Private Presidential Pathways: last chance for "transparency?"

Of his famous photo of President John F. Kennedy, Tames said ""I wanted the blackness,
the mood that I saw with my eye."

Interested in seeing honest, revealing photographs of your American President on the job? You know – candid, un-choreographed visual records which give us glimpses of the human being occupying the most powerful office in the world?

If those kind of images might appeal to you, then run! As fast as you can, to the Averitt Center for the Arts in Downtown Statesboro. Don't delay, because this may be the last opportunity to see photographs like this.

The Averitt Center's main gallery will be featuring an exhibit titled "Private Presidential Pathways," displaying photographs by former New York Times photographer George Tames. While he covered many aspects of Washington, D.C. for nearly half-a-century, Tames developed a reputation for capturing unguarded, honest moments of Presidents with his camera.

What made Tames different were his instincts and persistence for finding something visually profound – his refusal to settle for the "herd" mentality that still often plagues news photography. Tames had an ability and desire to develop easy and informal access to powerful politicians, including – especially – the President.

Since Tames' death in 1994, both photography and politics have changed. The implementation of digital photography in reporting the news has accelerated the notion of being the first and the fastest, over all else. George Tames, on the other hand, emphasized thoroughness and familiarity to create his images. Tames was often the last to produce an image because he stayed later and shot longer than those clinging to the "herd."

And politicians have learned a lesson – all too well. Image is everything.

It started, perhaps, with Ronald Reagan. Tames daughter, Stephanie (who lives here in Statesboro), told me Wednesday that her father got frustrated with Reagan, who first made his mark as an actor in Hollywood and was quite comfortable with the traditional method of producing moving pictures, whether film or video. Television producers, editors, and their ilk seemed all-to-willing to produce multiple takes and get things "right."

A posed-but-spontaneous photo of Harry S. Truman.

Reagan was surprisingly uncomfortable with still photography, however. Once the photographer clicked the shutter, the record was made. Period. No re-takes. The image could be published. Or not. The President and his staff had no control over that.

 Stephanie Tames related a story about an image her father made of Reagan. It was an exercise in frustration. The newly-elected President invited photographers into the Oval Office. Tames wanted a picture of Reagan at work. Reagan simply wouldn't stop posing. Tames stayed longer than every one else. Finally fed up, he started packing up his gear. That's when the President picked up his papers and got back to work. And that's when Tames was able to rattle off a frame or two to get the real picture.

Today, in 2011, getting even that picture is practically impossible. Not saying that most Presidents haven't been concerned with their image, but each one since Reagan has become exponentially more guarded, especially when it comes to photography.

Much has been made of the news media's alleged infatuation with Barack Obama. It's been vilified by some. Parodied by others. However, I can tell you about one group of journalists that is not enamored with our sitting President - the pool of White House press photographers representing dozens of publications from all over the world.

It's ironic that a President who's election platform included a commitment to government "transparency" has become so elusive to those assigned to cover him.

The previous administration became frustratingly adept at limiting public appearances to simple, choreographed "photo ops" where photographers were typically allowed to make as many photographs as possible while walking between the entrance and exit of a room.

I participated in one of these events when I worked in Savannah and the G-8 conference was held in Sea Island in 2004. I got the honor of waiting hours to photograph George W. Bush and Russia's Vladimir Putin sitting in a small room in chairs next to each other. It was like a very short rock show with all the strobe lights going off as many photographers simply laid on their shutter releases until we were ushered (herded) out. The whole thing lasted about 20 seconds. Rattle rattle, here come the cattle.

After promising greater "transparency," the present administration has gone so far as to eliminate even the cattle call photo op. Right from the start, the photographers assigned to covering the White House were excluded from the President's first day in the Oval Office. From the controversial "do-over" oath of office. And a month later, from a historic meeting between the President and the Dalai Lama.

In all these instances, the White House preferred, instead, to allow only Official White House photographer Pete Souza to witness these events with his camera, who's images were subsequently distributed via the Flickr photo sharing web site. The response from photo editors everywhere was immediate.

... information is "more valuable to the public if you know where it's coming from."

