ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas recently did a Q&A with Marie Claire magazine to talk about being a mom, sans her new baby. However, in Marie Claire's December issue, Vargas is pictured not only with a baby, but wearing a shiny gold blouse opened wide to reveal both cleavage and a full breast-feeding event while sitting at a news anchor set desk. Whoa! It's bogus but looks as real as day.
The Drudge Report, quoted a "source close to the anchor" saying that "Vargas is disappointed but has a sense of humor about the whole thing." However, it may help to know that this "fake" image is actually a photo illustration and is listed as one. Also, this "fake" photo should not be confused with unethical and illegal doctoring of news images. You might remember the manipulated war photography by Adnan Hajj, a freelancer working for Reuters, that went out on the wires as a news event; that definitely was wrong. Photo illustrations occupy a different realm, are not passed on as news, and are protected by title and contract.
Yeah, yeah -- but I wanted to know more. I wanted to know if Vargas signed a contract with the magazine that might have allowed all this. When I pressed a spokesperson for the magazine if a sentence in this blog saying that Vargas herself signed a contract would be a true and correct statement, the representative said only: "We do not discuss our contractual agreements." When asked if the sentence should be changed in this blog saying a group representing Vargas signed a contract, the spokesperson avoided the question by saying, "Again, I'm sorry, but we just can't get into our contractual agreements."
So I came up dry. I can't find out if anyone signed. A pretty basic question goes unanswered. In addition, the Hearst spokesperson also sent me the same statement they sent to the Drudge Report.
Now, in industry terms a photo illustration is photo-realistic art or art made from photography that carries an editorial message. Personally, I think if the story was about how moms juggle their careers and their children, it would have been okay to do an illustration, but the Q&A is about the one and only Vargas juggling being a career mom. The premise for me shifts in these two ideas from being a general feature to a personality feature about a concrete person. For a photo illustration to have integrity it must do three things:
1) A byline that carries the term, "photo illustration" must be printed if the piece ties to news, actual events or people. We have a Check!2) If a model is needed, the photographer must have permission from the model to manipulate that model's self image. We have an unknown.3) It must show a concept in a way that is noticeably unreal or the image should not have any attachments to news, actual events or people. We have no check!
The photo illustration was about a real person and was realistic looking. Any John Doe looking at it alone would have no clue that it was faked. The byline is the only protection in this case. Also, I'm willing to guess that the average reader would either miss the byline because it's on the opposite page, or that they wouldn't know what "photo illustration" means. I wouldn't be so harsh about this if Marie Claire magazine had written something like "not an actual photo" on the image at the bottom right corner, like they do in advertisements where a product is represented in a way it wouldn't normally appear.
What do you think? Did this photo illustration by Eric Cahan put ethics aside to try to add shock? Let us hear what you have to say about it.
- Cassandra Shie
No comments:
Post a Comment