I take an apparently odd view of photojournalism ethics, and hold with the idea that the image (Or video) presented to the world should be a fair and honest reflection of what was seen and felt. - If we do not object to
writers editing and revising their content before publication, then I find it weird that we, as a society, can get so bent out of shape over the idea of editing an image at all if it still holds true to being "A fair and honest reflection".
- If you are taking photos of something happy, and you are feeling happy while photographing them, and the mood of those around you was happy, and etc... Then any editing or 'adjustments' you make while readying for publication should not only reflect that, but the angles and content with regards to composition you select to photograph at the time should also reflect that. I hold that there are far worse ethical sins a photographer can make with regards to misrepresenting an event than merely doing post-production edits. With a little care and attention you can photograph a depressing sombre funeral to appear as a happy and joyous looking event without touching a photo editor.
https://petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/ - is an excellent example of what I feel to be an overreaction in the viewpoint of "NO EDITS!": "The Edit", in my mind, served to
increase the fairness, honesty,
and clarity of the image. - When pulled in that tightly the context of the (irrelevant) person in the background becomes removed, which in turn makes their foot distracting and possibly even confusing within the context of the image. If we do not lynch writers for failing to mention that the reporter beside them had the sniffles while they were listening to a press release on some important matter when they file their report, then I find it odd that we get hung up on effectively the same thing being done with photos.
(Especially in that example, where the image is clearly presented as an artistic impression, but otherwise lacks useful information that may impact a viewer's impression of the truth. It doesn't adequately show who is involved, or where they are, and barely even describes what is going on. It would be a horrendous breach of ethics to caption the unedited image "Good Samaritan bandages hand after neighbour tripped and fell on broken bottles" or something, but frankly I find the social lynching over the edited foot to be ethically dishonest, as it comes with an implied "You can totally trust OUR images that we didn't edit, and you shouldn't think about all the dozens of other ways photojournalists can tell lies while showing unedited photos"...)
Having to edit an image is not ideal, and any photojournalist who makes a habit of constantly doing minor edits like that should be held in low standing in my mind, but I see zero issue in edited visuals if they are done with the idea of 'fair and honest reflection of reality' in mind, and the nature and reasons why an edit was done are made publicly known. And while I have issues with the failure to disclose the edits in the case of the foot, I have to say they're pretty minor issues in my view, and not something I would lose sleep over.
The "Ethics and Truths" in photojournalism begin before you even pick up a camera, and ironically I find the obsession many people have over the issue of "Was the photo edited or not" serve more to distract from that point than they do to actually reinforce journalistic ethics in general.
And related to that, I find the stance of demanding "Camera's raw files" to be ethically laughable, as it is washing your hands of responsibility of due diligence and oversight over who is providing content, and is a pure fantasy land idea that it somehow offers any actual protection or credibility. In short, it is an ethical smokescreen - Nothing is done, achieved, or actually protected by this demand, but organizations get to wave it around as a banner while chanting "We're Doing Something!", and otherwise ignore what should be the core of ethics in journalism: A fair and honest reflection of reality.
The problem with 'demanding RAWs" is that 'raw camera files' are not actually magical. They are not unique, and most aren't even encrypted or signed in any way. Their specifications might not be well known in the general public*, but it does not take astounding levels of technical know-how and googling at this point to dredge up suitable tools to re-encode edited data back into common 'raw file' formats. .cr2 (Canon) files are a container, and pretty well understood when digging around online, as were whatever Nikon was using last I looked into them. Even the "securely signed" stuff can be worked around with a bit of creativity and access to suitable equipment. It is data on your own computer, and hardware in your own hand, which means it is not remotely secure from you doing whatever you please with it.
*But how many in the general public can give details on the specifications of an edited .jpg file?
