Is the Economist’s new cover unethical??
July 7, 2010
So The Economist’s cover features President Obama looking quite troubled at the oil spill. He is pictured alone. It’s an iconic, emotional image. The problem: HE WASN’T ALONE. The magazine photoshopped the other people out. Ethical? Or not??
Check out the article here.
Advertisement
46 Comments
leave one →
When deciding whether the new Economist’s cover is unethical or not, my personal opinion corresponds with the latter. Although the cover may have seemed misleading by isolating President Obama, I do not believe that The Economist’s intentions were to lead their audience astray nor make a political statement. Honestly, I tend to agree with The Economist’s response to the accusations, stated by Emma Duncan, the deputy director of The Economist. She openly admits to the editing the photo; however, the accusations upon the reasoning to are false. She states that the magazine often edits photos to create humor or “to bring out the central character”, never to mislead. In this case, it was to focus on the central character aka President Obama. Duncan says that they edited out the other women, local parish president Charlotte Randolph, because it strayed attention away from the focal point and main topic of the story being written: Obama. In addition, no one knows who this random woman is nor does she have any part in The Economist’s story. Thus, there was no point of her appearance in the photo anyways.
I do not believe it is unethical because press is covered under the first amendment and therefore they should be able to express and say whatever they want. I think this picture helped them get their story across to viewers and gossip magazines (Perez Hilton) are always editing pictures why can’t they.
I believe that altering this photo is unethical only because of the message the altered photo is displaying. I believe this magazine edited the picture only to match their perception of the situation, which in turn is misleading the American people. They are portraying Obama as the the lone hero attempting to deal with the oil spill when he has a whole team of advisors helping him correct the situation. If the photo had not been altered, readers would have still understood the message that the President is trying to act on the crisis. The magazine was unethical in publishing this altered photograph because it was only to push their own bias onto the public.
I think it is OK to photo shop the picture as it displays Obama’s struggles as president. So he wasn’t alone at that exact moment, however the story covers his battle with the oil spill. He is president and is the lead figure. By editing the picture it makes him standout and that this is a problem that has to be fixed. It is up to him to make it happen. By cutting the others out is simply making the picture have more meaning. It is not an offensive move but an artistic one.
While the Economist claims that they did not edit the photo in order to mislead, upon reading the article that was given though the link I came upon this statement, “Reuters has a strict policy against modifying, removing, adding to or altering any of its photographs without first obtaining the permission of Reuters and, where necessary, the third parties referred to,” Thomson Reuters said in a statement on Sunday. I believe that even if their intentions were to accentuate the battle with Obama and the oil spill crisis, editing the photo as so is not only ethically wrong, but silly and unnecessary.
The Economist’s response was this, “We removed her not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers.”
If she was unknown, just solve the “puzzle” in the article! One brief line saying who she was and who she was associated with is enough, the Americans that are reading this are not all stupid.
I don’t think the magazine was unethical in photo shopping the picture of Obama although it is giving a false message out to the American people, in reality Obama isn’t the sole individual fighting the oil spill. The oil spill has had an effect on the entire country, Obama as well as his administration along with many Americans are dealing with this catastrophe.
I think to judge The Economist’s ethics, you have to look at it from different angles. In one sense it is unethical because this is a big name magazine and should be obligated to tell, or in this case show, the truth. Those could Obama’s advisers, and by photoshopping them out, it makes it seem like Obama is facing this disaster by himself when in truth he is not the only person involved in this issue. Yet if you look at the picture in an artistic sense, the altered picture is much more dramatic and will draw more attention. It also shows Obama’s frustration and the magnitude of this issue. So while it may have been unethical to cut those people out, it was effective in drawing attention and creating a dramatic picture of Obama and the entire nation facing this issue.
If we start by completely distorting pictures, and “photoshooting” people out of controversial pictures, what’s next? The Economist being as prominent as it is cannot misinform the public this way. There are standards that every publication should follow according to the importance of their audience. Not only is the picture bias, it is misinforming and giving the public a wrong image of the whole oil-spill dilemma. Even if you want to say that the picture is artistic, it is not the job of the economist to give the public artistic images, rather to inform us about dilemmas.
