On June 27, 1994, following O.J. Simpson's arrest on charges of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, Time magazine put a photo on its cover that created instant controversy. It's the photo on the bottom right above and was altered by Time illustrator Matt Hahurin because, in his words, he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling." The same week, Newsweek used the same mugshot of Simpson, but did not alter the photo from its original form. In response to complaints by readers and charges of racism from critics including the NAACP, Time did what no magazine up to that period in journalism history had ever done: they recalled the cover and replaced it with a new one, shown on the top right. Only mail subscribers ever saw the first cover; the recall camebefore it ever reached newstands. There were those who agreed with the magazine's decision based not only upon the potential for racism embedded in the altered photo, but on the broader principle that news photos should never be manipulated to change reality. It's worth reflecting on whether, if you were a reader back then, you might have gained an impression of O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence based upon the original photo. When you look at the photo, what do you see?
" Wanted to make it more artful, more compelling"? I don't see any art. It looks like the photographer wanted to over emphasize the fact that O.J was a black man.
ReplyDeleteAlso by altering the picture, O.J lost his attractiveness, which some associated with warm feelings. The altered pic makes him look like a cold-hearted killer.
The Times have published some offensive articles and photos before, but they usually stand behind what they print, but to recall a photo means that they agreed they went way overboard.
I see the idea behind what he claims he was doing. There is no way to know the intent with which it was done, but part of being a good journalist is being empathetic to your audience. No matter what his intent was, he certainly was not exhibiting any type of empathy and probably didn't think twice about it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my question becomes if it were a black man and the light was manipulated to make him look lighter would that be an issue? Or what if it were a white man made to look lighter?
I suppose the moral of the story is do not manipulate images.
My first thought upon seeing the picture is that the picture looks very amateaur. It looks like the type of editing I could do at home on iPhoto. After comparing it with the Newsweek Cover, it appears to me that Times is trying to make OJ appear more threatening, and essentially, I feel like it was created to lead the reader to believe he is guilty.
ReplyDeleteCriminals are often associated with dark alleys and lurking in the shadows, and I think that is what this photographer was trying to convey. The fact that he is a black man and the editing makes him look "more black" only makes this photo more offensive. It is a mug shot- people know who OJ is and they know about the trial- let them see the real photo and come to their own conclusions. I am suprised that they ever let this cover be printed in the first place.
To the previous poster who asked whether it would be an issue if the photo were lightened- I think it would be. A beauty advertisement lightened a photo of Beyonce a while back and it was pretty controversial.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to mmcoombs question, I think the moral of the story is deeper than just don't "manipulate" photos. You only manipulate things so people can see them your way.
ReplyDeleteYour right, we don't know the photographers true intent, but there was intent to make him look a certain way to the audience
So reguardless of race, it wouldn't matter what color he was, it would still be an issue of what did the photgrapher want us to see about that man.
As for journalist being empathetic, they never empathize with the " bad guy", look at the Nancy Grace show.
(I have no idea how to work this thing, so I hope this is the right place to comment, but it says zero comments so far. Considering the e-mail said there have been two so far I hope I am not in the wrong place.) I understand why the manipulation of the photo could be perceived as racism, however my initial thought was that the manipulation was not as bad as others had explained it before I actually saw the photo. The first thing I noticed was that it was not strictly OJ that had been altered and nothing else. The background is also altered giving the image a different effect all around. On first glance it did not seem too bad; it just reminded me of when photography was not advanced. Thinking further into it I realized that someone went in and changed it to look like this for a reason, and that was when I realized they made him look like a criminal, if that is even possible. He does not look friendly. I would not automatically say, "He is so guilty," just from seeing it because it should be obvious that the image was altered with. I do not think this was a smart thing to do. A person's own actions should be what people rely upon to develop an opinion of them. The fact that it was Time magazine that did this, and not a gossip magazine that alter things on a regular basis, is in itself a new topic all around. Here is this reputable magazine, that had to rely on image alteration to draw people in. (Even though it was recalled before it hit stands for non-subscribers purchase, I am assuming that if there were no objections it would have hit stands.) This goes above and beyond the normal air brushing and body reconstruction magazines do to images today, and it takes it beyond that. It did not let the facts of the case stand on their own, the manipulation of the photo, upon release, would have been more than that. It would have been a manipulation of certain people's minds, although I would not think "guilty" from looking at a photo like this, there may be many who would have gotten that impression. That may be the image that these specific people acquired in their minds, and thought about whenever OJ was mentioned; that is a misconception of who he is.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line, in my opinion, is that magazines are trying to sell. They are each trying to take things to the next level all in hopes of you picking up that issue with a riveting cover, and then coming back to the stands for the update in the next issue. Some magazines do it by bringing in analysis specialist that will make comments on someone's body language, maybe Time magazine wanted a new approach that would have people interested in buying the issue. The photo is all around dark, and it could portray OJ as a dark, mysterious person. Staring at the photo and trying to put thoughts aside I just keep thinking about how it would be worse if the background had not been altered also and they were trying to make it seem as though that is the way OJ really looked.
