Did Newsweek mislead the public with its recent cover photo illustration of Martha Stewart?
The magazine identified the cover -- which shows a beaming Stewart emerging from gold curtains looking slender and happy -- as a photo illustration on page 3. In a March 2 interview on National Public Radio, Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor for Newsweek, explained that the photo illustration included Martha Stewart’s head placed atop a model’s body. Staley said the image was designed to depict Martha’s emergence from prison, looking ahead to what Martha’s future might be. She said it was not Newsweek’s intention to deceive. But does this photo illustration cross the line of deception? Should Newsweek have identified the image as a photo illustration on the cover rather than on page 3? Does it really matter in this day and age of complex digital enhancement capability?
See related links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7038081/site/newsweek/
and
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4520166
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
YES WE SHOULD CARE.
Ever since National Geographic (a bastion of great photojournalism) moved the pyramids in a 1984 cover photo, using a then-state-of-the-art Scitex digital imaging system, photojournalists have seen the impending death of their profession. Or at least the death of their profession as a credible journalistic medium.
Unfortunately, just about no one believes what they "see" in print any more anyway, because high-power digital cameras and imaging tools have become the 21st Century equivalent of the Kodak Instamatic.
In magazine circles, it's pretty much accepted that the cover art is a marketing tool.
There would only be an ethical dilemma in the editorial office of Cosmo, for instance, if the designers DID NOT airbrush the cover model.
Newsweek has built a solid reputation in the last decade for its strong visual reporting.
Legendary Magnum photographer James Nachtwey was wounded last year in Iraq while on assignment for Newsweek.
Newsweek must hold itself to a higher standard, since it portrays itself as a news magazine.
To do any less threatens not only the credibility of the magazine, it further undermines the credibility of visual journalism.
I guess the only real question is, do we have any more credibility left to lose?
I'm with Mark on this one! A news weekly that uses a "photo illustration" on its cover without any hint that it has been "photoshopped" is asking for it. And then they have the nerve to add the caption, "After Prison she's thinner, wealthier, & ready for prime time." Yeah right...the model's body may be thinner. And we'll have to wait for the Nielsen ratings to see if America is ready for Martha on prime time!
I'll go one step further as a public relations person...if promotional photos need to be altered, the audience should know. No photos with fake backgrounds or additional/deleted people on the website, in the newsletter or brochure, without telling the audience.
Digital computer technology has taken photography to a new level, but this issue of reality poses serious ethical questions.
How about print advertising?
How about artistic photography?
Where are the ethical lines drawn there?
-Jen Mullen
I definitely think it was wrong of Newsweek to put Martha's Stewarts head on a model's body. It is very deceiving to everyone who saw the picture, and also misleading to people who may view Stewart as a role model (especially women). We all know that sex sells, but unfortunately it hasn't come at a fair price. According to dietblog.com, only 36% of women are fairly happy with their bodies, and just 4% admit to be completely happy with their bodies. I think it would be outrageously false to say that the depiction of women in advertising, television and magazine covers have nothing to do with women disliking their own bodies. Aside from Stewart's legal problems, she is still a popular role model for a lot of women. Her success as a female entrepreneur and "go getter" is in the for front of her popularity. As of now our magazine covers and ads are dominated by physically stunning women. Martha Stewart is one of the few women we see on magazine covers who isn't known for her physical attributes. So after saying all of that I believe Newsweek shouldn't have done that because of the effect it could have on her followers and women in general.
The fact of the matter is, the photo is a distortion of the truth and audiences rely on Newsweek for news, not fabrication or celebrity imaging. Newsweek should not be using misleading marketing ploys in their publication. It puts Newsweek’s reputation on the line. More and more people are beginning to rely on visual images to tell the story and receive messages that mass communicators send out. This may be contributing to the growth in skepticism about information that is interpreted by the public. It makes it difficult to tell exactly what has been distorted. Should we have to ask the question, what news is real and what news is not? Journalists and photojournalists have a responsibility to be blatantly honest when they distort, alter or fabricate anything. If they don’t, they might suffer from the backlash of the public arena.
