extremely factual. Neither a lie. But the intended emotion completely different. One set suited to a "news" story about the closing, the other better suited to an editorial about the showroom closing. Same but different.

Every picture has a point of view. Just some express those views a bit louder than others.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18873711
Again thank God for Murrow to stop the likes of McCarthy. The likes of Robert Frank and his book The Americans. All the journalists that were appalled by the treatment of African Americans in the US before and during the civil rights movement. We need more voices with an agenda like that today.

So you like it that the likes of Murrow completely distorted what McCarthy was about. Have you read anything about the Venona intercepts? It turns out McCarthy was working from a list given to him by the intelligence community. Everyone he said was a communist was a communist. Then there's the KGB archives. Again they completely exonerate McCarthy from all the evils he was accused of doing.

McCarthy is EXACTLY the reason yellow journalism is a horrid thing. From that bastion of right wing journalism (that's sarcasm) the Washington Post.

"The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught."


https://www.washington​post.com …e/?utm_term=.ea​f9b199b5a6


The state department was full of commies. Ethel and Julius were guilty. So was Alger Hiss. Mccarthy got the names he mentioned from our government intelligence agencies. The Mccarthy hearings and the media that branded him a monster - THEY were the monsters. You are so right that Murrow and the rest of the media went after McCarthy. They were dead wrong.

Jeff_56 wrote in post #18873776
So you like it that the likes of Murrow completely distorted what McCarthy was about. Have you read anything about the Venona intercepts? It turns out McCarthy was working from a list given to him by the intelligence community. Everyone he said was a communist was a communist. Then there's the KGB archives. Again they completely exonerate McCarthy from all the evils he was accused of doing.

McCarthy is EXACTLY the reason yellow journalism is a horrid thing. From that bastion of right wing journalism (that's sarcasm) the Washington Post.

"The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught."

https://www.washington​post.com …e/?utm_term=.ea​f9b199b5a6

The state department was full of commies. Ethel and Julius were guilty. So was Alger Hiss. Mccarthy got the names he mentioned from our government intelligence agencies. The Mccarthy hearings and the media that branded him a monster - THEY were the monsters. You are so right that Murrow and the rest of the media went after McCarthy. They were dead wrong.

Whoa you scare me. I never knew the democracy in the US was so fragile they had to resort to method of the totalitarian contries to save it or that people today still sees it as the right way to act. Seems contradictory

So all the inocent people McCarthyism distroyed were just colateral damage to get the ones that maybe were commies? I guess it shouldn't suprise me or anyone in this day of alternative facts and holocaust deniers that there would be McCarthyism supporters.

Jeff_56 wrote in post #18873776
So you like it that the likes of Murrow completely distorted what McCarthy was about. Have you read anything about the Venona intercepts? It turns out McCarthy was working from a list given to him by the intelligence community. Everyone he said was a communist was a communist. Then there's the KGB archives. Again they completely exonerate McCarthy from all the evils he was accused of doing.

McCarthy is EXACTLY the reason yellow journalism is a horrid thing. From that bastion of right wing journalism (that's sarcasm) the Washington Post.

"The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught."

https://www.washington​post.com …e/?utm_term=.ea​f9b199b5a6

The state department was full of commies. Ethel and Julius were guilty. So was Alger Hiss. Mccarthy got the names he mentioned from our government intelligence agencies. The Mccarthy hearings and the media that branded him a monster - THEY were the monsters. You are so right that Murrow and the rest of the media went after McCarthy. They were dead wrong.

I would point out that contact with Communists--or even being a Communist--has never been illegal in the US.

And now a twist into the darker side of politics. Any chance we can keep this about photography?

Croasdail wrote in post #18873913
And now a twist into the darker side of politics. Any chance we can keep this about photography?

What do you mean by "the darker side of politics"? Serious question.

Croasdail wrote in post #18873913
And now a twist into the darker side of politics. Any chance we can keep this about photography?

Actually some photogrpahers and photography projects got caught up in all of that stuff. Anything showing the social condition of Americans in that time period could be called into question.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18873984
Actually some photogrpahers and photography projects got caught up in all of that stuff. Anything showing the social condition of Americans in that time period could be called into question.

Photographers and other artists working with civil rights groups did get caught up in it.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18873893
So all the inocent people McCarthyism distroyed were just colateral damage to get the ones that maybe were commies? I guess it shouldn't suprise me or anyone in this day of alternative facts and holocaust deniers that there would be McCarthyism supporters.

I see NO ONE here even bothered to read the information that might discredit your warped views. No one McCarthy targeted was innocent. Got that? Do the research. They nearly tore this country in half with YELLOW JOURNALISM.

BTW those that responded that being a communist not illegal are absolutely right. But being a spy for the Soviets absolutely was illegal and that is what McCarthy accused people of and that is what they were GUILTY of.

I won't bother further responding in this thread. I've gored a sacred cow here. Too bad I'm the only one that has bothered to keep up with current events. Do a search yourself. This is all common knowledge among people who actually follow the news. It isn't hard to find.

Venona intercepts. Look it up. Add McCarthy to your search and you'll find that even the Washington Post admits McCarthy was right. Willful ignorance is not a virtue.