To stop myself from rambling, let me wrap this up. There are parts of me that think this is a HUGE deal, and that TIME should have never done it. Then I think can a person perception of someone really change by looking at one single photograph? If a person liked OJ and saw that cover, they would be angry, and if a person did not like OJ and saw it they might feel a slight victory in him being portrayed that way. I just do not think this single photo would have everyone switching their opinions. I believe Time would have harmed themselves more than OJ if they had not recalled this issue.
Looking at this "alteration" from Time Magazine really makes me question the objectivity of their reporting/photography, etc. I know there is no such thing as true objectivity, but I beleive this photo helps to reveal Time Magazine's opinion of OJ's. I think they wanted readers to beleive he was guilty. The idea that it was done for "art's sake" is not a valid excuse. Although, when I put it in perspective, I can see why they might have done it. It seemed like most of the media took the OJ coverage to the extreme. They wanted to make it dramatic. They wanted to make him menacing, evil. I think journalists today can learn from this coverage. Let the events speak for themselves. And leave the embellishing up to Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTesting.
ReplyDeleteI've seen this photo and many others like it in Photojournalism I with Beth Reynolds. My first reaction to this photo is that it has been intentionally manipulated by the journalist to increase the dramatic effect of the photo. OJ's face is darker than it really is and there is even a spotlight effect surrounding his face that says "I've been caught". By ethical standards, you can edit a photo as long as you preserve the accuracy of the event and are still telling the truth. This photo has been darkened to the extent that it is not an accurate portrayal of OJ. If the image is not accurate, then it doesn't tell the truth. As journalists, we communicate to the masses. We have to be accurate and truthful with our words and our images!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the assigned text from White News over the weekend I think that the photographer for Time Magazine manipulated the photo to reflect the opinion of Time's target audience, which is arguably white in its majority. If I were a reader back then I think this photo would have contributed to me siding with the guilty verdict.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe the photo only widened the racial divide surrounding OJ's case with the darkening of his skin. When I look at the photo I see darkness which is always symbolic of evil or treachery. It's almost like looking at a caricature from the Jim Crowe era reinforcing social stereotyping about black men. I think it is a very negative and damaging image especially for Time Magazine, and I find little artistic value in it, although the photographer did manage to make it most "compelling."
Journalist and photojournalist are not paid to be artists. You work with the information and images you and your team have gathered in order to convey the information to the public as objectively and truthfully as possible.
ReplyDeleteIt takes far beyond the ethical limits of photo editing to create an image such as this one that Time published.
I do not find that the photo is racist, but partial and unfair, creating an air of guilt around a man that has even yet to be tried in a court of law.
Time's cover looks like a photo that would be published after a guilty verdict was handed down (even in such a case I would not find this photo acceptable). The photo portrays the feeling that the case is already closed. That O.J. is guilty, locked up away and out of site in a dark prison cell. This photo is ethically unacceptable and accusatory, instilling an attitude of condemnation and guilt amongst the public and , especially prior to trial.
