Phototruth or Photofiction? Ethics and Media Imagery in the Digital Age
Book by Tom Wheeler; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.

Introduction
"... doomsayers, arguing that the computer is laying waste to any credibility photog- raphy has left, declare that the medium is dying.... But most of the photographs that are being altered are the ones that were always altered by retouching... It's in news and documentary that the unvarnished truth matters. There it's still told, and there we still believe it. The camera continues to work with spunk and vigor on the creation of memories, and no one has stopped looking. The reports of photography's death have been greatly exaggerated." -Life, Spring 1999

There are a hundred reasons not to trust mass-media photography, and yet we do. Or at least we used to. Despite our knowing that cameras can lie, that some photos-even famous ones-were faked in one way or another, for more than a century we have nevertheless bestowed upon photography a re- markable measure of trustworthiness. Now, however, we are inundated with photorealistic yet patently false images. These imposters are so pervasive that authentic photos may soon be looked upon as the exceptions, mere throwbacks to a more naive, pre-cyber era.

The implications are obvious. A weakening of faith in photographic au- thenticity may undermine the credibility of visual journalism in all its forms: newspapers, magazines, broadcast television, cable, online and so on. While the ramifications are significant, even grave, many working journalists have only recently begun to examine them. Among other goals, this book is in- tended to help them do so in a thoughtful, practical manner. It neither con- demns nor discourages the increasing use of digital technologies (inevitable in any case) but rather suggests guidelines for their responsible application. If photography's credibility is to endure even within the confines of news media, we must establish more concrete ground rules. In addition, we must look beyond professional and academic discussions to accommodate public attitudes. After all, it is readers and viewers-rather than professors or journalists-who will decide whether photography's credibility survives the increasingly common manipulation afforded by software. So far we have failed to adequately address issues of public perception, such as readers' dif- fering expectations when considering, say, the front page of The Washington Post versus the cover of Spin, or whether readers draw the distinctions so often cited by professionals when making ethical choices about photos: "hard news" (wars, crime scenes, etc.) versus "soft features," or magazine covers versus interior photos.

Digital photography has been in use for three decades or so, although most early applications entailed military, scientific, law enforcement, or big-budget entertainment pursuits. Professor Fred Ritchin's In Our Own Image: The Coming Revolution in Photography (Aperture, 1990; reissued 1999) was the first book to explore the ethics of digital imagery in main- stream media, as well as its effects on attitudes toward the nature of photog- raphy itself. Another book, William J. Mitchell's The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era (MIT Press, 1992), explored the cultural and social implications of digitally manipulated visual media. In the years since the publication of those seminal works, photographers, critics, and educators have addressed these topics in articles and at conferences. Notorious manipulated images have sparked still more debate, and many practitioners profess to have learned valuable lessons. Yet it is difficult to say how far we have come. New image-manipulation devices range from expensive software for media professionals to cheap toys for kids. As these products flood more niches of the consumer market, as we become more accustomed to seeing manipulated images (and more accustomed to manipulating them ourselves), and as questions about ethical responsibility and the lines between illustration and photojournalism con- tinue to defy easy answers, the implications of what everyone calls the digital revolution are beginning to sink in.

Of course, revolutions may be exhilarating, but they are unsettling as well. We have advanced beyond perceiving these miraculous technologies merely as providers of new tools and toys to also contemplating their more sobering effects-upon photographers' control of their work, upon image makers' abilities to deceive, upon public faith in mass-media images of all kinds, even photojournalism. Regardless of our outlook, we might wonder if we really need a book to explain matters of right and wrong. If we agree that misleading the public is unethical, why discuss it further? How much of a guideline do we require, beyond "If it's wrong, don't do it"? In fact, professionals do not agree on what is right and what is wrong. Digital imagery is here and, ethically speaking, we are not ready for it. As was the case before the advent of digital media, professionals are es- pecially conflicted about the appropriateness of manipulating images within the vast domain between "hard news" and acknowledged visual fiction. In fact, they disagree as to whether nonfiction photography has much of a fu- ture at all. For some, the battle is already lost. Others believe that nonfiction photography will not only survive but may flourish anew as technological innovations unfold, particularly on the World Wide Web.