Summary of Debating the Rules and Ethics of Photojournalism

Step One: 

This year's World Press Photo contest had 20% of entries disqualified. Significant alterations, including adding and taking some elements out of the images, were the reason. This number is three times as many last year's figure. There is a growing concern about this problem. The article is a forum of sorts for the photojournalism community.

Michelle McNally, former WPP juror says that digital photography is now the accepted way of the industry, and that new rules need to be developed to preserve the integrity of the profession. Many of the disqualifications happened during the comparison of the finished photo to the RAW file. In many cases, the two images were very dissimilar. "Sloppy" photoshop manipulation was another reason for disqualification. Once the jury saw the evidence of manipulation, they were "shocked" by the high aesthetic quality of the image. It brought up concern that people could feel lied to and cheated by photojournalists, if this kind of alteration became accepted as normal. The fact that the photographers didn't feel they had done anything wrong reinforces the idea that the WPP needs to revise its rules.

Melissa Lyttle, indie photographer, talks about one difference between the WPP and POYi rules: the latter does not require a RAW file with each entry. If one is needed, it is provided, and photo dis-qualifiers are caught at the "front end rather than the back." She goes on to say that there's a "slippery slope" leading to acceptance of this practice and is concerned with the irreparable damage loss of trust would do to the profession.

An anonymous photographer brought up the fact that comparing finished images to RAW files was not an ideal way to judge a photo, since it has much more data than a negative does. The rules that are obvious and necessary are followed, according to anonymous. The implication is that the rules do not consider the very spirit of the discipline the award seeks to honor. 

Lars Boering, WPP managing editor, defends the contest rules, stating that there is "no indication that the rules are unclear to the participating photographers." The fact that the entrants willingly gave the RAW files along with the photographs, he claims, shows that they "understood the rules." Possible remedies, including an instructional video, have been discussed. Altering rules would require a general shift in the profession, and even then, some rules, like adding or removing material, will not be debated at all.

David Campbell talks about the difference between manipulation and processing, and of the importance of clarity and transparency in the WPP rules.

Patrick Baz talks about the feeling of sadness these issues bring to a lot of the community, and of how simply and easily manipulation can be done now, by anyone who has a computer. A "ten commandments" is needed for the profession, he says, lest abusers damage the "journalism" in "photojournalism", which is of higher importance.

Main Claims:

Manipulation has a very limited place in photojournalism.

Rules must be adhered to in order to preserve journalistic integrity.

The evolution of the profession's technology must be accounted for in the rules, which must be flexible enough to preserve the spirit of the profession.

The rules are often unclear.

Step Two:

There are two clearly delineated  sides to the debate on image manipulation and ethics in the field of photojournalism. One side claims that the rules of photojournalism contests are paramount and that they must be upheld to preserve the credibility and integrity of the profession. The other states that the onset of digital photography has brought too many new factors to the practice for the established rules to cover, and that revision and transparency, along with a sensitivity to the craft and its evolution, is needed.

Step Three:

I see no changes that have to be made at this time.

Step Four:
I reviewed Aaron's summary and found the structure very similar to my own.