Michael Oreskes, Managing Editor for U.S. News, the Associated Press

It's clear that the White House staff saw this as an opportunity to take advantage of the internet. To "democratize" the process of distributing photographs by allowing anyone to download these photos from Flickr rather than letting the wire services distribute pictures to subscribing news outlets. See for yourself: here's a link to the Flickr White House photostream. That's good, right?

Well, it's also clear this was seen as an opportunity to exert greater control over the image of the President. While the credibility of Pete Souza, a veteran news photographer and educator who also served as Ronald Reagan's personal photographer in the White House during the 1980s, is widely-respected, wire services refused to distribute these photographs based primarily on two concerns: 1) this practice eliminates the potential diversity of images available to the public, and 2) the difficulty of determining the authenticity of an image not produced by someone on their staff.

Changing of the guard. Lyndon B. Johnson eyes Richard M. Nixon.

Even in a clearly controlled situation, each photographer makes decisions about how to compose their photographs. When to click the shutter. How to interpret what they witnessed. And each publication makes a choice about which photographs to publish.

No more. What's the harm, you say? Well, in an era where the authenticity of every digital photograph is in question, a multitude of photographers shooting the same event helps minimize the potential for deception. Photographers, or editors, or staffers in charge of publicity, are unlikely to manipulate, digitally or otherwise, photographs or situations for their own purposes if there are a multitude of images available from different sources.

One of the core principles that makes the news media relevant and useful is its diversity of voices and points-of-view. Information often becomes credible when a consensus is produced from many independent sources. And this principle is just as true of photography as any other medium of communication.

Ultimately, the question for you, the audience, is whether or not you are satisfied with our government representatives being the only source of visual information about themselves. I'm all for breaking with tradition as long as it serves a greater good. Are you being best served by this policy?

 Before you answer, though, please go see Tames' photographs. They will be on display until June 15.

He left us with lasting images of our Presidents. Ones that really stick in our minds, individually and collectively.

 Tames' photographs are ones that tell us something of the human beings who occupied the office of the President of the United States – their emotions. Their personal style. Their egos. Their strengths. And sometimes their frailties.

Why are these images so important? Why am I telling you to run – as fast as you can – to see them?

Because we may never see their like again.

The Averitt Center’s main gallery is open Tuesday-Friday from 10 a.m. – 7 p.m. and on Saturdays from 10 a.m. – 4 p.m.

The cost of photographing war and tragedy

I have not blogged in a long time. Balancing a demanding job and a home life have drained me recently. Today, given many recent world developments, I simply felt compelled.

While chronicling Statesboro and Bulloch County is my primary role as a photojournalist , I still feel a strong kinship with those who choose a larger role on the world's stage.

I probably will never be able to change the minds of those who see some photojournalists as nothing more than paparazzi who choose to cover tragedy instead of celebrity – vultures preying on human suffering for the sake of personal recognition and awards. Or appealing to base, morbid human curiosity.

However, I firmly believe there is a higher calling abided by many, if not most, photojournalists who chase human conflict all over the world.

There will always be a debate about the value of photographs depicting tragedy. It's a necessary and healthy debate, in my opinion. Amongst the photographers who make them. Amongst the editors who choose to publish them. And amongst the audiences who view them.

This recently became the topic at a photography conference in Italy, and photographer/writer Enzo dal Verme blogged about it: Misery Is Photogenic.

However, I feel compelled to share some thoughts and links about those who have recently suffered imprisonment, horrible injuries, or even lost their lives in order to enlighten us.

The conflict in Libya, especially, has been costly for photojournalists. Numerous journalists have been captured by pro-Qaddafi forces or have gone missing. Academy Award-nominated photojournalist Tim Hetherington and Pulitzer Prize-nominated photojournalist Chris Hondros of Getty Images were killed in Libya on April 20th.

"I wanted to photograph their lives as fully as possible."
Photojournalist and filmmaker Tim Heatherington on American troops in Afghanistan for his book "Infidel" and his film "Restrepo"

Especially the deaths of Hetherington, a true pioneer in "multi-media" story-telling, and Hondros have given many in the profession reason for pause.

