- Digital photo manipulation is increasingly controversial as technology advances make it easy to alter images in ways that change their meaning. Even minor edits can damage the credibility of photojournalism if they are not clearly disclosed. - An incident in 2006 demonstrated this when a photographer digitally enhanced photos of an air strike in a way that changed the meaning and message of the images. Such deception violates journalism ethics. - While some minor edits like cropping or adjustments to exposure may be acceptable if the overall meaning is unchanged, distorting or manipulating aspects of photos in ways that alter their factual accuracy is considered unethical, as it damages public trust in journalism. Accuracy and transparency are paramount.

1. Language Exercise #1 - Content (Free media vs Censorship)
Ms Pepper Lee Page 1
Name:_________________________________ Class:_______
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE EXERCISES #1: The basics
Instructions:
Read the following article (which will be useful for those of you thinking of specializing in media/
censorship). Circle/ underline/ bold the correct word. There are 30 questions altogether – attempt all of
them.
Note: Do attempt this exercise without looking up answers. If you do score less than 20/30 for this
exercise, you should be a tad worried. Drop me a message (email/ text) and let’s make use of the
September holidays to work on grammar issues!
Topic: Freedom of Press
Article 1: When pictures tell a thousand words – or lies
26 April 2007 Eleanor Woods
As technology (1) advance/ advances, photo manipulation (2) become/ becomesincreasingly
controversial. Digital deception undeniably (3) damage/ damages photojournalism, in that it creates
suspicion. In a media environment that (4) demand/ demandstruth, credibility and accuracy, one fake
photo can bring all photojournalists into disrepute.
A picture tells a thousand words. But what if those words are lies? Are they fit to be alongside truthful
news reports? Sharpening, adding contrast, retouching and brightening, all of (5) this/ thesephoto
manipulation techniques seem harmless. What about air brushing and cutting and pasting? These
digital manipulations have the power to change the actual meaning of photographs.
We know how easy it is to alter images in this digital age. But, how far is too far? And what effect is
photo manipulation having on the media industry?
In August 2006, photographer Adnan Hajj made the decision to digitally enhance photographs he (6)
has taken/ had taken of an air strike by Israeli forces in Beirut. In doing so, he changed the meaning of
the images. The photographs were no longer moments in time, but an exaggerated portrayal of what
(7) has occurred/ had occurred. According to a report by Bryan E. Denham, associate professor in the
Department of Communication Studies at Clemson University, Hajj “admitted to using Photoshop
software to doctor the images”. What Hajj had done “constituted a major breach of journalism ethics,”
he says.
In an endeavour to make his photographs more newsworthy, Hajj (8) cost/ costshimself his career and
also brought doubt to the profession.
As technologies expand, photo manipulation (9) become/ becomes increasingly controversial. Digital
deception no doubt (10) damage/ damagesphotojournalism, in that it creates suspicion. In a media
environment that demands truth, credibility and accuracy, one fake photo can bring all

