Images I think are ethically acceptable:

1. 2002 Olympic Winter Games-Skiing, I don’t think that adding the image of a previous competitor to a current one is wrong. I don’t think that anyone would be angered by that, I also think that putting the competitor’s national flag in each lane is a good idea. Both of these instances shouldn’t have angered anyone. However, editing footage to show a competitor falsely winning an event would be unacceptable.

2. Bud Shootout: If you sign up to sponsor a car, then you should pay the sponsorship fees. By not paying the sponsorship fees, they forfeited any benefits of sponsorship, including TV exposure from the decal on the vehicle.

3. In 1982, National Geographic edited the photos of the Great Pyramids of Giza so they would fit onto the vertical layout of the magazine. I don’t think there’s any harm in that, because I can understand the difficulty of trying to get a landscape image to look nice on a upright layout. Since the photographer didn’t alter the colors or add additional images, I don’t think that the photographer did anything unacceptable.

Digital Images

I believe that as long as the original photographer has given permission and the photograph is not grossly misleading to the public, then altering digital images is fine.  The examples such as removing the Twin Towers or inserting advertising back into a tv series seem ethical.  The ones I do think are unethical are the ones involving the combination of head shots with a model’s body.  I think if a publication is going to do something like that they should have a noticeable disclaimer.  I also thought the example of the tabloid newspaper using a combination of two photographs was highly unethical; it’s not fair to the subjects in the photograph or the photographer.

Kayleigh on Ethical Photo Alterations

While reading the article, I did not find any of the mentioned alterations to be unethical. Placing brands into already ran TV episodes and removing brands from Nascar that hadn’t paid their bills did not seem to ring unethical to me. Those companies listed that did make alterations with out permission made public apologies and promised to not make them again. Also, digital alterations such as the Nintendo gameboy that allowed the players to put their heads on the characters doesn’t seem to be unethical because it is allowing the player to make a connection with the game by making it more personable. Another example would be the country’s flag being inserted digitally under skiiers during the Olympics. This poses no threat to the media nor the participants and so I believe it to be ethical.

Unethical alterations in my mind are those that are made without permission, stolen and edited into a photo, or ones that influence the media in a negative direction like the photoshopping of models to be a certain size or look a specific way. In my Journalism class we had to watch the Dove ad of the regular looking woman who underwent serious photoshopping to create a finished product of a supermodelesque woman who was posted on a billboard. To me that seems unethical because it is giving media false pretenses that we need to look a certain way to be beautiful. Also, the photo of TV Guide’s cover of Ms. Winfrey was unethical. Without permission from either parties, they cropped together Ms. Winfrey and Ann-Margaret to make Winfrey appear thinner. This is mis-leading. TV Guide did not apologize, and if so the article did not mention any apologies, and simply allowed the public to think this sort of activity is allowable.

*EDIT* Whoops, I spelled companies wrong in the third line above. I fixed it!

I’m either ethically bankrupt or just desensitized, I guess

Most of the photos mentioned in the reading didn’t sound unethical in the slightest sense.  Fox Sports Network digitally removing the logos of companies who didn’t pay for the air time isn’t so much unethical as it is a statement on what the great motivator in our society has and will always be.  The images from the website were for the most part what I would call ethical.  Removing a cigarette here or there isn’t going to be Earth-shattering, and in the long run, will probably save a few impressionable young minds from picking up the habit.

I don’t know if I didn’t like the pictures of famous people’s heads on models bodies because they were unethical or because they were insulting to my intelligence.  Most of those photos, especially the earlier ones of Oprah and the like, were so shoddily done (due mostly to the older technology) that I’m surprised they wanted them associated with the covers they were on.  Oh, and shockingly enough, the Ned Lamont/Osama bin Laden mash-up was a pretty low-blow that was luckily recognized as such by Lieberman and his people.