Others, on the other hand, are more committed than ever. War photographer Joao Silva, who lost both legs and suffered internal injures in Afghanistan, has displayed the same indomitable spirit in his recovery that made him so effective on the front lines, and is excited about sharing his personal story. Not to mention itching to get back to work.

Perhaps photographing tragedy is an adrenaline rush for a few photographers. It's not about an addiction to danger, for most, however. There is something much more profound in the hearts of most of these individuals. These folks have little desire to tell sterile "objective" stories from the front lines. They are so moved by what they see and feel, they are compelled to keep sharing, over and over, regardless of the personal cost. In fact, more than once, I have heard photographers describe this kind of work – to photograph people in the most private, vulnerable kinds of situations – as a privilege not to be taken lightly. I feel their kind of courage should be recognized.

These folks stalk the front lines, often shoulder-to-shoulder with military combatants, or amongst those caught in the crossfire – the "collateral damage." Their only weapons? A camera and a conscience. This gallery, Photographers in Peril, gives us a few examples of  the search for humanity contained within often inhumane conflicts.

We Americans laud our military. Rightfully so. Those individuals make incredible personal sacrifices, put their lives on the line, do their duty and carry out orders without question. We owe them much, much more than gratitude. But what of those who risk their lives to tell us the stories of our soldiers and those they fight on behalf of? Stories spun by compassionate souls, not spun for the purpose of "official" agendas, that sometimes painfully reveal the true cost of conflict?

What is your opinion of the men and women who make images, still and moving, of human conflict and tragedy? Are they simply the bearers of bad news? Or do you see value in their chronicles? Is it worth the cost?

Miraculous Rescue, Remarkable Reunion: more on how photographs connect us

Miraculous Rescue, Remarkable Reunion - News Story - WCVB Boston

Photographing tragedy is often controversial. Photojournalists are sometimes accused of being heartless ambulance chasers and sharks at a feeding frenzy when they turn their cameras on the suffering.

But I still firmly believe there is great social value in documenting the human condition – all of it. Sometimes, the value is not understood until years later.

Photographing breaking news has always been the forte of Boston Herald photographer Stanley Forman. In the late 1970s, Forman garnered an unequaled three straight Pulitzer Prizes in a row. Perhaps his best known photograph, and most controversial, is one that shows a woman and a child falling from a collapsed fire escape during an apartment fire. The woman died on impact and the child miraculously survived.  It's a heart-wrenching depiction of the worst kind of tragedy. The woman's death was not in vain, however. In short order, the City of Boston revamped it's safety regulations governing fire escapes. While many condemned the Herald for publishing the photo, this question, as always, remains: would such forceful action by city officials have ever taken place had the picture not been published?

The ultimate value of some photographs may not be fully understood until years later. The story linked above is such an example. Sometimes, we are quick to condemn photographs of tragedy in the name of protecting the victims. In this case, an innocent child who lost everything. The photographs depict the heroism of the firefighters in this instance, and that's of great importance. However, we see how, over thirty years later, these photographs and the person who made them helped a woman make sense of and better understand her own personal history.

The fact is, sometimes photographing tragedy actually helps victims cope. Many subjects of disturbing photographs never forgive the perceived invasion into their private experience and emotions. However, many others come to appreciate, over time, the attention given to their circumstances.

In his book Lessons in Life and Death, photojournalist David LaBelle says that photographing tragedy actually has a therapeutic value. That confronting mortality and that of loved ones can help people appreciate life itself. Photographs of tragedy, if used compassionately, can serve as a form of psychotherapy for society, as a whole and on a personal level.

And the key is compassion. As LaBelle says, "Love doesn't always wear a smile."

In the end, Tammi Brownlee's story is just another example of how photographs can reach across space and time and connect us as human beings.

To see more of Stanley Forman's work, click here: Stanleyformanphotos.com

Hannah Forman

Politics aside ... I am a biased journalist

I'm not much for politics. Sure, I've got my opinions. Plenty of strongly held ones, too. But I keep'em to myself when I'm on the job. You know, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, which are the true benchmarks of professional journalism, not the ubiquitous, misunderstood, and misapplied term "objectivity."

When I'm covering political events, the story I always try to tell is the human interest angle. In the interest of fairness, I'll tell you straight up that my personal bias in my work is that of humanity. One of the great advantages of using photographs as a means of communication is that we can see ourselves in other people, regardless of cultural, political, religious or personal beliefs.