Of course this photograph is not unethical. News images get photoshopped all the time, as this one did, but the removal of other figures did not influence the message of the shot at all. If anything, it simply gives greater focus to Obama, the national leader who’s command the country is under; “Obama v BP” could even be seen as a positive slant on the story, portraying the president as a lone figure combating a now thoroughly demonized corporation charged with catastrophic business practices. Alternately, the white lettered subtitle may be a negative jab at Obama, the “damage” being done not limited to the environment but extending to his executive reputation. Long story short, the cover alone does not in any aspect represent unethical journalism, rather it may even facilitate a duel sided public debate. To bad nobody actually reads the economist.
I believe the answer to this can be found in the very first sentence of the article:
“It was the ideal metaphor for a politically troubled president.”
The key word in that sentence is “metaphor.”
I decided to further investigate the dictionary definition of that key word.
“1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance” (copied from Dictionary.com)
Now, if we simply replace “term or phrase” with the word “picture”, well, you get the point.
The picture of President Obama on the cover of The Economist was used primarily as a metaphor to symbolically represent his own struggle with the oil spill issue. Therefore, since a metaphor is defined as “something to which it is NOT LITERALLY APPLICABLE”, The Economist was in no way being unethical when they photoshopped that picture.
The use of photo editing is frequently taken as a negative act. It could be to create a false image, sensationalize events, or paint an inaccurate picture. This form of photo editing involving president Obama does fit into those categories. The editor’s explanation for the editing makes perfect sense. The picture was accompanying an article concerning president Obama. The man and woman in the picture do not have any relevance to the article. Why shouldn’t he be the only focus? It is true the picture takes on a much more dramatic tone after editing, but the oil spill is one of the most dramatic events in U.S. history. The picture puts emphasis on president Obama, conveys the sheer magnitude of the event, and draws more attention to the issue of the oil spill. With all the logical explanations it is clear this photo is ethical.
I believe this cover is not unethical. The Economist is simply displaying their right of freedom of speech and showing concern for how the country is being controlled. Yes, they are bashing Obama and as Americans we should have respect for him, but in this case people need to be aware of what is going wrong in this country. Obama obviously did not handle this problem well and needs to fix the situation soon. He is not the one who is in sole blame for the spill, but he in the powerhead of America and needs to handle this situation correctly. The spill is just another problem that is heaved upon Obama and is showing his true colors as a leader; The Economist just exercised what their honest opinion is, and it should not be frowned upon.
In regard to The Economist’s Obama vs. BP cover controversy, before one can make judgment calls on photographic ethics, or any ethics for that matter, one needs cultural standards to evaluate them against.
According to the preamble of the National Press Photographers Association’s (NPPA) code of ethics, visual journalists operate as trustees of the public.
Rule one of their code states, “Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.”
Rule six states, “Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.”
This press related organization was founded in the US and has been around since 1946. It should be noted that The Economist is a UK produced magazine based in London.
Whether Britain’s or the rest of the world’s photojournalism standards are the same as American standards is another discussion, but if we apply the two rules above to the June 17, 2010, cover of The Economist, then it is a ethics violation by NPPA standards.
That said, examples of what can perhaps be considered less offensive violations of photography ethics are plentiful.
For example, Allan Detrich, an award-winning photographer for the Toledo Blade, was fired in 2007 after he admitted to digitally altering photographs he published for the paper. One of those photos is listed below. You make the call.
http://www.ltcstudio.com/blog/Clip.jpg
The bottom line is ethics are based on a culture’s morals. For more thoughts on the issue of photojournalism and visual ethics, visit the Web pages below.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070415/NEWS08/704150316
Misleading of actual photo? Yes. Unethical? No.
The Economist can do this. And they did do it. Evoking reader’s emotions, making Obama look like a softie, and generally just being very corporately intellectual makes the cover a winner for The Economist.
Emily makes an excellent and relevant point by defining metaphorical use. There is no literal application here, just a smart ploy to put the tool to use.
N.B. When Jack at The Economist’ said “we should just photoshop them out” his colleagues rewarded him with congratulatory spiel and it did wonders for Jack’s self-esteem and overall sense of identity.
