Gosh. I'm getting ready to teach a class tomorrow on Ethics and I come across this. First of all, thank you for calling it out for exactly what it is: Lying. Some industries require continuing education; in these, ethics is routinely part of the education. There is a printed, researched curriculum. But for those of us who are in industries where anyone can declare themselves a professional and the "continuing education" is through continued practice, it is the people with the self-discipline and the dedicated, passionate practice who also have to show up as leaders in ethical behavior - it is these people who rise above all the rest.
Hi Justin, I admit, I never had the chance to show your photo and bring it up in the class, as I had so much to talk about and cover. But at some point, I would like to. I took the liberty of rewriting/rephrasing (not to plagiarize!) one of your paragraphs to see if what you said aligned with my industry. I had a feeling it did: All of my words that replace yours are in all caps: “And I think it’s important to explain my motivation here, because it’s not just about pointing out what’s wrong. It’s twofold. First, I believe strongly in upholding trust as FUNDRAISERS. That’s the foundation of everything we do. Second, I feel a responsibility to LISTEN TO DONORS TO AVOID MISLEADING THEM. Even after WORKING 20 YEARS IN THIS INDUSTRY, I have to constantly keep myself in check. I will never KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE ANY OF MY DONORS, and that matters. WHEN FUNDRAISERS REACH OUT TO DONORS, we carry an added responsibility to represent things accurately. We owe that to the people whose lives WE ARE IMPACTING, whether IT IS HERE or anywhere else. And as an educator, I also believe it’s important to have these uncomfortable conversations, even if they’re not popular.”
Your words serve the fundraising and nonprofit industry perfectly. That said, my students all agreed that ethics is not talked about enough. I created “tool” that I offered to them as a discussion guide to use in annual discussions with Board members. It is inspired by the “Fiduciary Duty” for board members. This is the only area where ethics is enforced (by the IRS in the United States - I am sure many other countries have similar policies). I developed the discussion tool from this “Fiduciary Duty.” I wonder if photographers have an “Ethics Guide”? Thanks from prompting this important discussion and serving as a great model and educator.
I agree with all you are stating. In regard to honesty and integrity of what you represent for a culture and keeping it true to the people and how it should be respected. It also brings up if you misrepresent a culture by showing it in a photo especially for travel. Anyone traveling to that area may appear to look ignorant because they would be expected to see something that would not normally belong. This could be embarrassing or insulting, insensitive, and that would be the last thing I would ever want to do traveling abroad. I always research prior to going and look at pictures, read, and this would to me is a great disservice if you are staging or lying for a piece. But that’s me. I travel to learn.
Well written Justin! Great to read how you are evaluation facts and perception without bringing an idea, concept or photographer down but simple examine that the context hasn't been put right. It's something I have experience too - that I see brands and photographers describe themself as something that they are not and it takes away the trust of those words because they are used in the wrong contexts. My favourite line was when you said that people working in foreign countries have to be extra intentional of the work they create. Thanks for raising your voice! 🙏🏼
Thank you this is very thought provoking. I appreciate photography as art and I appreciate travel photography for it's aesthetic but expect honesty. When I plan to travel I want to know what it will actually be like, as opposed to the curated version. In Sri Lanka I was offered the opportunity to pose on a stilt in the sea to depict myself as a traditional fisherperson, which I declined as firstly even the locals weren't fishing like that the majority of the time, and I knew my photo would just remind me of the fakeness of the experience. What is the truth? A photo of one standing alone at the top of Everest with nothing but snow and mountains in view, or the photo of the obscene queues up the mountain to get there? I prefer to see context....such as the "behind the scenes, how we captured the shots" sections in Attenborough's series.
Unless I have strong evidence to the contrary (like I personally know the photographer), I automatically assume that almost everything on Facebook these days is AI. Fair or not, that is the reality.
The most important thing about photojournalism is ethics. First and foremost, that should be considered whenever you make a photo.
