After listening to Dr. Karen Dill's presentation Gate Keeping and Concepts of Self in Media, I was intrigued by the discussion about digital retouching of models’ images. I also watched the The Photoshop Effect listed on our course Blog and was amazed, disturbed, and concerned over the extent of this practice. Tim Lynch of Tim Lynch Photography claimed that 99.9% of all photographs in magazines are retouched. It made me wonder if the "ugly" pictures found on tabloid covers are digitally manipulated as well. One example of image manipulation for negative value (perhaps unintended as claimed) was the infamous mug shot of O. J. Simpson on the cover of Time magazine in 1994 (View).
As a new Media Psychology student, I am interested in examining the broader the implications of the practice of image manipulation. Clearly, creating an image of the perfect women can affect girl’s self image, and it is unfair to use software like Photoshop to secretly create these images. Beyond the world of models and self-image, are there increasing instances of blatant image manipulations in the media?
I recall seeing a picture that circulated around the Internet immediately after 9/11. This was supposedly a photo of a young tourist on top of one of the towers with a plane in the background. (See here!) I first received this link from a well-educated friend of mine who thought it was real. Even though I am typically skeptical of anything in my in-box, I spent a fair amount of time trying to determine if it was authentic. Reflecting on this now, I am sure in less emotional times a fraud such as this would have been easier to identify.
There are two issues for consideration in the manipulation of images.
1) Gate Keeping
The first issue is in the area of gate keeping. Given the amount of coverage any politician or celebrity receives, who decides which pictures to take, show, or alter? For example, did some in the “media” prevent the showing of pictures of candidate Obama smoking cigarettes? Did anyone agonize over showing the video of President Ford stumbling on the stairs of Air Force One? How discrete were reporters in not showing President Franklin Roosevelt in his wheelchair? Are these gatekeepers who want to create or reinforce a certain image of a politician? How does that play in the modern world of 24/7 news and cameras everywhere?
2) The Loudest Voice
The second issue for consideration is in the need for the “loudest voice” to be heard in the crowded media of today. Daniel’s video for our NSO-Santa Barbara highlighted the almost absurd volume and shock value of many media outlets on television. As a photographer, I can attest to the difficultly and time it takes to create a singular compelling image. Have media become lazy in the pursuit of imagery or manipulative by resorting to gate keeping and image distortion?
These issues need to be studied by practitioners in the field of Media Psychology. The use of altered images in media for advertising, politics, and shock value is an important phenomenon that requires particular attention. We need to be able to determine how to assess use of these images from moral, ethical, and legal viewpoints. Information can be gathered and analyzed for public policy makers and
I agree Mike and you bring up a great point with the 9/11 photo. There are actually quite a few examples of doctored photos used for political deception and propaganda that people have uncovered over the years, some long before Photoshop existed. The following blog post lists some of the more infamous ones:
ReplyDeletehttp://designcrave.com/2009-09-22/photoshop-tricks-10-historic-political-photoshop-disasters/
Apparently, body image is not the only thing that Photoshop has put into peril. This is definitely an important media psychology issue and hope we get to discuss it further as a group!