Religion and Media Ethics

Possibly one of the most controversial magazine covers of all time, Time released this cover with the related article concerned about the "death of God" movement that surfaced in the 1960s. Evoking German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's question of "is God dead?" this cover and its article upset some religious readers.

This was the first time the magazine had ever used just type on its cover without an associated photo. The story, which concluded that religion was dead, included the opinions of Christian theologians including Gabriel Vahanian, whose book "The Death of God" helped spark the radical movement. It received heavy backlash from readers and Vahanian's movement slowly faded away.

A previous article, from October 1965, had investigated a trend among 1960s theologians to write God out of the field of theology. The 1966 article looked in greater depth at the problems facing modern theologians, in making God relevant to an increasingly secular society.

The issue drew heavy criticism, both from the broader public and from clergymen. Much of the criticism was directed at the provocative magazine cover, rather than the content of the article. The cover – all black with the words "Is God Dead?" in large red text – marked the first time in the magazine's history that text with no accompanying image was used. In 2008, the Los Angeles Times named the "Is God Dead?" issue among "10 magazine covers that shook the world" (Los Angeles Times)

The publication of the article immediately led to a public backlash. Editorial pages of newspapers received numerous letters from angry readers, and clergymen vehemently protested the content of the article (Georgia Encyclopedia). But in its issue of December 26, 1969, Time ran a follow-up cover story asking, "Is God Coming Back to Life?". In April 2009, Newsweek magazine ran a special report on the decline of religion in the United States under the title "The End of Christian America". This article also referenced the radical "death of God" theological movement of the mid-1960s (The Daily Beast).

But the question remains — how ethical is it for magazines and newspapers to bring up a controversial topic, such as religion, especially when they decide to plaster it on the front cover of the publication?

News organizations are struggling to adjust and to cover stories about religion with fewer religion reporters. At the same time, they are recognizing new outlets for religion news and commentary on the Internet and are scrambling to keep up with growing interest in stories about faith.

In a study done by The University of Akron,  two-thirds of the public agreed that there is too much sensationalism in religion coverage—a view held by less than one-third of reporters. The differences are less stark on other questions: one-quarter of the public says that religion coverage is “accurate and fair” compared to two-fifths of reporters , and almost two-fifths of the public agrees that the “news media is hostile to religion and religious people,” while just one-quarter of reporters agree.

In addition, the study shows that the public and reporters have different views of public reactions to religion coverage. More than one-half of the public says that “non-religious people are too sensitive about religion stories” compared to one-third of reporters. At the same time, nearly three-fifths of reporters agree that “religious people are too sensitive to religion stories” compared to less than one-half of the public (USC).

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-861
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-10magazinecovers14-july14-pg,0,5472017.photogallery?index=7
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19691226,00.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/03/the-end-of-christian-america.html
http://annenberg.usc.edu/%7E/media/PDFs/winston-bliss.ashx

Ethics of Editing Photographs

Fashion magazines often photoshop models to look thinner than they really are, but this time, France's Numero magazine actually airbrushed supermodel Karlie Kloss to make her look slightly fleshier.

In stunning before-and-after photos unveiled in the Daily Mail, the protruding ribs on the 5-foot-11 Karlie Kloss are smoothed out so she does not look as a rain-thin and emaciated as she does in the original black-and-white shot.

While Numero magazine has not commented on the digital editing, it was likely done on stem controversy in light of the fashion industry's purported initiative to promote a healthy body image by banning the use of anorexic-looking models.

In December 2011, Vogue Italia was slammed after publishing nude photos of Karlie Kloss looking impossibly thin. While Kloss has said she is naturally skinny, Vogue came under fire after pro-anorexia websites began plastering their forums with the photos of the scrawny Kloss as "thinspiration."

Soon after, Vogue magazine launched a "Health Initiative" pact under which 19 international editors agreed to promote a healthy body image within the modeling industry. Included in the six-point agreement signed by the editors — including U.S. editor Anna Wintour — are pledges to not use anorexic or underage models.

