In this digital age, photojournalism is always replete with photo manipulation. Although ‘technical advancement has helped photojournalism be more effective in many ways, it has created ethical challenges in making deception and less transparent’ by eliminating or adding element to a picture (Quinn & Spence, 2004).
An article 'Orthodox Jewish paper apologises for Hilary Clinton deletion' which was featured in Guardian Newspaper on 10 May 2011 reported that, New York based Di Tzeitung newspaper has apologised for digitally removing an image of US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and the counterrorism director, Audrey Tomason in the photograph of White House Situation Room during critical moments of the raid with Obama national security team.
Schirato & Yell (2000) explain meaning in the same texts or pictures can be interpreted differently based on different cultural and situational context within a community. Hence, it is understandable why the altered picture of two women has been interpreted in a different way by Jewish and non-Jewish community.
Based on Orthodox Jewish culture, showing women images are considered ‘immodest’. They respect Clinton for her accompliments, not how she looks like. According to CNN (Ravltz, 2011), Di Tzeitung claimed that it is religiously mandated and they have the right to edit under the rights protected by U.S Constitutional. However, it has caused a misunderstanding to non-Jewish community as it was perceived as disrespectful to women.
Indeed, photojournalist must uphold the standard of ethic as a industry and profession (Bersak, 2006). Despite the code of ethic, they must be sensitive to the situation and cultural background to meet the expectation of different ethnics. In this issue, Di Tzeitung has respected the Jewish law by not publishing the women figure; however, it has given false intended messages and evoked dissatisfaction among non-Jewish community.
In conclusion, picture manipulation should be avoided if possible; however, a mark represents manipulation should be showed clearly if it is done of neccessity (Harris, 1991). Thus, in this case, the editor should state the altered picture as an edited version in a caption or an accompanying text to avoid any misinterpretation.
References
Harris, CR 1991, ‘Digitization and Manipulation of News Photographs’, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 164-175.
Quinn, A & Spence, E (ed) 2004, Manipulation Photojounalism: Is it ethical? Is it corrupt, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, The Australian National University.
Ravltz, J 2011, ‘Religious paper apologizes for erasing Clinton from iconic photo', Cable News Nework, 9 May, viewed 14 November 2011,
Schirato, T & Yell, S 2000, Communication and cultural literacy: an introduction, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards.
