will the real Martha Stewart please take the stage
Newsweek Changes Crediting Policy Following Cover Flap
Newsweek has reacted to the controversy surrounding last week's Martha Stewart cover.
Beginning with the March 14 issue, Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker says bylines for cover photos and illustrations will now appear directly on the cover, marking a shift from the industry practice of crediting cover photos on the table of contents page.
Newsweek is the first major news magazine to adopt the crediting policy. Whitaker says the decision resulted from conversations with his creative staff over last week's cover, which used digital manipulation to merge an image of Stewart's head onto a model's body. Media critics and readers alike felt that the composite image looking deceptively real.
"We credit photos directly on the page with the photo everywhere else in the magazine, and there's no reason readers shouldn't be able to immediately see where a photograph on the cover came from," Whitaker says.
Whitaker apologized for last week's cover, which he says was "just dumb and badly executed," and says the magazine did not intend to mislead readers.
"I think this was a case where I did not exercise enough judgment about whether this was appropriate for a news magazine, for our kind of news magazine, and I take responsibility for that," Whitaker says. "We're not going to make this particular mistake again."
Whitaker says the magazine's staffers had discussed whether or not to label the Stewart photo illustration on the cover prior to publication, but ultimately decided the step lacked precedent. In the end they labeled it on the table of contents.
The ensuing controversy was the latest in a long string of embarrassments to hit a major American magazine over the use of digitally manipulated images in the last few years.
When asked if he thought other magazines should adopt similar procedures, Whitaker said, "We're not speaking for anybody else. We're taking this step and we'll see if the photographic community and the ethics police think it's appropriate for other people to do."
Other magazines have taken steps to let readers know when photos have been digitally retouched for esthetic reasons. Sports Illustrated adopted the practice in 2003 after sharp-eyed readers complained when the magazine digitally removed a soccer player's leg from a photo.
Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the journalism think tank the Poynter Institute, applauds Newsweek's step towards transparency but says magazines can do more to inform their readers.
"In addition to labeling [photo illustrations], you'll do a greater service to readers if you give them a definition to the label," McBride says. "These are words we use all the time in the journalism world but they might not be clear to readers."
McBride says magazines and newspapers should encourage more people to participate in the decision-making process before approving such images. That way, she says, editors can better anticipate how readers will react, and avoid future controversies.
"If credible organizations were transparent on a regular basis, news consumers would learn to read that transparency and when they don't see that, they'll begin to ask questions," she says. "Then, the news organizations with the best standards will rise to the top."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved. Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My coworkers got to see my "Angry Journalist" side when I started a debate last week during lunch over the Newsweek cover photo. It's always been my position (and admittedly, this position was cultivated after hours of journalism ethics lectures) that a photo that isn't factual shouldn't be construed as such. In line with that opinion, a photo of Martha Stewart's head shouldn't be digitally attached to the body of a svelte model and placed on the cover of Newsweek.
Even worse, the publication--a respected newsmagazine--did not go out of its way to assure readers that what they were seeing was fiction--an editors' account of what Martha might look like when she gets out of jail. Instead, they relied on readers to assume that this picture couldn't possibly be accurate. They presented a falsehood as fact. And then they defended it. And now that they have been reminded that ethics still exist--and are more important than ever in this era of assault on the media--they are backtracking.
I'm always astounded by the potential of this industry that I have aspired so long to be a part of. Reporters and editors and photographers and--yes--even bloggers have the power to do so much to change and to bring issues to the forefront. I agree, Martha Stewart's jailtime was certainly newsworthy, and whatever she finds herself doing next will be newsworthy as well.
But let's present the news that Martha makes, not the news that we make.
Newsweek has reacted to the controversy surrounding last week's Martha Stewart cover.
Beginning with the March 14 issue, Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker says bylines for cover photos and illustrations will now appear directly on the cover, marking a shift from the industry practice of crediting cover photos on the table of contents page.
Newsweek is the first major news magazine to adopt the crediting policy. Whitaker says the decision resulted from conversations with his creative staff over last week's cover, which used digital manipulation to merge an image of Stewart's head onto a model's body. Media critics and readers alike felt that the composite image looking deceptively real.
"We credit photos directly on the page with the photo everywhere else in the magazine, and there's no reason readers shouldn't be able to immediately see where a photograph on the cover came from," Whitaker says.
Whitaker apologized for last week's cover, which he says was "just dumb and badly executed," and says the magazine did not intend to mislead readers.
"I think this was a case where I did not exercise enough judgment about whether this was appropriate for a news magazine, for our kind of news magazine, and I take responsibility for that," Whitaker says. "We're not going to make this particular mistake again."
Whitaker says the magazine's staffers had discussed whether or not to label the Stewart photo illustration on the cover prior to publication, but ultimately decided the step lacked precedent. In the end they labeled it on the table of contents.
The ensuing controversy was the latest in a long string of embarrassments to hit a major American magazine over the use of digitally manipulated images in the last few years.
When asked if he thought other magazines should adopt similar procedures, Whitaker said, "We're not speaking for anybody else. We're taking this step and we'll see if the photographic community and the ethics police think it's appropriate for other people to do."
Other magazines have taken steps to let readers know when photos have been digitally retouched for esthetic reasons. Sports Illustrated adopted the practice in 2003 after sharp-eyed readers complained when the magazine digitally removed a soccer player's leg from a photo.
Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the journalism think tank the Poynter Institute, applauds Newsweek's step towards transparency but says magazines can do more to inform their readers.
"In addition to labeling [photo illustrations], you'll do a greater service to readers if you give them a definition to the label," McBride says. "These are words we use all the time in the journalism world but they might not be clear to readers."
McBride says magazines and newspapers should encourage more people to participate in the decision-making process before approving such images. That way, she says, editors can better anticipate how readers will react, and avoid future controversies.
"If credible organizations were transparent on a regular basis, news consumers would learn to read that transparency and when they don't see that, they'll begin to ask questions," she says. "Then, the news organizations with the best standards will rise to the top."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved. Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My coworkers got to see my "Angry Journalist" side when I started a debate last week during lunch over the Newsweek cover photo. It's always been my position (and admittedly, this position was cultivated after hours of journalism ethics lectures) that a photo that isn't factual shouldn't be construed as such. In line with that opinion, a photo of Martha Stewart's head shouldn't be digitally attached to the body of a svelte model and placed on the cover of Newsweek.
Even worse, the publication--a respected newsmagazine--did not go out of its way to assure readers that what they were seeing was fiction--an editors' account of what Martha might look like when she gets out of jail. Instead, they relied on readers to assume that this picture couldn't possibly be accurate. They presented a falsehood as fact. And then they defended it. And now that they have been reminded that ethics still exist--and are more important than ever in this era of assault on the media--they are backtracking.
I'm always astounded by the potential of this industry that I have aspired so long to be a part of. Reporters and editors and photographers and--yes--even bloggers have the power to do so much to change and to bring issues to the forefront. I agree, Martha Stewart's jailtime was certainly newsworthy, and whatever she finds herself doing next will be newsworthy as well.
But let's present the news that Martha makes, not the news that we make.