1. We will not knowingly work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder. We will work with models who, in our view, are healthy and help promote a healthy body image.
2. We will ask agents not to knowingly send us underage girls and casting directors to check IDs when casting shoots, shows and campaigns.
3. We will help to structure mentoring programs where more mature models are able to give advice and guidance to younger girls, and we will help to raise industry-wide awareness through education, as has been integral to the Council of Fashion Designers of America Health Initiative.
4. We will encourage producers to create healthy backstage working conditions, including healthy food options and a respect for privacy. We will encourage casting agents to keep models unreasonably late.
5. We encourage designers to consider the consequences of unrealistically small sample sizes of their clothing, which limits the range of women who can be photographed in their clothes, and encourages the use of extremely thin models.
6. We will be ambassadors for the message of healthy body image.

As the textbook says, where to draw the line is a decision best made in the newsroom rather than at the scene. It was not necessarily unethical to photograph Karlie Kloss while noticing the thinness in the images. However, it was an important and ethical decision to retouch the image before placing it on the magazine.

Most editors and photographers nowadays agree that the manipulation or staging of news photos is generally more culpable than manipulation or staging of featured photos. The reason for different standard for news photography is a presumption that while art may be manipulated, information may not (textbook). However, it is important that the same standard of visual truth telling can and should be applied to advertising as well.

The photo of Karlie Kloss, although intended for the better of society's view on models as well as the better reputation of the magazine, should not have been retouched because it is false advertising unless otherwise mentioned on the magazine. The debate over edited photographs is emotionally charged and constantly changing as new technology emerges.

I agree with the textbook in regards to how photojournalists should operate under this version of Kant's categorical imperative: Don't deceive a trusting audience with manipulated reality and don't offend an unsuspecting audience with your gritty reality. Photographers are dealing with a trust that readers and viewers place in them. If that trust is betrayed, it will be slow to return.

_____

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2208900/Numero-magazine-airbrushes-Karlie-Klosss-ribs-Vogue-shoot-sparked-eating-disorder-controversy.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/magazine-airbrushes-skinny-model-s-protruding-ribs-to-stem-anorexia-backlash

http://www.examiner.com/article/model-details-extreme-dieting-smoking-drug-use-ahead-of-new-york-fashion-week

http://www.examiner.com/article/vogue-editors-launch-health-initiative-we-won-t-use-anorexic-or-underage-models

International Privacy and Ethics

Photos of Duchess of Cambridge Catherine Middleton sunbathing topless while on vacation in France continued to saturate the media in the past week as the Duke and Duchess win their first battle in an attempt to block further publication.

The scandal began on Friday, a day after Middleton delivered her first official speech overseas. Closer, which featured the photos of the Duchess with the headline, “Oh My God,” attempted to defend their decision of publishing the photos. 

The French magazine said in a statement on its website that the photos would only appear in the French, not the British edition, and therefor there was no harm in the publication. The magazine also added that the photos were not degrading.

Though the court ruled in favor of the royal family, the editor of the magazine that ran exclusive shots of the Duchess of Cambridge topless has defended their publication on the grounds that the images are not degrading. 

“These photos are not in the least shocking,” said Laurence Pieau, editor of the French edition of Closer.  “They show a young woman sunbathing topless, like the millions of women you see on beaches.”

This stopped only the French from continuing with the publication of the photos. A few days later, Irish publication The Irish Daily Star and Italian publication Chi published more topless photos of Duchess of Cambridge Catherine Middleton despite the legal action that the royal family took to block further publication.

“There can be no motivation for this action other than greed,” a St. James’s Palace spokesperson told the BBC this weekend in regard to the Irish publication. The spokesperson also commented that the magazines’ decisions to publish the photos could lead to a longer court case where damages will be sought.

The royal scandal raises many privacy and ethical dilemmas.

