June 1994 had media around North America abuzz about the arrest of OJ Simpson (an American football player) on murder charges. The OJ trial was plastered all over the news at the time, as well as numerous other mainstream media outlets. One medium received a particularly high degree of attention, but unlike other news sources, people looked to this medium for the way in which OJ was portrayed...inaccurately that is.
The June 1994, just a short time after OJ Simpson's arrest, the previous football player appeared on the front cover of TIME magazine. However, the photo of Simpson was greatly manipulated from the original mug-shot photograph that appeared (unaltered) on the cover of Newsweek magazine (see below):
TIME magazine was subsequently accused of manipulating the photograph to make Simpson's skin colour darker to make him look "menacing". By TIME magazine darkening the skin colour, it was implied that they were trying to connote any fears against the African-American population. By making his skin "more black" the magazine attempted to allude to the high black crime rate in the United States, drawing on any racist connotations against blacks and visually darkening the image to make it look dirty and dingy. By doing so, TIME magazine was attempting to draw on human emotions of race and crime, to ultimately produce a dramatic and more compelling front cover to the magazine.
What are the implications for the reader? Skewed imagery leading to skewed opinion and information. TIME magazine manipulated its readership through the act of manipulating the photo of OJ. Through that photo manipulation, TIME magazine marred its reputation in being a reputable news source, and instead established itself as a mainstream media source that publishes deceptive information. As hard as TIME may have tried to clean up the bad press from that news story, their readers won't have the same trust in the news magazine. Once mainstream media loses the trust and respect of citizens, it is very difficult to get it back.
More recently, the popular news broadcaster Fox News was found guilty of manipulating photographs of their competitor in July 2008. It was discovered that, in resp
onse to a New York Times story that suggested the Fox network’s ratings might be slipping, the co-hosts of “Fox & Friends” broadcasted photos of Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe (see right). The photos were doctored to make the journalist appear less attractive with changes in skin tone, teeth colour and dark shadows around the eyes to make them appear beady. When questioned about the incident, a Fox spokeswoman said the executive in charge of “Fox and Friends” was on vacation and not available for comment but she tried to smooth over the incident by stating that altering photos for humorous effect is a common practice on cable news stations. However, the question remains: how does this type of photographic manipulation affect their citizen viewership, as well as the credibility of their news broadcasts?
When Fox News made the conscious decision to alter the photos of the two New York Times reporters, they also made the conscious decision to deceive their audience. When photographs are altered, mainstream media are no longer being honest to citizens and as a result citizens lose trust and reliability in mainstream media. The photographic alterations that were played off to be a joke between news media, have a lasting effect on the viewer as one learns that they must be critical of everything that is being presented to them. And contrary to the hopes of news broadcasters, this is how citizens lose hope and trust in news media.
It is interesting to note the shift in the presentation of manipulated photographs in mainstream news media over the years. In June 1994, the altered photograph of OJ Simpson on the cover of TIME magazine was shocking and citizens were horrified that news media would deceive them in that way. However, in July 2008 the altered pictures of the two New York Times journalists by Fox News were more or less taken in stride. This proves that society as a whole is losing trust in their news media. Perhaps it's a positive thing that people are now being more critical of the news, no longer accepting information as it is presented and taking an active interest in the pursuit of the truth. Yet at the same time, it is pathetic that society has to dodge so many instances of misinformation that are being presented as truth by popular mainstream media. At this point, I doubt that mainstream media will be able to win back the credibility they once had.
