Modus Operandi

modus operandi

What's the role of photo journalism? Many thoughts pour into my mind and many comments, on a spectrum from altruistic to apathetic and sarcastic…  Well to really answer this I consider the role of the photojournalist, according to Nancy L. Ford (photojournalist in New York) 

“The primary duty of the photojournalist is to take pictures.  They are responsible for providing clear, easy-to-read, high quality, truthful images,that communicate a meaningful message to the readers of the publication they work for.” 

I think that sums up the role of photo journalism, even if it is not the modus operandi.  Media and their employees, the photojournalists, have rules and regulation they are obliged to comply with.  These ‘ethical’ guidelines create an ideal ground for integrity and professionalism to take root, a type of environment where liability is upheld. Photojournalism aims to adhere to the principles and ethical standards of journalism like fair representation of events, to parallel in its representation of the context of the events, high accountability and liability to its readership, subjects of their stories and community to which they inform. Whether it can truly ever be called objective, I think is a heavy challenge, if even at all possible. The question I pose is this: Can photojournalism really be “objective” when the photographer holds the privilege and the power of pointing and clicking at what he/she wants to capture. That camera ‘eye’ picks what part of reality to focus on, pictures therefore can never truly capture the 'WHOLE PICTURE'edited or not.

Why/why not have rules…well to quickly answer this let’s put it in the form of one awful, but persistent truth that reigns heavily in the political and private realms -propaganda. Without any rules we would be in an even more scary, toxic and oppressive environment than we are currently in.  I do not believe that the ethics of journalistic photos should be different from the ethics of writing a news story.  I will add however, that I think humans are more visual than cerebral and when hurrying about in the mundane day to day efforts to survive, many in society are more impacted by the image than the words behind a story and the purveyors of the image, the media and its cohorts know that.  It’s the weight of power that the corporate/political-media machine has on influencing societal opinion that needs to be questioned.  

New technological advancement may make it easier to alter and change different aspects of photographs and this can create a slippery slope for integrity. Altering press photographs is a place of greys, blurred and blood-stained lines where much of the ‘image’ gets its intoxicating impact.  The alteration of images allows for its tailor to give it a shine,  a spin whether ethical or not yet almost always political.  This IMPACT: an insinuation, undercurrent, double speak  can instantly or more surreptitiously over time fabricate social constructs  elusively prompting and influencing bias prejudice and wielding a weapon with the word misinformation written on its trigger sowing discord and  strong, lasting impressions on the vast masses both consciously and subconsciously for benefit of the few at the detriment of the many. Now I am not completely against editing, if it is only done to correct the flaws of the image itself, lighting, hues and contrast, as long as it’s not over the top and is not used to remove people and other significant aspects.

In conclusion I think photojournalism should be ethical and have standards and be upheld but society has to demonstrate a strong, healthy appetite and appreciation for this and then uphold this by making it  their lives, politics and culture from the sky down to the roots in the earth.  Since I don’t believe it will happen any time soon I will finish with a slightly verbose statement:

Words can get lost in translation

but photos

speak every language,

even if what they’re saying is

profane,

obscure,

obscenely incorrect 

and one-sided.