Comments on all things journalism and answers to questions from readers about news coverage and operations at the Tracy Press.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

What's meat got to do with the state Constitution?

A Stockton lawyer has asked me to sign an affadavit that promises that the Tracy Press didn't alter a photograph we ran a month or so ago of a man lifting a large bucket at a cultural event in town. Apparently, there's a workers compensation case and a question of whether the man really did lift that vat of raw red meat.

I've refused to sign the affadavit, because to do so would waive my rights to the
California Shield Law — Article 1, Section 2, California Constitution — which provides legal protections to journalists from releasing unpublished information obtained during newsgathering.

If I were to sign the affadavit, the lawyer might be satisfied and ask for nothing else. But it opens the door to be asked to testify in court with an eyewitness account, which would jeopardize the newspaper's status as an independent observer.

The answer to the question of whether we altered the photograph is simple: No. It is against our ethics policies to alter photos. In addition to the guidelines we enacted in 2005, we also follow those set forth by the
National Press Photographers Association. I've pasted those guidelines below:

Photojournalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.

Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.

Be complete and provide context when photographing subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one’s own biases in the work.

Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.

While photographing subjects, do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.

Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.

Do not accept gifts, favors or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.

Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.

Ideally, photojournalists should:

Strive to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.

Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media.

Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view.

Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one's own journalistic independence.

Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects.

Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.

Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. Photojournalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it.

Digital file standards: Photographers, editors or graphic artists will not alter or manipulate digital photo files in any way other than to color correct or correct camera-based flaws in the image. All changes to files will be to create the most accurate representation of the image as it appeared as possible. No photos will be digitally altered to add or remove content that was not in the original photo file. Photo illustrations that are clearly identified as such will have some leeway, as they are created by the photographer in an artistic manner and may have digital manipulation to enhance the artistic appeal.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So are we to understand that Felicia Crowton's photo was unaltered? Gives a whole new meaning to 'wide lens.'
Just a little levity in the face of a gnarly legal decision. Good job, Cheri. You are both knowledgable about the laws that govern your discipline and also apply them well.

Anonymous said...

So are we to understand that Felicia Crowton's photo was unaltered? Gives a whole new meaning to 'wide lens.'
Just a bit of levity to lighten things up while wrestling with a gnarly legal decision.

Nice job of balancing both your considerable knowledge of the laws that govern your discipline while also applying them wisely, Cheri.

Amanda said...

A great reminder! Thanks.