I spent my entire career never staging, directing, or manipulating photos. Back in the late 80's when I was working for a Florida newspaper, I was covering a community that was flooded, after days of heavy rain. As I was walking around looking for anything interesting to photograph, a man walked up to me and said "I just worked for the (a Florida paper). He said that a photographer from that paper asked him walk around in flood water so he could make some photos. He then asked if he wanted me to do the same thing. I said no, and tried my best to photograph anything interesting. The next day my photo editor saw that photo in their paper, and asked me why I didn't get any photos like that. I told him that it was staged and a fake photo.
Needless to say I never believed another photo taken by that photographer, and I made sure to tell that story to any other photographer I met.
If you want to be a photojournalist follow the ethics involved. If not call yourself a artist, you can't be both.
This is all true, but if we speak only about the level of the photographer’s own choices, and if the author’s name appears under the photograph, then the responsibility is entirely his — both moral and ethical.
But photojournalism is not only about the photographer. It also involves the photo editor, editorial policy, captions, and many other layers. In other words, as a photographer I can shoot a “positive” or a “negative” story while fully respecting the rules of the documentary genre. I can take a good portrait of a person and still present it in a way that leaves the viewer with the impression that this is not a particularly pleasant individual — and again, without violating any documentary principles in the process.
I am not saying that documentary photography lies. I am saying that the photographer always has a choice — a choice of which reality to show, or, if you prefer, which reality to feel and interpret. But this still concerns only the photographer. Things become more complicated once the work is sent to an editor or a newsroom for selection.
In agencies, for example, photographers rarely choose the images that are eventually published. That decision is made by a picture editor or photo editor. Yet the photographer’s name appears under the image, and therefore he carries full responsibility for it. In practice, however, every photojournalist knows this is not how it really works. Out of a hundred images, editors select those that fit their own agenda, sometimes even adding captions that shift or contradict the original meaning.
What I am trying to say is that manipulation of reality happens not only — and not even primarily — at the level of the photographer, but at the level of the editorial process. And yet it is the photographer’s name that is credited, not the editor’s.
Unfortunately, this reflects a broader tendency: in today’s mass media, the role of the photojournalist is often reduced to that of a surveillance camera. If that is the case, it might be more honest for publications to credit not the photographer’s name, but the number of the camera that recorded the image.
Great article. Happy to see professional photographers commenting like this. I like how you do not look down upon staging, but the misrepresentation of it.
It’s a common staged image here for photo tours and contest chasers but in my opinion if you’re going to write a caption like she did about laborers carrying salt then you obviously knew better .
A topic for our age. I grew up with the photo magazine and the photo essay in the sixties. Being young I didn’t know the issue of ethics in photography I just trusted Look, Life and National Geographic on what I saw was the truth. In the seventies I remember an article in a photography magazine about coming technology that will enable an ability to remove the unwanted elements from an image. The example given was a photograph of an assassination of a dictator on the steps of a south American capital. And what could be edited out or different. I still have an emotional response to what I believe as to be over editing, over enhancement or ethical lapses.
It has taken me years to come to terms as what editing I’m conditionally willing to do in my own work.
I’m afraid that lying in photojournalism will only increase as viewers grow more and more inured to AI slop and narrative manipulations to fulfill agendas.
This was a very interesting read. In my photos I try to represent reality as it is. If there are some blemishes, I leave it. However, there are some other approaches as well😂
It's not even a matter of whether the photo is staged or not. A photographer must tell the truth, as well as a journalist, as well as a writer. The truth is not a documentary work. The truth is what gives us a proper understanding of what is depicted (described). The performance can also be true, although it is completely invented. The worst thing that humanity has come up with is the Instagram culture of photographs.
Gosh. I'm getting ready to teach a class tomorrow on Ethics and I come across this. First of all, thank you for calling it out for exactly what it is: Lying. Some industries require continuing education; in these, ethics is routinely part of the education. There is a printed, researched curriculum. But for those of us who are in industries where anyone can declare themselves a professional and the "continuing education" is through continued practice, it is the people with the self-discipline and the dedicated, passionate practice who also have to show up as leaders in ethical behavior - it is these people who rise above all the rest.
We cannot give up on this.
Great job.
-Courtney Johnson, CFRE
Teacher of Fundraising Best Practices
I’d love to hear how the class responds to this.
