{"id":14627,"date":"2024-03-20T08:55:36","date_gmt":"2024-03-20T08:55:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/TheNextWeb=1404923"},"modified":"2024-03-20T08:55:36","modified_gmt":"2024-03-20T08:55:36","slug":"how-news-organisations-decide-whether-a-photo-is-too-edited","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/?p=14627","title":{"rendered":"How news organisations decide whether a photo is \u2018too\u00a0edited\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the era of artificial intelligence<\/a> and accessible photo editing, you can\u2019t believe everything you see online. One exception, of course, is (usually) if it\u2019s published by a reputable news source.<\/p>\n

The foundation of photojournalism lies in its ability to present reality in an
authentic and unaltered manner. Digital manipulation poses a significant threat to this core principle, undermining the credibility and trustworthiness of the images distributed by photo agencies. The controversy around a retouched family photograph of the Princess of Wales and her children was a rare glimpse into how publishers deal with this issue.<\/p>\n

Agencies such as Getty Images and PA Images play a crucial role in delivering accurate and reliable photographs to the public. These organisations adhere to strict codes of conduct<\/a> designed to ensure the integrity of the images they distribute. If an image is accepted but later found to violate these guidelines, it is given a \u201ckill order\u201d. It sounds dramatic, but this instantly stops the distribution.<\/p>\n

The main reason why photo agencies cannot accept digitally manipulated imagery is the potential distortion of truth. Manipulated photos can present a skewed version of reality, misinforming the public and compromising the public\u2019s trust in them. Many a photographer<\/a> has been fired<\/a> for violating<\/a> this trust<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Photojournalism is a powerful tool for documenting and bearing witness to events around the world. Authenticity is paramount. Even family portraits of public figures become historical documents.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n

\n

The <3 of EU tech<\/p>\n

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

There is a grey area around portraits in the ethical discussion. They can be staged or directed \u2014 the photographer will guide and position people. But there is still a requirement in the press to avoid any retouching. That said, in areas such as fashion and celebrity outlets where airbrushing is common, those guidelines are looser.<\/p>\n

Photo agencies have their own standards about what level of editing is acceptable. AFP<\/a> says that photos and videos, \u201cmust not be staged, manipulated or edited to give a misleading or false picture of events.\u201d Getty allows<\/a> for some minor changes such as colour adjustment or removal of red eye or of dust from a dirty lens, but prohibits \u201cextreme\u201d colour or light adjustments.<\/p>\n

Several agencies decided to retract the photo<\/a> of the royals because it did not meet their standards. This does not mean the photo was AI-generated or fake, only that it does not meet the strict level of acceptable editing.<\/p>\n

Changing tech, changing guidelines<\/h2>\n

As new technology such as generative AI (which can create photos or videos from a prompt) makes photo editing and creating fake images easier, press agencies are starting to discuss how to handle it<\/a>. The Associated Press states:<\/p>\n

\n

We will refrain from transmitting any AI-generated images that are suspected or proven to be false depictions of reality. However, if an AI-generated illustration or work of art is the subject of a news story, it may be used as long as it is clearly labelled as such in the caption.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

News organisations are also experimenting with AI-generated text, and developing guidelines<\/a> for this. They tend to focus on transparency, making clear to readers when artificially generated content is being used.<\/p>\n

\"A
Some retouching is accepted in photojournalism and fashion photography.<\/span>
Gorodenkoff\/Shutterstock<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

World Press Photo (WPP), an organisation known for its annual photojournalism contest, provides explicit guidelines for submission, updated annually<\/a>. Photo agencies often align themselves with these principles, recognising the importance of a universal standard for truthfulness in visual reporting.<\/p>\n

Due to pressure from photographers and artists who work in more conceptual photography, WPP has added an \u201copen format\u201d category. This welcomes, \u201cinnovative techniques, non-traditional modes of presentation, and new approaches to storytelling.\u201d The contest organisers considered allowing AI-generated images in 2023, but backtracked<\/a> after outrage from many photojournalists.<\/p>\n

The rise of advanced editing tools and software has made it harder to distinguish between authentic and manipulated images. Fully embracing manipulated imagery in a photojournalism contest would be a risk to the industry\u2019s credibility, at a time when trust in journalism is already at risk.\"The

Andrew Pearsall<\/a>, Senior Lecturer in Photojournalism, University of South Wales<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the era of artificial intelligence and accessible photo editing, you can\u2019t believe everything you see online. One exception, of course, is (usually) if it\u2019s published by a reputable news source. The…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14628,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14627"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14627\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/14628"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}