My first thought when I saw the original Time cover vs. Newsweek was that Newsweek was very straightforward in their portrayal of OJ. They placed OJ's mugshot on the cover, just as it was taken. Instead of appealing to the emotions of their readers, the headline was exactly what was found at the scene - a Trail of Blood. No longer worried with how whites or blacks viewed OJ, Newsweek cut to the chase.
ReplyDeleteTime, on the other hand, was trying to appeal to the emotions of their audience. Their headline, An American Tragedy, makes the reader think, "Aww how sad," as if an angel had fallen from heaven into darkness (hence the dodge & burn used on the photo.) Making OJ look darker made him look like "just another black man" in the eyes of the white. At this point, the image looks as though he was cast of out the limelight and into a "dark cell," as if he were already guilty.
Even with the redo of the Time cover, his shadow still made him look darker. The picture with a shadow behind him makes it look like he's alone in the dark by himself.
I don't like any of the three covers. Newsweek's cover, although straightforward, uses a mugshot with the police markings still on it, and with a headline like "Trail of Blood," assumes that he is already guilty (whether or not that was the case). The original Time cover is absolutely unacceptable in a situation like this. The designer may have been trying to go for a dark look, but making OJ himself darker was unethical and mis-representing. The second cover of Time was a little bit better, but now it looks like it was just thrown together because they had to. By showing his face from the side instead of directly in front, it gives OJ a sad, brooding look, as if he's admitting sorrow (again playing upon the "American Tragedy" headline.) The picture now looks like he's saying, "I'm sorry I let you down America."
The best thing that Time couldve done was to pull a stock photo of OJ (but not smiling) and re-written a headline with less emotion, but still compelling enough to read.
When looking at these manipulated images it makes me question the journalists ethical values. He was obviously trying to portray OJ the way he wanted him to be seen. The manipulation of these photos distorts the truth. Him saying that he wanted the images to be more "compelling" is ridiculous. Journalists should never alter images, or feel that that they have to alter something to get a better reaction or story. This is falsifying the truth.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at these images that have obviously been manipulated, I can't help but feel like Hahruin had his own best interests at hand. As a journalist, you must report the truth, and this seems to be breaking that rule.
ReplyDeleteEthically, this wasn't right. Morally, this wasn't right. And frankly, I'm wondering what else this publication has altered that has slipped under the radar. If nothing else, this definitely changes my opinion on Time.
When I first saw the original cover picture that TIME had published it looked as if Hahurin was trying to alter the reality of people's perception in the situation. The photo was made out to be much darker than the actual picture. For TIME to reprint the cover without altering the photo also makes me wonder what else they've altered in the past, or even with this story. Would this have happened if it was a white man involved? I don't think so because if the NAACP hadn't gotten involved it might have gone unnoticed. As a magazine that I used to read as a trusted source I'm on the fence about that now.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who has said that the darkening of the photo makes OJ look like more of a criminal. I don't think it is ehtical for a magazine that prints news to alter a photograph the way they did here. Obviously, TIME also realized their error, since they recalled the magazine cover. As Amanda said, I also wonder what else the magazine has altered but has not recalled.
ReplyDeleteThe manipulation of this photo is falsifying the truth. In this case, the truth is subjective in the fact that O.J. is either seen in the public eye as a criminal or a hero. Obviously the darker photograph portrays guilt and the shocking headline stimulates sales of the magazine. TIME was not only investing in publication, but also in promotion (based on a controversial trial).
ReplyDeleteI think the Time cover makes OJ look like a "deer caught in the headlights." If that was the cover artists intent than I guess he gets the point across. It looks as if OJ is under a spotlight. I feel like I could provide the same effect just by knowing basic photoshop. I don't see artistic value in the design at all.
ReplyDeleteBut I understand why leading with a celebrity mugshot is compelling. Face it, most people have gotten a kick out of looking at celebrity mug shots. It's an attention getter.
However, I think both covers imply guilt based on their headlines. "An American Tragedy" paired with the mugshot implies that he is guilty. Same with "Trail of Blood."
It could be a gimmick to reach a target audience. I don't think either publication realized they would be contributing to an issue that would be divided by races.