Journalistic Stereotypes

Your television and computer are controlling every choice you make. Scary thought? Everyday Americans log into their computer or turn on their TV and are fed information from our trusted media. In fact, a Marshall survey states, “By 2015, it is estimated that Americans will consume both traditional and digital media for over 1.7 trillion hours, an average of approximately 5 and a half hours per person per day.” Unknowingly at times, we are allowing our media to shape the choices we make, the ways we see others, and the way we view ourselves. With most of Americans unaware of the media's control on their choices and views, this can be an alarming realization. Media has a major impact on multiple parts of our society.

More particularly, I believe that cropping, adjusting the lightness or even erasing some distracting does not make the image fake, neither it changes its meaning. In that way, photojournalists will be able to produce more appealing photographs and as a result more viewers would pay attention to them. However, if agencies think that this would mean that the public does not trust them, they could make an online repository including the unprocessed photographs so that everyone can check their

Our team choose newspaper called “The globe and mail” and the article is about “I’m worried about the health risk; that’s my top worry”.

Tools that can get rid of your pimples, it can remove your red eyes, it can make you look taller or shorter. On July 10th of 2011 Associated Press sent out a “Photo Kill, Advisory” to a series of images that were shot by their freelancer Miguel Tovar, who was based in Argentina. Tovar had removed his shadow, which was showing in his original image. “The AP has severed its relationship with the photographer and is eliminating more than 3,000 of his images from the apimages.com archive,” in a memo sent to Associated Press’ staff and contributors. Altering an image cannot only ruin the reputation of the photographer but it can also change the way readers look at things, the start to question the authenticity of the work that all photojournalists are putting out. With new technologies photographers are expected to make images that are better than what they made the day before, so they will do what ever they can to give their work an extra boost. This can cross a dangerous line between what is ethical and what isn’t. In Associated Press’ code of ethics it says, “Minor adjustment in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale [black and white], and normal toning and color adjustment that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the

Doctoring photos has been around for decades. Manipulating photographs, caricatures, and special effects have all been used to change the way people view an event. Sometimes, the intended effect is harmless, but other times it drastically changes what is the truth. For news reporters, a doctored photo can create a more interesting, eye-catching, or emotional headline. However as Christians, we need to be careful when a photoshopped improvement may actually turn into blatant deception. We do not want to be spreading misinformation just so we can sell more papers or get famous.

There have been many studies done on minority stereotypes, however, there has not been enough focusing on the portrayal of minorities in the news. With the majority of Americans using local TV or newspapers as their source of information (Journalism.org, 2011) we must look at how citizen’s perceptions of themselves and others are influenced by the news. To define news framing, we will take Lecheler, Keer, Shuck, and Hänggli’s definition; “a process by which certain facets of social reality are emphasized by the news media, while others are pushed into the background” (2015, p. 341). Language as well as imagery can be a powerful tool in framing a story to guide an audience to believe it the way the journalist wants them to.

How can manipulating photograph's affect the media? In my, opinion it has a tremendous impact in the world of communication. It can influence a person's impression of someone of importance. For instance, the fabricated anti-war protest photo of Jane Fonda and John Kerry is an ideal example of propaganda Fauxtography.

The news industry continually perpetuate the negative stereotypes of African Americans. It has happened so often that now, unfortunately, it has to be expected from them and any hope of change would need to happen with serious social change behind it. The one saving grace in society has been the way it entertains itself. A common belief that we have accepted in this day and age is that the entertainment and advertisement industry has gotten better for the African American community. Several respectable characters have risen that would support this belief. However, is this completely true? On the small and silver screen, blacks are continually portrayed to seem as thugs, people who grow up in the projects, drug dealers who ruthlessly hurt anyone who stops them from making money, and ethnic. Many modern T.V. shows and ads have actively tried to change this course of thinking and have created meaningful characters and realistic hurdles for them to go through. But are enough of these types of shows being created to say that America has moved passed its prejudice roots? In order for the black community to be viewed more than common criminals, society must create realistic people, discontinue use of these stereotypes, and for the black community to stop creating shows that they themselves believe are good but instead hurt them in the long run.

Dr Andrew Defty suggests that the newspaper press does have a significant effect on voting behaviour as, typically, the electorate will read a newspaper associated with their political views. However, this is not always the case. For example a ‘large proportion of Labour MPs are avid readers of the daily mail’, it is obvious that the Labour MPs don’t necessarily agree with every conservative view, however, they aren’t necessarily reading it to find out what the opposition believes. Contrastingly Defty states that ‘the majority of Guardian and Mirror readers vote Labour’ which does suggest that the newspaper press does have an impact on voting behaviour. For example in 2001 (where Labour won with 113 seats) 6 out of 8 national daily newspapers supported Labour, this demonstrates that

Portrait photography, and specifically fashion photography, is without a doubt one of the most Photoshop-influenced genres of photography today. Practically every image you look at today on the cover of every magazine is digitally altered. In some cases, changes are very subtle, but in most cases, people go through complete transformations, making them look drastically different compared to the reality. Such retouching changes are so common today, that they are now widely accepted as a “normal” practice to make the model or celebrity look flawless. So where is the fine line between what should be considered ethical and what should not? That’s another tough one to answer, because there will be people defending both sides heavily.

Photos are just recorded information and how it is presented is actually based on individual interpretation by the photographers themselves. It is not absolute reality because the viewers themselves are not there to witness the event; therefore it is not entirely factual. The meaning of a photo illustration is also dependent on viewers' individual views and assumption. As the old metaphor says, "is the glass of milk half full or half empty?"

Is the manipulation of news photos ever justified? Case study 8-D presented by Patterson & Wilkins (2014, p. 205-207) is concerned with an altered photograph that was ran on multiple publications and how the running of the photograph affected the credibility of those publications and the career of the photographer. I would argue that photo manipulation is almost never acceptable in the field of journalism since the alteration of photographs could greatly distort what the public perceives as truth and lead to various other ethical issues. should be allowed. In the end, all journalists have is their credibility, and the loss of that credibility is often the end of one’s career.

ADD ABOUT HOW THE NEWS USED TO BE HOW THE MINOR LEAGUE KIDS WIN A BASEBALL GAME OR HOW A MAN SAVED A LADY AND HOW THE STOCKS ARE GOOD... (-Eshaan)

It is amazing how we can fully trust a photograph simply because it gives you second hand encounter of what was going on. In today’s world, I find it amazing that this “proof” can actually be tampered with. Thinking about the artists who are experts in changing certain photographs, they could easily change a photograph to show a different aspect which occurred. “A photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened” (Sontag). If an individual has committed a crime, all the police need is a photograph or a film which shows the individual clearly and they will face the crime fully. The increase in technology is a positive and a negative. The idea of people who are experts in the new technology changing the photograph thus changing the idea of the photograph is the only negative from this idea of using photographs as evidence. We love to take photographs as much as we can, if they can be used for aspects such as this we could help change the way our world is possibly run. However, the photographs need to stay loyal and

Although modification of photos is possible, it is important to note that it is frowned upon amongst those who practice photography as an art, as the central idea behind the art of photography is realism, and being able to produce something that someone will look at later and admire.