Integrity in Journalism

The news was a buzz Thursday, when the Washingtonian Magazine put a picture of President Obama on the front cover. Sounds completely harmless at first, right? Well, the POTUS was clad in swimming trunks, revealing a muscular upper body. Some people flagged it as disrespectful and embarrassing, while others hailed it as a symbol of change. Then it was revealed that the color of the trunks was doctored. In the original picture it was black, but the magazine changed it to red shorts so that it wouldn't blend in with the black background on the cover. As one might imagine people were then up in arms about the integrity of doctoring a photo.

I read comments like "What does it matter if the photo was doctored, just so long as it doesn't make him look like he is committing a crime?" Okay, so you can theoretically act on bad principle just so long as the result isn't bad? Where is the logic in that? Others asserted that designers always play with the design anyway, or even pessimistically "We've always known that journalism was a bunch of lies."

What does the magazine have to say? Well, Publisher Cathy Merrill Williams asserted, "When you're in the magazine business you're trying to get across a concept or an idea. Changing…the color of his shorts didn't change the overall image portrayed. It was President Obama in a bathing suit walking."

While what she said had merit, it is still unnerving. If the color of the shorts was changed, how do we know that those are really his muscles or that that was his normal skin color? O.J. Simpson's skin tone was darkened on the cover of TIME Magazine several years back. It is one thing to alter a photo if it is obvious, but it changes things when it still looks like a real picture or a real cut-out.

It is also true that in journalism photos are often altered, brightened, cropped, gray-scaled etc. There is hardly ever a picture that is not changed in some way. How much is too much? Well, I have do want to make a few observations:

1.)One should always be careful with any change that would alter the nature of the picture (skin color, clothing color, flipping [different from rotating]), especially if it is done in a realistic way. It is one thing to put someone's head on Mickey Mouse's body. That is an obvious change. It's a whole other matter to start making realistic changes that affect how a picture is interpreted. There are actual ethical rules you usually learn about and discuss in journalism, and this is one of them.

2.) I wonder why the magazine chose to have a black background and red trunks? What is the symbolism here? Were they playing a little color psychology, or did they just really like a black background better?

Red is a standout color. You can't help but notice a red object. It is said that red cars even get more tickets. It is also a highly emotional color, stimulating a higher heart beat, faster breathing, and increases heat. It also symbolizes beauty, love, increased energy, enthusiasm, action, confidence, trust, and a sense of protection from anxiety and fear. It is a more personal color, while black is mysterious.

Black is the color of power and authority. It is a classy and stylish. It is often seen as a symbol of evil, sadness, death and mourning. It can also can symbolize submission in the case of priestly garb. Furthermore, think about how the term is often used in society: Black Death, blackout, black cat, black list, black market, black belt.

So, If the magazine wanted to symbolize rebirth and change in any way, black wouldn't be the advantageous color. Yet, all things considered, it doesn't make it ethically right.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/23/magazine-takes-heat-for-doctoring-obama-pic/