Media Literacy 101: The Ethics of Photoshopping a Shirtless Obama

The web is buzzing about The Washingtonian magazine's choice to put a paparazzi photo of a buff and shirtless President Obama on the cover of its May issue.

The frenzy of comments about The Washingtonian's decision are running across the gamut, from a reprise of the drooling appreciation for Obama's taut abs first seen when the paparazzi photos of Obama on the beach hit in December: "Really hot Obama," "President Beefcake;" to stinging political rebukes for what some take to be the magazine's pandering to its audience and/or to the administration: "embarrassing."

But I'd like to call your attention to what Washingtonian did with the original Bauer-Griffin photo. Said Leslie Milk, the magazine's lifestyle editor, "I know we changed the color of his suit to red, and dropped out the background." In the original photo the president is wearing a black suit and walking from what appears to be sliding glass doors leading to a living room. What also appears to be altered from the original image is the contrast and the color balance of the president's skin. On The Washingtonian's cover the sun striking Obama's chest makes him appear more golden, almost glistening.

In the world of news, that's unethical. The rule of thumb is, if you want to change what's in the photo, choose another photo. Making Obama into a man wearing brilliant red surfer trunks, instead of a more modest black pair, making the image more dramatic by having him walking out of darkness, and changing the exposure so he looks more gilded changes viewers' ideas about who the man is.

Way back in 1994, Time magazine famously doctored the mug shot photo of OJ Simpson to make his face darker, more shadowed. The magazine was pilloried for "demonizing" Simpson as a blacker man. "Illustrator Matt Mahurin was the one to alter the image, saying later that he 'wanted to make it more artful, more compelling.'"

Eleven years later, in 2005, Newsweek magazine tinkered with its cover of Martha Stewart to illustrate her coming release from prison, running a composite image of Stewart's head on the photo of a body of model. The National Press Photographers Association, the society of professional photojournalism, called that cover "a major ethical breach."

Where in the spectrum of ethics does the decision by The Washingtonian come? A key issue is whether we "know about it." said Carl Sessions Stepp, professor of journalism at the University of Maryland. "When a magazine puts a person on its cover, our expectation is that the person we are seeing is the person who was seen through the lens of the photographer." But if we're told or it's obvious that an image has been "fictionalized" then we approach it with different expectations. We don't assume what's depicted is an accurate representation--both visually and psychologically--of who we're looking at.

What's the danger of an audience thinking that the president looks model-hot? It's a simplification of who he is--it's the photographic version of presenting Obama as the shining hope for the country. It's ascribing to him more power--even if the power is sexual--than he actually has.

What's the possible consequence? When individual players are made to seem larger or are given greater clout than they actually have, that prompts us to expect outcomes that cannot be delivered--and also encourages us to believe that we don't have to help solve the nation's problems, because we certainly do not measure up to the perfection we have been shown.

Comments

[David 7 C]

Big issues and regular controversies with Photoshop and photojourn­alism...to read more about similar recent controversies and the quesitons they raise, see my posts at

http://www.david-campbell.org/2009/02/23/photographic-truth-and-manipulation/

and

http://www.david-campbell.org/2009/04/17/photographic-truth-and-photoshop/

[whenpigsflynow]

Not much different than airbrushing models all those years. Those in the photographs no longer remain real people but idols. In the world of high fashion, it becomes all about the fantasy. I'm not sure if that's what we want in our politicians.
www.whenpigsfly.squarespace.com

[bayoudesiard]

This is disrespectful to the president and I am sure that is exactly what the Washingtonian was trying to do. Ok, Washingtonian we get it, you have disdain for the president. Move on, if your minds get any smaller, kindergartenerz will be able to read and understand your articles.

[exile]

"the sun striking Obama's chest makes him appear more golden, almost glistening."

aahhh...

get a freakin life people.

[HRP]

It's not ethical to retouch any cover photo.

[noamjunior]

then there hasn't ever been an ethical magazine cover- ALL photos are re-touched

[schicklett3]

YUMMY!
I'm framing that picture for my bedroom wall!!

[JanPoore]

It was very disrespectful and in bad taste for the Washingtonian to publish this photo on their cover. It would be disrespectful to any president, and to the office, but even more so to the first African American President, especially with all the racist teabaggers we saw out there last week.

[Independent12345]

I was with you until the last part of your post. The magazine cover has nothing to do with the "tea party" protests. Those protests are about excessive government spending, and have nothing to do with race. Let me repeat: there is nothing racist about opposing irresponsible government spending! They are simply unrelated topics.

You are being condescending and demeaning to the President to assume that because he has African-American heritage, his policies must only be about race. (As for the "tea party" protestors, I'll bet they aren't big fans of the politics of Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, either.)

[sarapy]

Doesn't this remind you of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph Of The Will - Hitler Youth Rally " - Nazi Propaganda film creating "bigger than life" images and "superman powers" to Hitler and his followers ? Propaganda is propaganda. Or is some propaganda OK and other Propaganda not OK ? Why do we reject one and accept another ? Why did we accept "doctoring up" images of Kennedy, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ? Do you really want us to return to Black&White photos with alot of contrast and no grey areas ?

[tiotom77]

Did the White House approve this?

[Eveningson]

Warts and all. I think the last time this happened was with Cromwell .

[korpix]

I think they also increased the size of his debt. badum bum.

[Opt1musPr1me]

The Repubs will say he is busy being a celebrity while the country is in financial ruins. Trust me this magazine cover will come up in 2012, even though it has nothing to do with the President as far as cooperation goes. America is proud of it's new President in many ways, one of which is how good he looks. So let them be proud and show how proud they are.

[Independent12345]

But the cover does provide some support for the argument that part of Obama's appeal is his youth, charm, and good looks. Regardless of what you think of his politics, it is a fact that the voters in the 2008 election made a choice to elect the more "inspirational" candidate over the one with more experience. You can bet that the Republicans will remind us of that in 2012, especially if his Presidency does not go well.

[WilliamBentley2]

As someone who uses graphics-editing programs on a daily basis, I can say that the only thing that seemed unecessary was the color change to the shorts. But, I see why they did that (because his shorts would not stand out against a black background). Otherwise, they did nothing to radically alter the photo. Even the so-called "glistening skin" is bogus. That was likely a color/tone correction that is often automatic in adjusting photos.

What the author does not realize is that a photograph *alters an image* as much as a tone adjustment from a graphics program. It is a tempest in a teapot and not at all well researched. She likens this photo to some of the other "clear" adjustments made for graphic effect.

[misstickly]

I'm not an Obama fan, but as a graphic designer, I agree with you. It is what it is. These are technical and/or design decisions, not political ones.

[marxmarv]

Photojournalism is intended to be expository, not persuasive, and retouching such images has gotten people fired and nearly caused international incidents.

[cherrycola]

I agree-- a photograph is not a completely objective representation of a person in and of itself. The angle of a shot, the lighting used, and whether a photo is color or black and white can dramatically alter how a person appears. So even if the photo is not doctored afterwards, both the photographer who composed the shot and the editor who chooses which photo to use have exercised some influence over how the subject will be perceived.

[MESGAIN26]

what ever happen to sex sell ? he looks hot i'll take on please :)

[jimmyjones22]

So they changed his short's color?