The Random Yak

The story is all over the ‘net. I’m not even among the first to break the news. But just in case you spent last weekend in a bunker somewhere, it appears Reuters has egg on its face for publishing doctored photographs of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah (taken by recently unemployed photographer Adnan Hajj). The photos had been photoshopped to increase apparent destruction in Lebanon and signs of Israeli military might.

Bloggers around the ‘net have covered the story virtuallyad infinitum, so I almost decided not to comment at all.After all,this is simply another example precisely what a left-wing news organization means by “unbiased” journalism. Then I considered a couple of conversations I’ve had recently and reconsidered.

Reconsidered, because it is precisely this sort of biased photojournalism that shapes popular opinion about conflict and war.

I’d like tobelieve mostpeople have the capacity to question the news and images they see, testing them against a variety of sources and comparing stories, photographic evidence and their understanding ofreality to determine where the truth lies. I’d like to believe they also have the inclination – but lately the sources and evidence suggest otherwise. At least twice in the past week, I’ve heardcomments (from people I know well) which indicate high levels of frustration with Israel’s unprovoked, aggressive attacks on Lebanon.

Unprovoked. Aggressive. Attacks on Lebanon.

For the record, the people in question are not known anti-Semites. One is an American,one isnot.None are conservatives.Now, take a moment and consider the implications. Then try to figure out how the people in question got from point “A” (total ignorance of the situation) to point B (total misunderstanding of the situation).

I believe the answerlies in thephotographs.

People who don’t take the time to read multiple news sources,who take their news primarily on the fly and who glance briefly at CNN (televised or online) rather than readingthe newsin text format tend to skim the stories – but they almost always take the time to look at the pictures. Pictures which shape their worldview andalleged understanding of news and politics -which almost invariably leans to the left. Pictures which increasingly seem editorialize rather thanrepresent, as photojournalists – knowingly or unknowingly – view their subject matter and their mission through politically-tinted lenses. Images taken in times of war will, by necessity, show destruction, suffering and military installations, subjects whichprovide countless opportunities for editorial photojournalism and temptations for even otherwise honest photojournalists (and by “honest” I mean the ones who don’t photoshop or alter the images) to select subjects and compositions which reveal more about the photographer’s bias than the actual events. There is a time and a place for such images, but it’s not onCNN or in the Reuters Archives.

Which is not to say that a photographer should divorce personal opinion from the photographs. Some of the mostpowerful photojournalism of the past twenty years demonstrates the power of photography that does more than “just” display a scene.Well-known images ofthe fireman carrying a child from the bombing scene in Oklahoma City andfirefighters raising flags at the World Trade Center after 9/11 offer perfect examples. But just as editorial photojournalism offers opportunities to edify and educate an audience through honest reproduction of the image and the scene, it also offers thebiasedor dishonest photographer a multitude of chances to offer a willing audience images that misrepresent reality in a way pure facts cannot.

Altering images after the fact represents the worstbreach of journalistic integrity. But it isn’t the only problem – or even the worst – plaguing modern photojournalism. Because sooner or later, someone discovers the alterations. Photographers like Hajj find themselves discredited and unemployed (hopefully forever) when their malfeasance becomes known. Problem solved.

But what of the countless others offering one-sided editorial photographic coverage? (By which I mean the photographs which representa truththat extends only to the borders of the viewfinder.) Images of death, destruction and damage in Lebanon, but only military installations and rocket launches out of Israel.

Evidence of altered photographs should be handled appropriately, immediately and in a manner designed to prevent publication of altered photographs in the future. Reutersbehaved appropriately when it fired Hajj, and will hopefully institute policies and procedures designed to prevent similar incidents in the future. But the housecleaning shouldn’t stop there. While the editors are at it, I’d like to see a complete review of archived images, an attempt to provide accurate, ideologically neutral photographic coverage of actual events in a manner which doesn’t demonstrate a dedication to one side of the political spectrum.

It won’t happen, any more than written journalism will cease to require left-leaning italic fonts. Talking about it won’t make it happen. But it will, perhaps, draw attention to the problem. And if this article makes even one family member (mine or someone else’s) think twice beforebuilding a worldview aroundthe editorialimages the mainstream media calls “photojournalism” I consider this time well spent.

Linked to others discussing Reuters’ Photojournalistic excellence at Planck’s Constant (It’s Not Photoshopping, It’s al-Taqiyya), Michelle Malkin (Breaking: Reuters Withdraws all Hajj Photos), Riehl World View (Beirut Redux?), Dread Pundit Bluto (who aptly points out that it was the blogosphere, primarily The Jawa Report, who broke the doctored photo story for the MSM) and Sister Toldjah (Reuters pulls all Hajj Photos, admits to at least one other alteration).