-Keri Hoggatt
People buy news for news, not a distorted reality of the best picture of news that can be painted. Altering the image of Martha Stuart and not making it blatantly clear is lying! Newsweek is seen as a reputable source of news information. From a PR perspective, maintaining this reputation should be on the top of their list of priorities. Sustaining ethical angles on stories helps maintain their reputation. Altering the photo of Martha on the front cover and not stating it has been altered on the SAME PAGE is unethical. As an occasional reader of Newsweek, I don’t want to have to question whether or not what I am reading is a truthful representation of the news, and now I will. Not only does this instance have the possibility of lessening Newsweek’s reputation, but the reputation of journalism as a whole. People in general are skeptical of journalism, and this instance has just added fuel to the fire.
I think that the photo illustration crosses the line of deception. No, I don’t think that Newsweek should have identified the image as a photo illustration on the cover. The cover isn’t the right place for the magazine to state that it is an altered image. Newsweek shouldn’t have used that picture for the cover. When I first looked at the picture, it didn’t depict Martha’s emergence from prison. Even if the image crossed the line of deception, I don’t know if it really matters. If it were a written article stating something that wasn’t true, then it would matter and be a big deal. But everyone or at least almost everyone knows that pictures in magazines and ad’s with models are digitally enhanced and have touchups and changes made to them all the time. What you see isn’t what the person really looks like. Sometimes models have pimples acne, freckles, lines, or different imperfections with their bodies and we as reader never see them. I don’t think Newsweek shouldn’t have done this because they are a respectable magazine (it belongs more in a Tabloid) but I don’t think that it is a big deal or that it should really matter because many people expect images to be enhanced in some way or another.
Smells like The Weekly World News.
I think Bob Gould's (National Press Photographers Association president) description is fair and concise.
"NPPA finds it a total breach of ethics and completely misleading to the public. The magazine's claim that 'there was a metion on page 3 that it was an illustration' is not fair disclosure. The average reader isn't going to know that it isn't Martha Stewart's body in the photograph. The public often distrusts the media and this just gives them one more reason. This type of practice erodes the credibility of all journalism, not just one publication."
If it looks real, in a news context it better be real. Remember the upset when Time altered (darkened) OJ Simpson's police mugshot and ran it on the cover. People believe the news little enough as it is; this sort of thing is only going to erode that tenuous trust even more.
~gabe
This day and age every photo in every magazine has been so incredibly altered and "air-brushed" that pictures are no more photographs than the original work of Picasso. Legs are thinned, eyes are brightened, shimmer is added, muscles are sculpted, hair is smoothed...and by the end the body in the picture looks nothing like the body in the original photograph. Several models and actresses have unleashed the secret that they too have cellulite, wrinkles, acne and more! But we never see these impurities because they recieve "new bodies." What Newsweek did is nothing new...it's just a new way of going about changing an image. Newsweek is just ahead of its time. I believe that soon enough limbs, heads and buttocks will be freakishly strewn together through computer technology to create frankenstein models with the perfect shape. With our modern air-brushing techniques we are extensively altering the bodies of celebrities to create new ones. Newsweek just skipped a few steps and really did create a new body for Martha!
This day and age every photo in every magazine has been so incredibly altered and "air-brushed" that pictures are no more photographs than the original work of Picasso. Legs are thinned, eyes are brightened, shimmer is added, muscles are sculpted, hair is smoothed...and by the end the body in the picture looks nothing like the body in the original photograph. Several models and actresses have unleashed the secret that they too have cellulite, wrinkles, acne and more! But we never see these impurities because they recieve "new bodies." What Newsweek did is nothing new...it's just a new way of going about changing an image. Newsweek is just ahead of its time. I believe that soon enough limbs, heads and buttocks will be freakishly strewn together through computer technology to create frankenstein models with the perfect shape. With our modern air-brushing techniques we are extensively altering the bodies of celebrities to create new ones. Newsweek just skipped a few steps and really did create a new body for Martha!
Post a Comment