Who links to me?
I have been critical of Editor and Publisher in the past but today at least one of their contributors has earned my respect. David D. Perlmutter’s article Photojournalism in Crisis is a rare piece of journalistic introspection.
(August 17, 2006) — The Israeli-Hezbollah war has left many dead bodies, ruined towns, and wobbling politicians in its wake, but the media historian of the future may also count as one more victim the profession of photojournalism. In twenty years of researching and teaching about the art and trade and doing photo-documentary work, I have never witnessed or heard of such a wave of attacks on the people who take news pictures and on the basic premise that nonfiction news photo- and videography is possible.
I’m not sure, however, if the craft I love is being murdered, committing suicide, or both.Perhaps it would be more reassuring if the enemy at the gates was a familiar one—politicians, or maybe radio talk show hosts. But the photojournalist standing on the crumbling ramparts of her once proud citadel now sees the vandal army charging for the sack led by “zombietime,†“The Jawa Report,†“Powerline,†“Little Green Footballs,†“confederateyankee,†and many others.
In each case, these bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students. And the results have been devastating: news photos and video shown to be miscaptioned, radically altered, or staged (and worse, re-staged) for the camera. Surely “green helmet guy,†“double smoke,†“the missiles that were actually flares,†“the wedding mannequin from nowhere,†the “magical burning Koran,†the “little girl who actually fell off a swing†and “keep filming!†will now enter the pantheon of shame of photojournalism.It does not help that certain news organizations have acted like government officials or corporate officers trying to squash a scandal. The visual historian in me revolts when an ABC producer informs me that Reuters “deleted all 920 images†by the stringer who produced the “Beirut double smoke†image and is “less than willing to talk about it.†Can you say “18-minute gap,†anyone?
News picture-making media organizations have two paths of possible response to this unnerving new situation. First, they can stonewall, deny, delete, dismiss, counter-slur, or ignore the problem. To some extent, this is what is happening now and, ethical consideration aside, such a strategy is the practical equivalent of taking extra photos of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Mr. Perlmutter concludes with this advice.
The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school. Admit mistakes right away. Correct them with as much fanfare and surface area as you devoted to the original image. Create task forces and investigating panels. Don’t delete archives but publish them along with detailed descriptions of what went wrong. Attend to your critics and diversify the sources of imagery, or better yet be brave enough to refuse to show any images of scenes in which you are being told what to show. I would even love to see special inserts or mini-documentaries on how to spot photo bias or photo fakery—in other words, be as transparent, unarrogant, and responsive as you expect those you cover to be.
if you have the same low opinion of the press as I do, then please read the whole thing. It might give you a glimmer of hope.
Blue Crab Boulevard weighs in.
Linking Posts
David Perlmutter puts too little emphasis on one of the main reasons for journalistic atrocities such as “Reutersgate†– the mainstream media’s heavy reliance on “local hires†in its foreign reporting and photojournalism.
Stringers and freelancers are far more likely than staffers to have questionable training and loyalties. And because they’re chasing a paycheck with every assignment or photo, there’s a built-in incentive to cheat. Cheating is much easier to do abroad than when working in the states. There’s simply less accountability in foreign reporting — especially with the economic model that sustains the MSM’s outsourcing model.
Yet another problem is editors with a particular political agenda which they make known. Freelancers are more likely than staffers to satisfy such biases in whatever way they can. Biased editors, moreover, are less inclined to question articles, quotes, and photos that confirm their biases.
Perlmutter, ironically, calls this “the golden age of photojournalistic ethics†and refers to abundant ethical lapses in previous eras. It appears those days are over, however, given the level of accountability provided by the blogesphere. Whether the mainstream media catches onto this is another question.
Comment by David Paulin � August 19, 2006 @ 12:05 am
very good points David.
It is still a very good article and the best line to me is this:
In each case, these bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students
The blogosphere has taken over what used to be the responsibility of the MSM.
Combined with this:
It does not help that certain news organizations have acted like government officials or corporate officers trying to squash a scandal. The visual historian in me revolts when an ABC producer informs me that Reuters “deleted all 920 images†by the stringer who produced the “Beirut double smoke†image and is “less than willing to talk about it.†Can you say “18-minute gap,†anyone?
News picture-making media organizations have two paths of possible response to this unnerving new situation. First, they can stonewall, deny, delete, dismiss, counter-slur, or ignore the problem. To some extent, this is what is happening now and, ethical consideration aside, such a strategy is the practical equivalent of taking extra photos of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
It is a devastating admission from someone within the hallowed halls to make.
Comment by The Ugly American � August 19, 2006 @ 7:37 am
Hi, thanks for the cite. One point: if you think that many people in the “mainstream” (academia, journalism) are tarring indy bloggers with a wide brush, then please don’t do the same in return. My colleagues, my professional friends and my students have the same concerns about media as I see reflected in the blogs I read. Also, as I posted elsewhere: I just finished a book on political blogs and I have stick to my principle that blogs have opened up a marketplace of ideas that, no matter how messy it is in execution, makes Democracy richer. So fire away! That said, there is media bias out there, a lot of it. (I have read those books; read my books and essays and you’ll see I have also written books on news bias!). But don’t shoot all the messengers. There are decent photojournalists out there, trying to do their best to get the facts right and fair. But the industry is skewed toward the bang bang shot stripped of all context.
DavidDPerlmutter
Comment by PERLMUTTER � August 26, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
First of all thank you for taking the time to stop by and comment Professor Perlmutter.
Although I have a generally low opinion of journalists and the media at large, I don’t think I actually did that in this particular post 8).
I certainly don’t consider the fraud committed by Mr. Haaj, or the cover-up by Reuters as any reflection on you or any other journalists.
I may be skeptical of the profession but try to judge each person on their actions.
From what I have seen you have represented both the professions of journalism and education admirably.
Comment by The Ugly American � August 28, 2006 @ 5:45 pm