Truth and Credibility, fact and fiction bookstock

The notion of objectivity of the photograph as a document and its ability to tell the truth and the ease with which photographs can use artistic tools to manipulate images far beyond accepted standards has been under pressure since the inception of inexpensive digital methods of recording information in the early 1990s in photojournalism it started in earnest with the digital composite of Olympic ice skaters Tanya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan, showing the rivals practicing together on the cover of New York Newsday in 1994.



This digital composite of Olympic ice skaters Tanya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan appeared on the cover of New York Newsday. The picture showed the rivals practicing together, shortly after an attack on Kerrigan by an associate of Harding’s husband. The picture caption reads: “Tonya Harding, left, and Nancy Kerrigan, appear to skate together in this New York Newsday composite illustration. Tomorrow, they’ll really take to the ice together.”


Does the fake photo-shoppery or the orchestration of an event by a photojournalist affect the integrity of camera-based imagery elsewhere? Can news images ever really reflect objective reality? Is there such a thing as "reasonably real news"? Do people still presume photographs to be evidentiary? Are the photographs we see on the front page of the New York Times transparent vehicles of the subjects portrayed? Is viewing a photograph the next best thing to being there?
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged
A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage. The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
Yaakov Lappin




Careless digital alterations by Adnan Hajj using Adobe Photoshop software embellishing Israeli air-strike damage in Beirut on August 5th 2006 was caught by Mike Thorson, a Wisconsin-based artist who alerted the publisher of a popular conservative media blog watchdog, "Little Green Footballs", and a fire-storm of controversy broke out. Charles Johnson's public outing of Hajj's embellished photographs on his blog led to the photojournalist's firing and the removal of his 920 photographs from the Reuter's archive. Is it incidents like this that are destroying the credibility for news organizations and photography as a vehicle for truth Or Is everybody pushing their own brand of reality?

I found you can’t believe what you see and that the era of photographs being used as a form of document of truth are a thing of the past.
The interesting point for me that people are so used to seeing the horror of war that the photographers feel a need to make it look worse than the photographs show as if its not enough
I think if I lived in the city where the bombs were dropped and you found out that photographers were doing this it would make you feel awful.
Although I have always known about you can manipulate photographs I wasn’t aware about the extent of the use in photojournalism airbrushing for fashion is one thing but using as a tool for giving war photos more of an impact to sell to the press I think is disgusting.