I do not believe that what the Economist did here was unethical. In their premier article they are focusing on how Obama has handled and dealt with the oil spill disaster. The other two people in the original picture have nothing to do with the main point of The Economist’s article. Therefore, I do agree with what the magazine said in its defense, that having the two extra people in the picture may confuse readers. It would distract them from the fact that what we are focusing on here is how Obama deals with the spill, not how the three of them are working on it. Even though it seems like the editors here are trying to place the fault on Obama and single him out by putting the spotlight on him, they must do this in order to center the readers in on the main person they are talking about in their article, and to not add extraneous variables (peoples) that may confuse readers.
Yes, it is unethical that the Economist photoshopped this photo of Obama. Where is the line drawn when photoshop is ethical? Roger Sinclair states, ““If you use photo editing software to produce a piece of art, [then that’s] fine.” I completely agree with Sinclair’s statement. It’s one thing when you’re creating art, but it’s another when you’re reporting the news, the FACTS of a story. Making material changes and transforming or altering an image to make it seem to be something different is wrong and unethical. You’re not showing the true facts of what happened–you’re almost creating a lie for the public nation. Although the writers were trying to paint a picture or a metaphor of the devastating oil spill for their audience, that still could have been accomplished with the original photo. Even cropping Admiral Allen and Ms. Randolph out of the photo could have painted the image they wanted to portray. But photoshopping them out of the photo should be out of the question.
In defense of the world of photojournalism, I believe that the front cover of the Economist is unethical. The cover consists of a photo which intends to tell a story. True photojournalists do not photoshop or edit their photos; they let them stand as they are. This photo has been manipulated so that it sends a much different message than the original. There is no integrity in this photo. If this is the angle the magazine wanted to represent, then the editor should’ve delegated someone to take a more appropriate photo or redesign the cover. While I love the advantages our technologically inclined society enjoys, this is taking honesty away from journalism and increasing skepticism. News should be reliable, we shouldn’t have to analyze to such an extent or feel tricked.
I don’t think the editing of the photo was unethical at all. Yes, Obama had other people there. However, the editing could draw more people into read it, and is far more dramatic. Although he does have a team of advisers, I would say Obama feels alone on this issue. Who does the American people look to for answers? Not his advisers. We look to Obama. I feel like a lot of the burden of the oil spill falls on Obama, and the picture does a great job conveying this message.
I do not think its unethical to photoshop the picture. I think it was simply a method to sale. The storyline would be more interesting if it said “Obama v BP” as opposed to a simple title of “The Oil Spill”. I think this photoshop made sense. Obama representing the United States. His standpoint on the health of our economy is what The Economist was trying to get at. How can WE as a country get past the oil spill? How can WE as a country help our economy grow? Obama is just an item of representation. Because of his title as President, teh article draws more readers. His personal involvement in going to see about the oil spill draws more readers. Unlike, previous presidents who probably would’ve worked from the Oval Office and sent people to represent them.
I do not believe that the photo is completely unethical. It is clear that freedom of speech by the press covers the direct situation. However just because it is legal does not mean that it is in the best interest of the population to be exposed to it. The Economist is a publication of high caliber and dedicated follows I feel that it was unnecessary for the cover of the magazine to so blatantly try and “fool” their readers.
I don’t think this cover is unethical AT ALL! How many times while George W. Bush was in office did we hear “This isn’t the Iraq War, it’s Bush’s War”? Or the new health care plan referred to as “Obama-Care” even though there are houndreds of other people involved with both of those situations?? This cover is just stating what people already say, that Obama stands alone because he is the head of the United States. The picture is not unethical, the way people view the situation and what the picture represents is.
I feel that The Economist’s new cover is far from unethical. The cover is portraying our president in a light that is suitable for the crisis at hand. Despite the fact that his family is photo shopped out of the picture and that can be seen as manipulation, I feel that it is a great message to our country either way. A message that the leader of our country and the one in power of making the most critical decisions, is at a loss for words and feels completely distraught. I also feel that this magazine cover evokes a sense of loneliness Obama may feel. No other president, let alone another country, has experienced a tragedy like this and Obama is clueless on what to do.