The Duchess had a reasonable expectation of privacy because, as the French court ruled, she was “on the terrace of a private home, surrounded by a park several hundred meters from a public road, and being able to legitimately assume that they are protected from passers-by.”

Also, Middleton did not sign up for this when she chose to join the royal family. Still, it seems that there is no such thing as privacy anymore. Another example of lack of privacy are the nude photograph of Price William’s younger brother, Prince Harry, partying in a Las Vegas hotel.

The photographs of Price Harry surfaced the Internet last month and made headlines around the world. In Harry’s case, however, the palace contacted the Press Complaints Commission, which advised British newspapers to not publish the photos.

But beyond privacy, one can only wonder about the ethics of the editors of these magazines and for that matter, the photographer as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/16/lawyers-seek-injunction-over-kate-middleton-topless-photos-palace-says/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/14/kate-middleton-topless-photos-closer-magazine-editor-laurence-pieau_n_1883625.html

Magazines to Portray Real Girls

A young ballet dancer from Maine gathered 25,000 signatures in protest against Photoshopped images and presented them to Ann Shoket, editor-in-chief of Seventeen. In defense, the magazine said in a statement, "We feature real girls in our pages and there is no other magazine that highlights such a diversity of size, shape, skin tone and ethnicity."


When a teenage girl flips through the pages of Seventeen magazine, they see what is real — no more Photoshopped pictures of unrealistic body images. The magazine has pledged to keep their images real after 14-year-old Julia Bluhm gathered a group of girls to protest and boycott the magazine for tweaking pictures instead of showing what is really beautiful.

However, when trying to target Teen Vogue for the same issue, the group of young girls did not get the same reaction from the editors. The magazine, which has a circulation of more than 1 million readers, did not agree to the “Body Peace Treaty.” Instead, they gave copies of Teen Vogue to the girls protesting to take home.

If magazines like Seventeen and Teen Vogue, as well as other fashion and lifestyle magazines, have been able to get away with manipulating images to sell more, how can we believe anything we see anymore? Photoshopped photos show a “perfect picture.” It makes women feel dissatisfied with themselves because women compare to what they see in the magazines they read.

It sells creams, plastic surgery, make up, clothing, hair treatments, gym memberships, and even more magazines! It sells all kinds of things to imperfect people seeking the same kind of illusionary perfection. Perfect one-dimensional pictures that have no bearing on a person’s inner beauty.

Just as story telling can portray the truth with an accurate accounting of the facts, it could just as easily become fiction with a few changes. Fake and manipulated photographs began circulating no longer after the invention of photography.

When photography was first invented, it overwhelming power came from the fact that it recorded nature more realistically than any other art form had ever done before. What happened to that, though?

Correcting, manipulating and enhancing images in Photoshop (or any other image editing program), we must deal with question of both ethics and aesthetics. Ethics are a set of rules that we invent that define what we think is good and bad. Aesthetics, on the other hand, deal with the nature of beauty, art and taste, and things that are pleasing in appearance.

With digital processing, there is almost no limit to what can be done to an image, and many things are done to images with the best intentions. The problem is that the pursuit of aesthetics often violates our ethics.

Changes can be made to images that are undetectable, so much so that there is now discussion that photographs will no longer be allowed as evidence in courts of law. Viewers know full well that anything can be done to an image these days.

If you add something that wasn’t there in the original scene in movies, you’ve crossed the line from a documentary art form into a fictional one. This may or may not be OK in some cases, depending on what your purpose is. So, when it comes down to it, the important questions when we manipulate an image are, why are we doing this, and what are our purposes and intentions?

In the end, manipulation of photos becomes a problem and a question of ethics when the artist or photographer leis about his motivations, methods, an conclusions and presents images with the purpose of intentionally deceiving the viewer.

http://www.wibw.com/home/nationalnews/headlines/14_Year_Old_Pushes_Seventeen_Magazine_To_Go_Natural_161515705.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-11/news/32636622_1_teen-vogue-emma-stydahar-julia-bluhm