2. Language Exercise #1 - Content (Free media vs Censorship)
Ms Pepper Lee Page 2
photojournalists into disrepute. Think how tempting it must be for some photographers, to be armed
with the modern advantages of Photoshop.
Chief of photography for The Northern Advocate, John Stone, thinks that when digital manipulation
(11) come/ comesinto play “the magic of photography is lost. You‟re not really taking photos, but
creating images”. Stone admits he does (12) modify/ modifies photographs to enhance their picture
quality, but “never to change their meaning”. He emphasises the (13) importants/ importanceof
differentiating between “photographs” and “illustrations”. “I always make sure it is clear where I have
manipulated an image,” he says. “When you start playing with things [photos] here and there, some
people find it hard to stop,” he says. Stone thinks that some photographers don‟t know where the
boundaries (14) lay/ lie/ lies.
He estimates that around 20 per cent of photojournalists probably seriously manipulate their images
without being caught.
American Journalism Review's Cheryl Johnston discusses how photographer Brian Walski‟s decision
to manipulate two images of Iraq in an attempt to capture a moment, (15) cost/ costs/ costedhim his
career with the Los Angeles Times. It also (16) cost/ costs/ costedthe media industry in credibility.
Walski merged two photographs, taken seconds apart, to create a better photo. It is unethical for
journalists to merge two quotes. It‟s no different for pictures. Photojournalism should accurately
reflect the world, not interpret it. Time magazine recently featured a doctored image of former U.S.
President, Ronald Reagan, with a tear rolling down his cheek. This, under the headline „How the right
went wrong‟, (17) alter/ altersthe meaning of an otherwise standard headshot. This self-governed
creative licence has serious implications for photojournalism, says Johnston.
Journalists supposedly abide by codes of conduct that (18) demand/demandstruth, accuracy and
credibility. In an attempt to capture that „perfect shot‟ that ceased to exist, photo forgery (19)
discredit/ discreditsthe industry.
Han Faird, associate professor of science at Dartmouth College says: “Seeing is no longer believing.
Technology that (20) allow/ allowsdigital media to be manipulated and distorted (21) is/
aredeveloping at breakneck speed.” The ramifications are severe. Society already (22) has/ had/
havelittle trust in journalists.
In a British study, conducted by MORI Social Research Institute, findings showed that public trust in
journalists (23) was/ were very low. The study of 2141 people aged 15 and over revealed that trust in
journalists paled in comparison to that of other professions. In 2003, only 18% of the people
questioned (24) believe/ believes that journalists tell the truth, compared with 91% trust for doctors
and 87%trust for teachers. According to the chairman of MORI, “everyone in the communications
business is now faced with a fundamental decline in trust”. “Trust is built over time,” he says, “but it
can be lost in an instant.”
People trust news photographs to be a moment in time, an accurate reflection of what (25) has/
havehappened. Widely known photographic consultant and critic Philip Douglis says:
“Photojournalists regard human eyes as windows into the souls of their subjects.”
Imagine you are a photojournalist and you have captured a great shot but one of the subjects is
blinking. Do you “correct” the photo by super-imposing an eye in place, or do you leave it as it was
captured? If, as Douglis says, “Eyes can tell us how their owners feel”, then photojournalists have no

3. Language Exercise #1 - Content (Free media vs Censorship)
Ms Pepper Lee Page 3
right in manipulating those feelings, and further, the meaning behind the image. Douglis says, “As
subjects for the camera, they [eyes] can express profound meaning.”
New Zealand Herald photographer Greg Bowker was faced with this predicament in a recent paper.
On the front page of the business section, his photograph of Pete Maire and Keith Phillips (26) was/
wererun with Phillips blinking. He said the decision was easy for him because he does not believe
digital manipulation (27) add/ adds to news photographs. Instead, he believes it takes away from it.
“Photojournalists should capture a moment, not create one,” says Bowker. “There is a time and a
place for creative control, and it‟s not in news,” he says.
Bowker uses “the darkroom test” to identify whether or not photo manipulation is ethical. “If you can
do it in a darkroom, then it‟s acceptable,” he says. Things such as cropping, dodging and burning are
fine. “Anything that (28) distort/ distortsthe truth is strictly off limits,” says Bowker.
Greg Bowker suggests that the reason photographers digitally manipulate their pictures is because of
the desire to create the perfect image. Pressures for quality, quantity and meeting deadlines are all
contributing factors. “It‟s a temptation to dabble. Some photographers see Photoshop as a toolbox,”
says Bowker. “It makes it hard for everyone when someone (29) get/ getscaught faking it,” he says.
“Accuracy and credibility (30) is/arecrucial in journalism. Every morning people pick up the paper
expecting to see something true - if it‟s not then we lose trust,” he says.
We must be conscious of these things as the field of photojournalism becomes more and more
malleable. With technology snowballing, the manipulation of photographs becomes easier and more
technically unidentifiable.
As image manipulation becomes increasingly difficult to decipher, we should consider reading an
image, as we should a text. Not as “truth” but as “one version of the truth”. For there are many ways
to tell a story, but in a photograph‟s so-called thousand words there is much room for interpretation.