Case Study "Faking Photos: is it ever Justified?"

My case is called: Faking Photos: Is it ever justified? In this case, a Computer Software Corporation wanted to build their plant-site in an area of a city, which housed a homeless shelter. A reporter for the metro newspaper confirmed the Corporation’s intentions. He also found out that the property owner would give his response to the Corporation in 3 days, as of whether or not he’s willing to sell. This would mean that the homeless shelter, among other properties in that area, would have to move. Upon this knowledge the newspaper editor assigns Steve Stone, a photographer, to take strong and emotional photographs of homeless people that lived in the shelter. The idea was to run a story about the homeless shelter and the fact that it couldn’t afford to move, along with photos of the homeless people that would be affected by the Corporation’s decision. The photos were needed as soon as possible since the decision to sell was to be made in 3 days. Unfortunately Stone (the photographer) was having difficulties taking the photos because the homeless would cover their faces, walk away or plead with him not to take the photos. After developing the photos he had taken, the photographer wasn’t satisfied with his work because it didn’t portray what his boss wanted. The photos didn’t show pain or struggle. Under such tight deadline, Stone calls his friends and asks them to pose for him as homeless people. The photos are taken in an alley near but not in the affected area or street. The photos were successful and the editor was so impressed that he ran the story the next day and even placed one photo on the front page of the newspaper. The day the photos are printed the newspaper and the Corporation receive calls protesting the plant-site. Later that same day, in a press conference, the Corporation indicates that it would be best to look into other plant locations in the city.

To evaluate my case, I will be using the Photographer’s Code of Ethics. This code of Ethics has various sections; I will be using the Responsibility of the Photojournalist section. According to its website, this is a guide for ethical business dealings, protecting the profession, the photographer, vendors, employee, subjects, clients and colleagues. 

To find out more about the Photographer’s Code of Ethics, you may visit:

http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3666

To speak about the Responsibility of the Photojournalist, I’d like to first refer to the word responsibility. According to Chapter 2 of our book Controversies in Media Ethics, to be responsible requires thought, decision-making, and action it is not just about obeying orders. To be responsible is to be unselfish, to consider and work for the benefits of others without expecting any kind of reward. 

The responsibilities of the photojournalists are as follows:

1. Photograph as honestly as possible, provide accurate captions, and never intentionally distort the truth in news photographs.
2. Never alter the content or meaning of a news photograph and prohibit subsequent alteration.
3. Disclose any alteration and manipulation of content or meaning in editorial feature or illustrative photographs and require the publisher to disclose that distortion or any further alteration.

This Code of Ethics is helpful in evaluating the ethical considerations of this case study because it relates directly to the case and outlines how a photographer should perform, even under deadline pressure. The first responsibility is to photograph as honestly as possible and it indicates that a photographer should never intentionally distort the truth in news photographs. I believe that the photographer in the case intentionally distorted the truth because the people in his photos were not really homeless. The photos were not honest. The second responsibility is to never alter the content or meaning of a photo, which is what the photographer in the case did when he asked his friends to pose as homeless people. The third responsibility states that the photographer should disclose any alteration and manipulation of content or meaning. The photographer in the case clearly did not disclose to his editor about the truth behind his photos. 

This Code of Ethics is not helpful in evaluating the ethical considerations of this case because the end result was for the good of homeless people and to prevent them from suffering. The editor needed photos of homeless people and that was what he received and the photos made the impact that he needed them to make. It raised social conscience in the people that called the newspaper and Corporation and it changed the minds of the corporate executives.

If we consider Mill’s Utility Principle and focus on the outcome, then we can say that the photographer was right to have friends pose as homeless people. If we look at the case from the editor’s point of view, we see that he wanted to run a story that would explain why the Corporation shouldn’t build its plant-site in that particular part of the city. The homeless shelter couldn’t afford to move and many homeless people would be affected by this Corporation’s decision to build their site there. The editor needed strong emotional photos that would evoke interest in the audience and the Corporate’s leaders. The outcome was that the Corporation declined to build their plant-site where the homeless shelter was. The outcome turned out to be what the editor wanted.

If we consider Kant’s Categorical Imperative and focus on the action, then we can say that the photographer was wrong or acted against his Code of Ethics. He did not portray the truth in his photos. Even though he didn’t alter the meaning of the photo, he didn’t disclose to his editor the truth behind the photo. He didn’t express his difficulties getting the photos that he needed. He didn’t have a caption that indicated the people in the photo weren’t really homeless. And of course that poses the question about audience reception, how would the audience react if they read a story about a homeless shelter, then see that the picture shows a person pretending to be homeless? I believe that disclosing the truth behind the action would not have had the same outcome or audience response.

What was most helpful in this case was that even though the photos didn’t show a real homeless person, the outcome helped many homeless people. The photographer was acting out of desperation because he needed to comply with what his boss wanted and he didn’t have a lot of time to do it. In the end he needed photos of homeless people and that was what he took. He was responsible with fulfilling his task, he thought about a solution to his problem, he made a decision and acted upon it. 

In my opinion the outcome of this case was not necessarily positive for everyone involved. The Corporation had chosen that site because it was in a run down part of the city. Having the Corporation build its plant-site there might have helped other people in the city by creating jobs, cleaning a run down part of the city and it would’ve brought financial gain to the property owner. To me the only ones that benefited from the Corporation’s decision were the homeless people and their shelter. So, faking photos could never be justified because even when one group may benefit from it in a positive way, there may be another group that will not benefit from it. And when the truth is not being portrayed in the photo it is still deceiving to the audience.