In my opinion, the photo is not unethical. The Economist simply wanted to show the picture in a symbolic way. There is no way anyone could tell you that the picture would have had the same effect if the other people were left in the picture. The Economist subheading states “Obama v Bp”. In order to correlate this idea with the picture, they had to photoshop. It should be obvious to everyone that the oil problem is not solely lying in the hands of president Obama. The economist was trying to show our president dealing with an international issue. Even if the article chose to criticize Obama, having that picture on the cover would not change anything or make it unethical. I have no problem with the photo being edited. Nothing is being done to depict the president doing anything he was not
It is clear that the Economist wanted to make some sort of a statement when exposing this article. In my personal opinion, this picture is not unethical because of Freedom of the Press, which allows the media and or published material to freely express itself. So what if the picture was altered? The Economist wanted to make an impact on readers by cropping the other people out of the original picture; this obviously did make an impact in more ways than one. People it’s called making money and selling magazines!!! And The Economist has done so because of a little editing magic and imagination.
Personally, I can qualify this both ways. The picture was obviously meant to portray the Oil Rig in the middle of the page and by doing so, they would then have had the other two off-centered and falling off the page, making the picture look un-even and ametuerish. But on the other hand, it can be seen as though Obama is this great man thrust with the great task of cleaning this GREAT big problem. Of course, totally disregarding that that job is impossible without the team in charge of such a task. This results in the image appearing to empower Obama’s image and make him appear to be a great president. Everyone loves a hero.
As far as the cover being unethical, I feel that it really isn’t. What I do feel the magazine cover is, is misleading. Ever since the oil spill started, there has been controversy over whether or not Obama has been in the front lines enough to show Americans that he cares about what is going on and takes this disaster seriously. I personally feel with his few visits, he isn’t showing his concern as much as people would like. Yes, he is a busy man but this is a tough situation for everybody in the US. By the Economist showing him “alone” at the oil spill when in fact he is with other people, it makes people believe that he is more involved than what is being reported and tries to capture raw emotion of being alone in this battle and make a statement to people saying he is trying and is involved. It is very misleading and unfair.
Photos are altered all the time in order to give the viewer a different point of view to what is actually happening. I believe that it is a form of lying because it is not showing everything that is included in the photo. This is an unethical practice that many magazines do all the time, and unfortunately they get away with this a lot and get their point across. This photograph is showing the president by himself with his head down after looking at the oil rig disaster and the damage it has done in the gulf; but in reality the president is with people next to him and he may just be having a conversation and looking down at that moment.
I do not believe that this photo is unethical due to the fact that it was only photoshopped to prove a point, and not to promote propaganda or alter history. The statement “The damage beyond the spill” is representative of the fact that this is Obama’s defining hour; this is his Hurricane Katrina. However Obama handles the damage that the oil spill has caused will play a huge role in how people view his presidency for the months, years, and generations to come. Thus, the photo is not unethical because it is simply showing how huge the challenge Obama is facing really is.
I agree with Martin on this one. When analyzing this scenario through the lense of ethics, the basic questions of right and wrong must be asked. In this instance it was kind of a douchey move (wrong) to photoshop poor Obama all by himself gazing out at the worsening oil situation he promised he’d attack head on. This image is in great contrast to the fist-pounding and vocal Obama we saw speaking in the rain off the Gulf Coast weeks before. All in all it makes him out to be this defeated man. Like how did we trust this guy? But on the flip side, I feel like the cover does a utilitarian service by drawing attention to the crisis and calling for supporters. We need to back up Obama, take action to clean this up ourselves. Everyone can contribute. This cover may be slightly skewed, but that is a small prce to pay for the message i think it sends. So in the end the right outweighs the wrong.
I do not find the picture unethical because no matter how many people are in the picture the oil spill effects everyone no just Obama and his administration. I think this picture in my opinion is not unethical because of the Freedom of the Press, they can print anything they like to get the full effect so this picture just shows how it effects everyone closely, as an example of our president. I think they took the other people out because it hit everyone else harder knowing our president is getting affected by it as well.