In our increasingly polarized political atmosphere (and I admit that's an opinion based on my personal observations), I'm always looking for little nuggets of humanity. When Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, visited Statesboro Saturday as part of his "Fire Pelosi" tour to stir up participation in November elections, the political electricity in the air couldn't be felt more strongly.

At the end of Steele's speech, a citizen reminded him to address an issue of great importance to her. Honestly, I couldn't really understand much of anything she said from my vantage point, but she was clearly feisty and her comments elicited side-splitting laughter – especially from Steele himself. Did I mention doubled over with laughter?

She was asking Steel for a definitive statement on whether or not the Republican National Committee was going to support Christine O'Donnell, the surprise winner of the Republican primary for a Senate seat in Delaware. In other words, she was holding the leader of her political party accountable, and she was doing it with humor.

Is there anything much more human than humor? Any time we can see opponents, adversaries, or anyone different from ourselves as the human beings that they are, well, I think there is great hope for humanity itself, because that is the starting point for any progress.

So there it is. My bias. Sue me if you don't like it, but don't say you weren't advised.

By the way, Steel said he and the National Party have started transferring funds to O'Donnell's campaign and would support her in every way.

I am a journalist, after all.

After his speech during a stop at the Holiday Inn in Statesboro on his "Fire Pelosi" tour, Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele doubles over laughing at the spunkiness of Hazel Jordan of Savannah, right.

Police in some states are arresting those videotaping their actions: an assault on YOUR First Amendment rights?

Are Cameras the New Guns? (via National Press Photographers Association)

This is disturbing, folks. Read the article linked above. Some states are now saying that it is illegal to video tape or record on-duty police officers, citing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws which state that all parties must consent to the recording.

The incidents are increasing and several have every bit the appearance of reprisals on the part of police since the arrests have happened well after the initial incidents. What's even more surprising is that state supreme courts are actually upholding the arrests and convictions. 

I teach a section on First Amendment rights and Press Law in my photojournalism class at Georgia Southern University, and I know for a fact that Federal courts have already ruled on this matter. In Smith v. City of Cumming, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in 2000 that that citizens have a First Amendment right to videotape the conduct of police officers in public places. Further, that 

"The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest."

First Amendment rights are all too often framed in terms of "freedom of the press" – or in modern terms, the news media – in their freedom to gather and disseminate information. In the eyes of the law, the news media is not afforded any freedoms beyond that of every citizen. This is really about all of us. 

Part of my job is to witness and record public officials doing their duty. An elementary part of the job, in fact. I am happy to say that I have never photographed an incident of police abuse. I have seen overwhelmingly professional, sometimes downright heroic actions on the part of police officers.

Personally, I just can't understand the mentality of some who would hinder the efforts to bring to light the conduct of our public safety officers. Frankly, they don't get enough coverage for all the good things they do on the job, as opposed to the the cheesy things done on the side to garner positive publicity. They should want to be seen as both the professionals and the human beings they are.

On the other hand, police officers should want abuse of authority to be exposed and properly dealt with. That kind of conduct sullies and dishonors the entire profession, just as the conduct of a few unethical journalists compromises the credibility of the rest of us.

Seriously, can anyone make a rational case that recording the actions of public officials on public property is NOT in the public interest? 

Seriously?

What do you think?

Democracy at stake?

Navigating information in the Digital Age


I feel the need to follow up on the last post about the photo manipulation at The Dominion Post in Morgantown, WV.
I'd like to address a wider issue than the use of photography in communicating the news. I'm truly curious how the public feels about the information available on the internet from endless sources.

I have an idea that I put forth in a response to a comment on a previous post about Adobe Photoshop:

I personally believe one of the biggest problems in our society is ambivalence towards information and media, in general. We are ravenous consumers of information, but essentially ignorant about the processes and motivations behind the information we ingest. I honestly believe that our education, starting in high school and continued into college, ought to incorporate instruction in media literacy.

Classes that not only include an understanding of different kinds of media, but that also include an introduction to the editorial process and journalistic ethics. The public needs to understand what makes information reliable and believable so they can make informed choices in life.

