Objective Representation: Photographs as Facts

Dona Schwartz

On December 31, 1996 the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a photograph on its front page that had been shot by one of the staff's most respected photographers, Stormi Greener. The photograph showed the snow covered St. Croix River and the bridge that spans it and connects Wisconsin to Minnesota. The photograph accompanied a story about the US Department of the Interior's veto if a proposal to build a new bridge. Rather than the usual kudos recognizing her efforts, the newspaper awarded Greener a two-day suspension without pay. She had committed an egregious offense: Unbeknown to her editors, she had digitally eliminated power lines from the photograph before it went to press. The Star Tribune's "Visual content editor." Bill Dunn, explained that Greener had violated the newspaper's policy governing digital manipulation of photographs: "We do not manipulate or alter any photography, with the exception of dust spots or imperfections on the negative….we make every effort to publish what the camera saw' (Gilyard 1997,7).

The incident unearths some deeply embedded assumptions and raises important issues regarding the use of photographs in the press. While the suspension of a respected photographer foregrounds the controversies surrounding digital-imaging technology, it is the underlying beliefs regarding news photographs that warrant scrutiny. The Star Tribune stance implies that photographs, left unmolested by overzealous photo technicians, offer an unmediated view of the world. Dunn's response expressed the view most succinctly when he said, "we make every effort to publish what the camera saw."

Of course it is the photographer who sees, not the camera; nor do cameras themselves make pictures. Nevertheless, Dunn perpetuated the point of view that the photographs appearing in the Star Tribune offer readers a factual representation of the world, unbiased by the intervention of the photographer, the technician, or any other employee of the newspaper. Although the credibility of other kinds of photographs may be compromised by their makes, news photographs remain sacrosanct according to the view espoused by photojournalists and their editors. The news paper has adopted a formal policy regarding the use of digital technology, along with sanctions for rule violations. Publicly excoriating Greener demonstrated to readers that the Star Tribune makes good on its claim to present only unmanipulated photographs.

Newspapers nationwide have enacted policies on photo ethics that govern the practices of photojournalists on their staffs. The Milwaukee Sentinel, for example, endorsed the following statement:

Photographers and picture editors are responsible for the truthfulness and objectivity of their photographs.

To maintain the newspaper's credibility, documentary photographs should not be manipulated in any way that alters the reality of the photographs. Documentary photos encompass all spot news, general news, documentary, sports and feature pictures. The same ethical standards that apply to written stories are applied to documentary photography.

Retouching of documentary photographs beyond conventional techniques is prohibited. Conventional techniques include color and tonal balancing through dodging and burning, electronic sharpening and spotting to eliminate dust, line hits and technical flaws. Careful consideration is always given to color/tone balancing and image-sharpening to ensure faithful reproduction.

To keep the integrity of documentary photographs, we do not alter backgrounds, use color screens or colorize photos, create photomontages, or flop or mortise them. We do not reverse or overprint type on documentary photographs. (Quoted in Gessert 1991)

Ethical standards like these are intended to assure readers of the continued integrity of news photographs despite the digital revolution in contemporary photojournalism. Adherence to these principles addresses what news professionals consider the potential for abuse introduced by computerimaging tech