The cover of the Economist is in no way unethical. The oil spill has been one of the greatest environmental disasters the United States has seen in a long time, and the cover portrays the frustration of President Obama being stuck between a rock and a hard place perfectly. While the oil was still gushing uncontrollably under the surface, the shrimping industry, environmental advocates, and hell, the whole nation were demanding prompt resolution.
What IS unethical though, is how BP altered the images of their Crisis Command Centers in an attempt to make it look like more was being done. I have no doubt in my mind that they were working as hard as they could, but they shouldn’t be deceiving the public in the process. Here is the link…
http://www.aolnews.com/article/why-would-bp-photoshop-its-crisis-command-center/19561136
Portraying the president as emotional and frustrated over what is quite frankly a VERY emotional and frustrating situation is reasonable. If it takes a little alteration to pull it off, it’s all good! But if you are deceiving the public like BP did in making their Crisis Command Centers look more busy than they actually were, now that is unethical.
I personally feel that what The Economist did to the picture was not unethical. They cropped and edited a picture in order to get their view and message across to other individuals. This process is done all the time in the media. In addition, the editing of this picture is a example of freedom of speech, which therefore is another reason why the photoshopping done to this picture is not unethical.
I believe that this cover is unethical. For one, it portrays Obama differently than what was the current stance in the actual photograph. Looking at the original photograph, it appears that Obama is listening to the other two near him as he analyzes the oil spill. However, with the two photo shopped out of the picture, Obama looks worried and troubled by the spill. It seems to me as if the magazine is trying to put out their opinion misleadingly through this photo. They’re trying to say that Obama is on his own for this one and what he decides becomes the outcome of the situation when in fact he has helpers by his side giving him insight on the oil spill.
I do not believe the cover of The Economist magazine is unethical. Although it is quite true there were two other individuals within an arm length of President Obama, nonetheless it should not be forgotten that he is the President of our United States of America. With all due respect to these two individuals but the slack ends with Mr. Obama. I believe the photo editing done on the cover more accurately describes all the emotion of the moment. The forever burning image of President Obama standing there alone as he is left to ponder the future fate of America is an iconic scene. In the face of a national crisis, Obama has to begin strategizing immediately whether he likes it or not. It is a stilling picture that not only captured the moment as it really is. The moment that oil started spewing into the Gulf, it was his problem first and foremost. As far as I am concerned the cover speaks louder with the president in an almost confused and dazed state. It most effectively mimicked what was the state of being for millions of Americans and an entire nation.
I think the cover of The Economist putting Barack Obama alone of the cover, making a clear alteration to the original picture, is not so much an ethical issue as an artistic decision. Placing the original picture on the front cover of a magazine would have looked inappropriate- readers would have looked at the cover, confused who the two unknown people are. Magazines should have artistic liberty- if other magazines can airbrush people to make them look thinner, The Economist editing a picture to make it more powerful, and less confusing, seems only logical.
The picture and caption go together so wonderfully. The message it portrays is huge. I don’t believe that cropping this picture was unethical at all. Ok, so he’s not standing there alone, but he has a lot on his plate due to the oil spill. Would you want to be the person handling the oil spill? I know I wouldn’t. Two people were left out of this picture, who cares, oil is spilling into our ocean.
I believe the Economist’s acted unethically by altering the photo of President Obama. When you see the original photo, it shows that he is discussing the oil spill with others and trying to come up with possible solutions. It doesn’t necessary illicit a somber or hopeless feeling, but rather shows that he is working to fix the problem. The photo they used makes it appear that Obama is in way over his head and that he is unsure of what to do. Looking at the cover, you can picture Obama thinking “what the hell do I do now?”, which clearly isn’t the case when you see the original. In addition to cropping out the people, they also altered the bottom of the picture. In the original, you can see that he is looking into the sand and that it is obvious they are discussing what actions to take next. However, in the photo they used for the cover, it appears that he is staring aimlessly into the water. I just believe it is unethical to alter a photo when it clearly changes what your mind thinks when you see the original and the cropped version.