Is democracy itself at stake, or is that overstating the issue?

Can we generate some discussion about that?

Not again!

Morgantown newspaper removes three legislators from front-page photo

The above report from West Virgina Public Broadcasting is making the rounds. It's the latest, and one of the most embarrassing examples of utterly unethical photo manipulation in the news.

We're supposed to report the news, not make it. Right? And this is certainly making the news for all the wrong reasons.

I hope I was crystal clear in my previous post about the use of Adobe Photoshop in the newsroom.

The most disturbing aspect of this report is the reaction of The Dominion Post editor Geri Ferrara. She is surprised anyone would object to the manipulation. For some reason, she seems to think that designating the picture as a "photo illustration" in the caption is sufficient. Further, she believes the paper's policy of not publishing photos of politicians running for office trumps accuracy and honesty in her publication's visual reportage.

I'd like to further quote National Press Photography Association Ethics Chair John Long:

"If a picture looks real – in the context of news – it better be real. You cannot caption away a visual lie."

Visual illiteracy is the culprit, in this case. If photographs and other types of visual journalism were given the same respect as words, these kinds of transgressions wouldn't occur in the first place.

I feel the need to apologize for one of my so-called colleagues.

Folks, you should expect information reported in the news to be accurate. It's all about credibility. Without, I don't have a job. Do I?

Thoughts?

The future of photography: Photographers not necessary ...

Adobe further undermining professionalism and journalistic ethics?

I am again piggybacking on Mark Johnson's content over at Visual Journalism, but this is worth sharing.

Software giant Adobe® is yet again updating their ubiquitous Photoshop® image editing software. One of the most significant new features is what they call "content-aware fill," which essentially allows you to select all kinds of objects within your image and almost imperceptibly delete them as if they were never there – easy as pie. Check out the YouTube video demonstrating some of the capabilities of this feature, which may have serious implications.

Pretty slick, eh? There are plenty of photographers, artists, and graphics professionals drooling over this capability. It's a real time-saver, they are saying. Maybe they shouldn't be so hasty. Content-aware fill doesn't do anything new. This kind of editing has been possible for a long time. What it now does is make this kind of editing easy for anyone to do very quickly. All that money and time spent on Photoshop® training could be down the drain for thousands of graphics and photography professionals who charge upwards of $150 an hour for retouching services.

Anyone notice the image used for the first example in the video? Poorly composed. Ugly light. Just an incredibly amateurish image, yet we were told this picture was for a real life client.  Amazing. Just what is Adobe really trying to sell? Don't want to pay for a professional photographer? That's okay, Photoshop will fix everything. Don't know anything about composition. Fix it in Photoshop. Don't know anything about lighting? Fix it in Photoshop. Don't have the right equipment for the job? Well, you know ...

Is this the future of photography? No photographer necessary? Funny thing is, this has been brewing for a while. The talent many clients seek out these days are those who know all the Photoshop tricks, rather than professional image makers. Now, Adobe is making it so easy, you don't need to know any tricks. No talent or knowledge necessary, either.

"Pictures have power when they are real, and real photographs have the power to change society."
John Long, Ethics Chair for the National Press Photographers Association

What does this mean for my profession? It further undermines the credibility of any image produced by working photojournalists. The public needs to believe that the images made by photojournalists are honest and accurate representations of the subjects and scenes they photograph. News photographers who change and alter their images to suit their personal aesthetic tastes or to further their careers are lying to the public. Every year we hear about these photographers and their ethical lapses. It may cost these photographers their jobs, but it costs the rest of us credibility – our work has little value if our audience doesn't not see our images as believable. With the new Photoshop CS5, it's now easier than ever to deceive the public with photographs.

Do you believe the images you see in the news are real? Technology is creating a new paradigm about information and about images. Only a fool would try and bottle up the techno-genie. So I ask you, what are the benchmarks of reliable information in this new, emerging digital world? Is my commitment to ethical newsgathering and presentation enough? What do you need from me, people, so you believe my visual testimonies are accurate?

If you are interested, please follow this link for a detailed, technical explanation about how I use Photoshop in my work and about the ethical standards which I abide by.