File this one in your The Realities of the Media file. In this polarized age, it’s easy for partisans to talk about the mainstream media as being out to get their party in the reporting media companies do, their use of video, even in the photos that are chosen to be released for use in the media.
In fact, professional media companies usually have stringent standards that aren’t about boosting or promoting a candidate, a cause, or an ideological viewpoint, but gathering accurate information and reality-based images and releasing them to the public. And, not incidentally, protecting their branding and ensuring their corporate credibility.
And now the AP gives us an example. It has cut ties with Narciso Contreras, who Mexican national who has freelance for other outlets and who was one of a group of photogs that shared in a Pulitzer the AP got last year for its Syrian photos. The AP doesn’t like its stories to be quoted but we’re sure in this case it would be OK because this is a fascinating example of how a company keeps its standards in line:
The news service said Wednesday that Narciso Contreras recently told its editors that he manipulated a digital picture of a Syrian rebel fighter taken last September, using software to remove a colleague’s video camera from the lower left corner of the frame. That led AP to review all of the nearly 500 photos Contreras has filed since he began working for the news service in 2012. No other instances of alteration were uncovered, said Santiago Lyon, the news service’s vice president and director of photography.
In cutting its ties with him, Lyon’s said AP would remove all of his public images and that altering the photo violated AP’s standards for truth and accuracy, even though it really was not in a major part of the photo or was meaningful to the news.
Here’s the photo and altered photo, as shown by the AP in their official story on this incident:
And it had this from Contreras:
Contreras said Wednesday he thought that having the video camera in the frame might distract viewers, but he said it is a decision he now regrets.
“I took the wrong decision when I removed the camera … I feel ashamed about that,” he said. “You can go through my archives and you can find that this is a single case that happened probably at one very stressed moment, at one very difficult situation, but yeah, it happened to me, so I have to assume the consequences.”
But that truly is not an issue: yes, photographers can maybe alter an image to darken it as they saw it but they can’t tinker around with a scene that alters the actual reality.
Ditto on reporting. A reporter can edit a quote by removing “um” or “you know” if they tape record an interview, but you can’t quote someone and decide to give them new words or alter in anyway the meaning. If you do, and particularly if it’s proven, you’ll soon be on the job market.
I freelanced as a reporter overseas in the mid to late 70s, writing from India, Spain and Bangladesh and other countries. I basically self-syndicated my news stories and op eds, which appeared in countries all over the world (a few: the US, India, Australia, South Africa, Canada, Norway, Spain). Accuracy in reporting was a “given” when editors agreed to buy a piece. And in op-eds, they assumed the background I cited to make my aanalysis was accurate, and didn’t have statistics or quotes altered in any way.
Some will argue this is a borderline situation, since the video camera in the photo was so minor and not central to the photo. And, of course, there are cases where photos have been blatantly altered and become virtual lawsuit bait for attorneys. To wit:
A Nashville family is suing Cox Media Group and other defendants after they posted altered images of their son with Down syndrome with descriptions that read “Retarded News” and other “offensive” mischaracterizations.
Pamela and Bernard Holland are parents of Adam, who was diagnosed with Down syndrome at birth. The suit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, claims the the Hollands were shocked to learn that an image of Adam taken in July 2004, when he was 17, was used for commercial use with “defamatory” descriptions, the Hollands’ lawsuit states.
Pamela Holland declined to comment to ABC News on the suit.
In the original photo, Adam is holding a sketch he created while attending an art class at the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center in Nashville. But a radio station in Tampa, Fla., that is owned by Cox Media Group, WHPT-FM, used the image on its website in which Adam holds a sign that reads “Retarded News.”
A hard call on the AP photo? Some may say so, but the AP is making sure it doesn’t go down a slippery slope in an age when it’s easy to take something out of or put something into a photograph and that a photo — warts and video camera and all — reflects the reality of a moment. It’s about ensuring readers know that what they see in AP photos is truly real.
OTHER VIEWS:
A lesson learned the hard way.
I'm glad AP has stuck to their beliefs of "truth and accuracy"… http://t.co/RAmkiMoHaq
— The Print Room (@theprintroomkl) January 23, 2014
Never understood why u'd compromise ur integrity for such a stupid thing http://t.co/4NrG4NCpL4
— Rolando Otero (@Photero) January 23, 2014
Seems fairly harsh. RT @ayaelb AP severs ties with photographer who altered work http://t.co/O1qH4tt9ay
— Asa Fitch (@asafitch) January 23, 2014
Here’s what really strikes me though….
Beyond the transgression, isn’t it ironic Contreras was done in by a camera? Not by a bottle of beer. Not by a backpack. But, a camera. I say ironic because the viewer, particularly in war photography, isn’t supposed to be aware that there is a camera. It’s as if the tacit agreement between photographer, editor, publisher and consumer is to always pretend that there is no intermediary but, instead, it’s simply you or I standing there with our own eyes.
But maybe the transgression is more practical than ironic. I imagine Contreras, who authored almost 500 photos for AP since 2012; who was part of an AP team last year that had won a Pulitzer for Syria coverage; and who claimed, earnestly it sounded like, that he had never done such a thing before, was only too aware of the presence of the camera. Not just because the presence of the device killed the primitivism and mystique, but also the illusion that the reader is the witness and these photos aren’t photos, but windows.
"The Associated Press Is Not 'Vogue,' Fired Photoshopping Photographer Learns" http://t.co/tDiR0j2u5n
— Colin Schultz (@_ColinS_) January 23, 2014
How to destroy a promising photography career for a mediocre image. http://t.co/0VU1os4f6Y
— Nichole Sobecki (@nicholesobecki) January 23, 2014
"He will not work for the AP again in any capacity." Rt @mattcargill: photographer fired after doctoring Syria photo http://t.co/BLh6WdhJqI
— Quentin Sommerville (@sommervillebbc) January 23, 2014
Follow more media blog commentary on this issue HERE.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.