Hi Justin, I admit, I never had the chance to show your photo and bring it up in the class, as I had so much to talk about and cover. But at some point, I would like to. I took the liberty of rewriting/rephrasing (not to plagiarize!) one of your paragraphs to see if what you said aligned with my industry. I had a feeling it did: All of my words that replace yours are in all caps: “And I think it’s important to explain my motivation here, because it’s not just about pointing out what’s wrong. It’s twofold. First, I believe strongly in upholding trust as FUNDRAISERS. That’s the foundation of everything we do. Second, I feel a responsibility to LISTEN TO DONORS TO AVOID MISLEADING THEM. Even after WORKING 20 YEARS IN THIS INDUSTRY, I have to constantly keep myself in check. I will never KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE ANY OF MY DONORS, and that matters. WHEN FUNDRAISERS REACH OUT TO DONORS, we carry an added responsibility to represent things accurately. We owe that to the people whose lives WE ARE IMPACTING, whether IT IS HERE or anywhere else. And as an educator, I also believe it’s important to have these uncomfortable conversations, even if they’re not popular.”
Your words serve the fundraising and nonprofit industry perfectly. That said, my students all agreed that ethics is not talked about enough. I created “tool” that I offered to them as a discussion guide to use in annual discussions with Board members. It is inspired by the “Fiduciary Duty” for board members. This is the only area where ethics is enforced (by the IRS in the United States - I am sure many other countries have similar policies). I developed the discussion tool from this “Fiduciary Duty.” I wonder if photographers have an “Ethics Guide”? Thanks from prompting this important discussion and serving as a great model and educator.
I agree with all you are stating. In regard to honesty and integrity of what you represent for a culture and keeping it true to the people and how it should be respected. It also brings up if you misrepresent a culture by showing it in a photo especially for travel. Anyone traveling to that area may appear to look ignorant because they would be expected to see something that would not normally belong. This could be embarrassing or insulting, insensitive, and that would be the last thing I would ever want to do traveling abroad. I always research prior to going and look at pictures, read, and this would to me is a great disservice if you are staging or lying for a piece. But that’s me. I travel to learn.
Thank you Lori, in the end I left her name out of the article because it wasn’t a personal attack but something that I needed to address.
I cannot agree more. I find it all so cheesy.
Thank you Frank.
Well written Justin! Great to read how you are evaluation facts and perception without bringing an idea, concept or photographer down but simple examine that the context hasn't been put right. It's something I have experience too - that I see brands and photographers describe themself as something that they are not and it takes away the trust of those words because they are used in the wrong contexts. My favourite line was when you said that people working in foreign countries have to be extra intentional of the work they create. Thanks for raising your voice! 🙏🏼
Thank you this is very thought provoking. I appreciate photography as art and I appreciate travel photography for it's aesthetic but expect honesty. When I plan to travel I want to know what it will actually be like, as opposed to the curated version. In Sri Lanka I was offered the opportunity to pose on a stilt in the sea to depict myself as a traditional fisherperson, which I declined as firstly even the locals weren't fishing like that the majority of the time, and I knew my photo would just remind me of the fakeness of the experience. What is the truth? A photo of one standing alone at the top of Everest with nothing but snow and mountains in view, or the photo of the obscene queues up the mountain to get there? I prefer to see context....such as the "behind the scenes, how we captured the shots" sections in Attenborough's series.
Larkin's lines sadly no longer hold true:
"But o photography! as no art is,
Faithful and disappointing! That records
Dull days as dull, and hold-it smiles as frauds,
And will not censor blemishes
Like washing-lines, and Hall's-distemper boards,
But shows a cat as disinclined, and shades
A chin as doubled when it is
Unless I have strong evidence to the contrary (like I personally know the photographer), I automatically assume that almost everything on Facebook these days is AI. Fair or not, that is the reality.
The most important thing about photojournalism is ethics. First and foremost, that should be considered whenever you make a photo.