In my opinion, this photograph is not unethical. The reason for this is because now a days people use photoshop to enhance the picture. Most celebrity magazines are “used” to photoshopping the front cover to create a more appealing person. Whether its lightening Beyonce’s skin color or snapping flab off an arm. The purpose of leaving only Obama in the picture could be solely for artistic reasoning. The Economists could also have done this to engage more readers because the cropping made it more dramatic. However some viewers interpret this picture as unethical because the original picture appears as if Obama is having a conversation about the oil spill with the other people. In the new cropped photo its as if Obama is deeply thinking. This could really be interpreted as pointing fingers towards Obama. “Obama vs. Oil spill”. Common sense the oil spill was not all Obama’s fault. Therefore this photo is definitely misleading but not unethical.
Personally, when trying to make a decision if digitally changing pictures is ethical based on this picture, I would not say its not. However, the changes made to this picture are not that grave. By photoshopping the two people out and leaving obama alone, the magazine portrays a though they would not have been able to do otherwise. I do understand, however, that these practices of photo editing can be taken out of hand. The line between ethical and nonethical is really depends on the readers. So, I say every photo that is photoshopped, by curtesy of the publication, should carry along a small caption describing the changes.
While I do not believe the economists cover is unethical, it is clearly misleading. I do not believe the economist was trying to portray Obama in a false demeanor or act, but was rather attempting to provide a cover photo that would work well with their main article. In the article they wrote about how Obama specifically is working to fix the oil spill, so rather than provide a picture in which he is listening to others give him advice, they wanted to show him in a manner of reflection, so while they did mislead some readers, I do not believe what they did was unethical.
YES! i feel this is an unethical peice of photography. it puts the focus on Obama, and represents him as the mistake and the one individual associated with the catastrophe. even though the picture is atrocious, Obama haters will probably buy an drea dthi smagazine hoping to bash OBama. the way they protray him in this cover, is unethical and very distraught for the readers. i feel they should write a retraction or another cover to better Obama’s image
I don’t feel as though the altered picture presented by the economist was unethical. The picture was only presenting a visual image of the issue at hand. Sure the picture can be taken out of context by setting the President up for some type of blame for the relative in act on the issue but our first amendment allows the economist report the story in whatever way it feels fit as long as its not libel or slanderous. Many different news publications present news in very misrepresented ways such as celebrity and entertainment news, so if the altering of this Economist cover is unethical than the majority of the news we receive can be considered unethical. In the end the picture is only one persons viewpoint on the situation.
Altering the photo is unethical, but only because it changes the message that the original photo tried to send. In bold is “Obama vs. BP” which a reader can obviously not relate with the original photo. By himself, Obama looks deep in thought. He appears to be worrying about the impact of the oil spill. In the original photo, Obama is assessing the damage with other inspectors. The hype surrounding the fact that the photo was altered was overdone because photo shopping is done every day. However, in this case altering the photo changed the message that the photographer meant with the original picture.
I do not think it is unethical. Other magazines try to make it seem as if they doctored the photo in order to lie to the readers. They simply edited to make it more symbolic of the disaster that happened with the oil spill. Without the woman, it seems that Obama is pondering over this problem rather then just listening to what the woman is saying. It’s not as if they drastically changed the meaning of the photo. They doctored it to show how great the problem is that Obama is facing rather then making it a way to sell more magazines. Today, most magazines edit their covers using photoshop and it goes unmentioned, just because it is about a bigger story, i feel as if it has been blown out of proportion.
I don’t think this cover is unethical. I agree with Emma Duncan’s e-mail in response to the issue. As with quotes, pictures can be interpreted in a different tone too. Being a photographer myself, I would choose to crop the picture and remove Mrs. Randolph as well. Having an unidentified woman cropped halfway out of the picture in the bottom right hand corner of a very popular magazine would not seem professional. In my opinion, the editors made a proficient decision to focus on Obama and the issue of the oil spill. Just because Obama was on the cover “contemplating” this disaster by himself, it was bound to become a controversy.
I don’t believe it was unethical to photoshop the other people out of the picture on the cover of the Economist because it was simply to prove a point. Photoshop is clearly used in all magazines to perfect pictures. The cover is portraying President Obama looking down in the water thinking about what to do next. The significance would not be as great with the distraction of the other people; therefore, I think the picture accurately demonstrates the point trying to be proved.