The document discusses various examples of photo manipulation by media sources and raises ethical questions about manipulating images and potentially influencing public opinion. It explores situations where photos were digitally altered by pasting together images from different times or placing people's faces on other bodies. While some manipulations are done in fun, others present fabricated information or aim to subtly alter perceptions, requiring consideration of expectations for truthfulness and disclosure of edits depending on the source and purpose.

1. Tabloids Here we have an image of Brad Pitt, caught vacationing with Angelina Jolie while Brad was still married to Jennifer. But wait! That picture of Pitt was taken in Anguilla in 2005, while the picture of Jolie was taking in Virginia in 2004. They weren’t “caught” together. They were “pasted” together. Of course, this is a tabloid. We take it for granted that tabloids take liberty with the truth. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it illegal? Maybe. But for the most part, we leave it to the stars to take court action before anything is done about it.

2. Here’s another example. Do we believe this is a real picture? Probably not (though I suppose some people do). It’s another example of a publication where we don’t have an expectation of truth. More Tabloids

3. But what about this magazine? Here we have a picture of Texas governor Ann Richards. Well—sort of. We actually have Ann Richards’ head on a biker’s body. Of course, Ann Richards agreed to this, and it’s all done in fun. No harm done. Popular Magazines

4. Okay, so now it gets a bit more questionable. We all know Oprah has a weight issue, and we watch it closely. She looks pretty darned great here. Congratulations, Oprah. But, oh wait. That’s not Oprah. That’s Oprah’s head on Ann Margaret’s body. Hmmm . . . but, then, it’s TV Guide. And TV Guide exists to sell programming. And they don’t actually say it’s a real photo. . . . . . where do we draw the line? TV Guide

5. National Geographic . . . Well, maybe this is where we draw the line. What do we expect from National Geographic? We expect truthful reporting. We expect to learn about the world around us—through pictures. So when National Geographic moved these pyramids closer together for aesthetic purposes (to work on a vertical cover) there was, understandably, an outcry. Nowhere in the world can we actually see this view.

6. South Pole And here’s an interesting one. A polar bear at the South Pole. Anyone see a problem? Well—polar bears don’t live at the South Pole. They only live at the North Pole. Or in zoos, where this one lived, posing perfectly to be superimposed over this shot of Antarctica.

7. So, is it all right to manipulate photographs? It seems that it comes down, in part, to expectations for truthfulness. Nature photographers have been debating this question for decades. Early photographers argued that it was unfair to even move a blade of grass to create a better picture. Nature photographers were meant to document nature as it occurred in real life . Later, arguments arose about correcting contrast or lighting in the darkroom. The basic belief was that a good nature photographer works hard to find that perfect picture—and doesn’t manipulate it afterward. So, in the instance of our polar bear picture, it was all done in fun. Our judgment depends, to some extent, on the venue in which the picture is displayed, and the disclosure given by the publisher. When it comes down to true nature photography, we’re talking about the ethics of the profession. Nature Photography

8. Wildlife Photography Take this photo of zebras, for example, taken for a book entitled, Migrations . Let’s look at it close-up, on the next slide, as it appeared in the book.

9. Wow! That’s a lot of zebras migrating!

10. Ethics Okay—so it wasn’t just close-up. It was manipulated. A close look will reveal zebras that have been cloned to make the herd look larger. The problem is, it was manipulated to tell a lie. This photo was offered as proof that zebras migrate in large herds. So this becomes an ethical problem. Why? Because nature photographers have an ethical code that says they do not manipulate photos, and because the manipulation was not disclosed in the publication.

11. Manipulating Emotions During the OJ Simpson murder trial, Newsweek and Time chose to run the same photo as a cover shot. But Newsweek used the photo in its original form, while Time darkened OJ’s skin color for effect. Remember, the trial is still in process. How will these photos influence public opinion? Are there value judgments tied up in the editing of this photo?

12. AP USA Today Manipulating Public Opinion Here is a similar situation, where USA Today brightened Condoleezza Rice’s eyes. They claim to have only “corrected” the lighting. What is the overall effect? How might public opinion have been influenced? These examples help us see how visual images can affect us, and highlight the importance of teaching visual literacy skills.

13. Making us look good The quest for beauty has been at the root of much of the photo manipulation done in the media. And it raises grave concerns about the expectations we are creating for what it means to have a healthy, beautiful body. Take a look at the four short videos below to see the extent to which we meddle with our images of beauty. Dove Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U&mode=related&search=