I spent my entire career never staging, directing, or manipulating photos. Back in the late 80's when I was working for a Florida newspaper, I was covering a community that was flooded, after days of heavy rain. As I was walking around looking for anything interesting to photograph, a man walked up to me and said "I just worked for the (a Florida paper). He said that a photographer from that paper asked him walk around in flood water so he could make some photos. He then asked if he wanted me to do the same thing. I said no, and tried my best to photograph anything interesting. The next day my photo editor saw that photo in their paper, and asked me why I didn't get any photos like that. I told him that it was staged and a fake photo.
Needless to say I never believed another photo taken by that photographer, and I made sure to tell that story to any other photographer I met.
If you want to be a photojournalist follow the ethics involved. If not call yourself a artist, you can't be both.
it’s a pretty picture…for about two seconds…three seconds in and it’s ai garbage…
curious if you reached out to her? wonder if she studied with mccurry…
This is all true, but if we speak only about the level of the photographer’s own choices, and if the author’s name appears under the photograph, then the responsibility is entirely his — both moral and ethical.
But photojournalism is not only about the photographer. It also involves the photo editor, editorial policy, captions, and many other layers. In other words, as a photographer I can shoot a “positive” or a “negative” story while fully respecting the rules of the documentary genre. I can take a good portrait of a person and still present it in a way that leaves the viewer with the impression that this is not a particularly pleasant individual — and again, without violating any documentary principles in the process.
I am not saying that documentary photography lies. I am saying that the photographer always has a choice — a choice of which reality to show, or, if you prefer, which reality to feel and interpret. But this still concerns only the photographer. Things become more complicated once the work is sent to an editor or a newsroom for selection.
In agencies, for example, photographers rarely choose the images that are eventually published. That decision is made by a picture editor or photo editor. Yet the photographer’s name appears under the image, and therefore he carries full responsibility for it. In practice, however, every photojournalist knows this is not how it really works. Out of a hundred images, editors select those that fit their own agenda, sometimes even adding captions that shift or contradict the original meaning.
What I am trying to say is that manipulation of reality happens not only — and not even primarily — at the level of the photographer, but at the level of the editorial process. And yet it is the photographer’s name that is credited, not the editor’s.
Unfortunately, this reflects a broader tendency: in today’s mass media, the role of the photojournalist is often reduced to that of a surveillance camera. If that is the case, it might be more honest for publications to credit not the photographer’s name, but the number of the camera that recorded the image.
Thank you for this. You explain the nuances and layers of decision making very well, highlighting many complexities. Illuminating!
Great article. Happy to see professional photographers commenting like this. I like how you do not look down upon staging, but the misrepresentation of it.
I got cutious and did an image search. Turns out that specific image is pretty common and not new - I wonder if this became more of a tourist attraction, hence the traditional dress, and is an honest mistake by the photographer? https://tuoitre.vn/anh-viet-nam-cua-tac-gia-ngoai-bi-to-phi-thuc-te-1217143.htm
It’s a common staged image here for photo tours and contest chasers but in my opinion if you’re going to write a caption like she did about laborers carrying salt then you obviously knew better .
A topic for our age. I grew up with the photo magazine and the photo essay in the sixties. Being young I didn’t know the issue of ethics in photography I just trusted Look, Life and National Geographic on what I saw was the truth. In the seventies I remember an article in a photography magazine about coming technology that will enable an ability to remove the unwanted elements from an image. The example given was a photograph of an assassination of a dictator on the steps of a south American capital. And what could be edited out or different. I still have an emotional response to what I believe as to be over editing, over enhancement or ethical lapses.
It has taken me years to come to terms as what editing I’m conditionally willing to do in my own work.
Just an opinion
two words come to mind, propaganda and fraud
I’m afraid that lying in photojournalism will only increase as viewers grow more and more inured to AI slop and narrative manipulations to fulfill agendas.
This was a very interesting read. In my photos I try to represent reality as it is. If there are some blemishes, I leave it. However, there are some other approaches as well😂
It's not even a matter of whether the photo is staged or not. A photographer must tell the truth, as well as a journalist, as well as a writer. The truth is not a documentary work. The truth is what gives us a proper understanding of what is depicted (described). The performance can also be true, although it is completely invented. The worst thing that humanity has come up with is the Instagram culture of photographs.