Who switched the price tags

A PICTURE tells a thousand words. But what if the picture lies?

Russell Frank, a professor of journalism ethics, once noted: “Whoever said the camera never lies was a liar.”

He was commenting on an incident involving a doctored photograph from the Iraqi front, published in the Los Angeles Times in 2003.

Photographers have always arranged subjects or chosen an angle to take pictures for the effect they so desire -- whether from their own vision or for their assignments set by their superiors.

So, it is actually how and why we “create” a picture to give impact and impression after a camera delivers its job that can be deceiving.

Sophisticated digital gadgets provide us with the means to doctor photographs.

However, in the newsroom, super-imposing one image on another for a dramatic effect is a no-no. Most newspapers have an editorial policy of never altering a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement.

In 2007, a photojournalist of The Blade of Toledo, Ohio, resigned after admitting he had altered photos that appeared in the paper.

The editor, in response to readers’ enquiry, wrote: “It is dishonest. Journalism, whether by using words or pictures, must be an

accurate representation of the truth.”

Unrelated to photojournalism, tampering of pictures for specific purposes by politicians, advertisers and others dated as far back as the invention of photography.

Therefore, it is not new though alarmingly more common now than ever before because of the digital advancement and ready software.

In 2003, the Los Angeles Times published a dramatic photo from the Iraqi front, taken by a senior photojournalist, depicting British soldiers directing Iraqi civilians to take cover from Iraqi fire.

An observant reader spotted an anomaly -- some of the people in the background appeared twice.

The photographer admitted he had used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, to improve the composition.

In another episode which should be still fresh in our mind was the Daily Mirror pu-blishing images of British soldiers torturing prisoners which were mere composites.

How far-reaching is the effect of photo ma-nipulation?

A joint study was conducted by Darui LM Sacchi, Franca Agnoli and Elizabeth Loftus from the University of Padua, Italy, and the University of California, Irvine, USA, using two sets of photographs.

One set comprised the original and the doctored version of a well known image of Tiananman Square, Beijing.  The other showed demonstrators in Rome marching in front of the Coliseum.

Here is an extract of their findings presented in a paper “Changing History: Doctored photographs affect memory for past public event”:

Anybody intending to deceive people and affect their opinion by circulating such materials would have a good chance of being successful. Even more alarming is the recent flurry of modified images appearing in the media.

Television, newspapers and magazines often constitute the primary channel through which we learn about public events of the past and the present, and they are generally trusted as reliable sources. When such media employ digitally doctored photographs, they may have a stronger effect than merely influencing our opinion; by tampering with our malleable memory, they may ultimately change the way we recall history.

As yet another allegation of “doctoring of photographs” emerged this week, presumably to give an impression of strong and staunch support, I remember a powerful metaphor in one of my prized collections “Who switched the price tags?” by the famed Tony Compolo.

Compolo, the author, relates a fun activity day when he was a little boy. He and a friend broke into a store to do some mischief.

They did not want to steal anything but only wanted to leave some marks.

What did they do?

They switched the price tags around, putting the expensive ones on cheap stuff and the low price ones on expensive stuff.

In moments of exuberant playfulness, they reversed the values of all the goods.

The story is appropriate to suggest an interesting question. Are we switching the value of truth, honesty (to show a picture as at it is) to a little value (or no value at all) of gi-ving a wrong impression to create an im-pact to our favour?

I have been a regular visitor to a photo blog of an American journalist, Stephen Crowley.

Crowley covers the true American political scene in his column -- Smoke-filled rooms. (lens.blogs.nytimes.com) impressed me very much.

It is a documentary, presented in serial form that strives to move beyond restrictions, spin and control of the contemporary American political game in order to present its processes and consequences.

Whether for a creative project of advertising or to advocate a cause where we de-liver and control the message, we should not shortchange ourselves by switching price tags of high value such as integrity, truth and adherence to our vision with things of less value.

Picture:

Award-winning photojournalist was fired for crossing ethical boundaries in manipulating his images. This photo depicted an egret with a frog in its mouth was combination of the best parts of two different photos. (source: http://www.fourandsix.com)