Blog Exercise 5

Two interesting questions to ponder about:

1) What are the ways readers can judge the credibility of an image even in this era of digital manipulation?

I got to agree that in this digital age, almost any image can be manipulated using photo-editing software such as Photoshop, Lightroom or Aperture. Actually, even photos taken using film can be manipulated,as in the case of double exposures where one image can be super-imposed onto another.

I think there are a few ways that readers can judge the credibility of an image. One way would be to look out for photo manipulation errors or signs of "complacency". One can most probably spot repeated patterns or graphic elements which look out of place in the picture due to inadequate photo manipulation. This would be one of the most basic ways of spotting a manipulated picture.

However, for photos which have been manipulated by someone who is highly proficient in photo-editing software, perhaps the line between true and false depiction by an image will even merge. Often, photos are usually used together with video or words to provide news information to viewers.

I personally feel that unless we experience these events ourselves (meaning we were present at the place and time when a particular event occurred), one can never really have a good idea of what exactly happened. I don't mean to be cynical, but all we can do is to interpret images and words with a pinch of salt. This is not to say that we can't believe in EVERYTHING, but means that one should perhaps refer to a few more sources to gain a better understanding of a particular situation.

If an image looks too good to be true, it probably is haha... this probably applies a lot to the images we see in magazines which depict the aesthetical aspects of the human body. I guess this cynical view has to do with the perceived credibility of the medium itself, and magazines are usually read for leisure and as a source of entertainment.

Unfortunately, a lot of people do perceive images portrayed on news article (eg: The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao etc.) to be of high credibility. In this case, a manipulated image would probably be interpreted as being real without much thought from the viewer. The ethical views of the journalist/writer would then come into play here. If a journalist decides to be unethical and manipulate images in order to sensationalise or shock audiences, I wouldn't think that there would be a way to detect this form of "pseudo-forgerty", unless the journalist confesses.


2) Imagine yourself as a reader representative for a newspaper. What would you tell a reader who complained to you about a picture of a car wreck that was particularly upsetting?

I would tell the reader that actually that's the exact purpose of the newspaper, which is to report factual news and provide information and images which best represents a particular event.

I can understand how the reader feels, but if I were to have shown an image that was digitally manipulated, would that be ethical from a journalistic perspective? This reader feedback would definitely be reported to the exectuive management. Perhaps then the next best thing would be to not display any pictures at all for any news articles on car accidents.

A few other things to consider:
Perhaps the newspaper firm at which I'm employed could be one that is considered as tabloid. If I were to not display any images that leave readers in "shock and awe", would this affect readership and ultimately cost me my job?

This is the moral dilemma which plagues the minds of many journalists perhaps.