People were reporting on the OJ Simpson trial in June 1994. Two of the articles that made it to print included 2 very different images. TIME used a darkened photo of OJ which the photo illustrator said gave it a more dramatic feel while Newsweek used an unedited image. I don’t think it was ethical or warranted to adjust the image in this way because the illustrator should’ve darkened the background and left OJ Simpson unedited. It would’ve captured the darker tone that they said they were going for. Instead it seems racially charged.
This photo of the uncles of two children who died in an Israeli airstrike carrying them to a mosque was accused of being fake. Due to over-editing like the vivid colors and lack of shadows in the alleyway many people thought i was photoshopped. I don’t think this is ethical because it takes away from the problem at hand and makes the severity of the situation in Gaza City seem less real.
The cover of the economist displaying the president at the time seemingly contemplating how to handle the BP oil spill conveniently left out the two people he was with. In the original picture he is standing with an Admiral of the coast guard and the local parish president on a beach. While I feel like the picture is warranted because the magazine doesn’t change the way Obama looks it’s not really ethical. The altered image paints a very different picture of Obama looking defeated where in the original he’s shown listening to the people he’s with.
I would be able to justify photoshopping an image if it transformed the meaning of the material/repurposed it. Also, it shouldn’t be photoshopped so that its completely different but enough so that its repurposed while still maintaining most of the original image.