Produced by Photographers, Owned by Media

When I first laid eyes on Truman’s picture of a paintball game, a strong sense of familiarity struck me. The photo reminds me of a game I recently played called Army of Two. A first person shooter, Army of Two emphasizes seamless cooperation of two soldiers in order to survive war. Similarly, Truman’s picture exudes vivid intensity of a battle, demonstrating the importance of teamwork in modern day sports. However, what truly strikes me about the picture is explained in the writer’s description. The depiction of this close range combat scene was taken by a friend of the writer’s at the risk of being shot by stray paintballs.

To me, the photographer’s effort in preserving a loyal image of a fierce combat in spite of personal safety is very admirable. This level of determination to obtain a truthful picture of the game is also displayed by many war photographers who are dodging bullets on a daily basis just to capture the cruelty of battles through their lenses. Thanks to them, we are able to gain a taste of war even thousands of miles away from the hot zone. Despite their respectable efforts and sacrifices, however, I question if we can truly see war pictures as the most honest representation of war itself? In the same spirit, I have doubts if we can rely on pictorial presentations to learn the truth of any event?

Photography does not appear to be much different from writing. A picture is a photographer’s observation and interpretation of an event not only through the lens of the camera but also from the judgment based on the person’s values. For instance, let’s revisit Truman’s picture. If the photographer were to leave the teammate on the left out of the picture, the message could have turned from “teamwork” to “evasive action,” or even just a bland narrative of “Truman firing a paintball gun.” In other words, the essence of an event could be drastically different depending on the photographer’s presentation. Moreover, even if photographers could form the most objective perspective to illustrate an occurrence, it would be hardly possible for a single person to investigate all facets of the happening to come to a fair conclusion. Given the power of nearly manipulating visual influence and the subjectivity in the nature of photography, I feel skeptical about pictorial demonstration of any event.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but a picture does not speak for itself. Today the true power of reporting lies in the hands of the employers and distributors of photographic works, namely the media. Even though neutrality is a required quality in news reports, different networks inevitably hold their own agendas and biases in news production since they are managed by different interest groups. Interestingly and disturbingly, a same photographic representation of an event could be interpreted and presented dramatically different by two opposing players in the media arena. Shown above is a news report on the Tibetan Riot that happened in March 2008. The photographic comparison made by a Chinese website shows how a credible news network like CNN would tailor pictures toward their points of view in reporting. Today we have more and more sophisticated photographic technology to preserve space and time in lifelike pictures; however the seeing-is-believing spirit can no longer be held true because photos have grown to be a new means of manipulation, which seems to be paradoxical and troubling at times.

While remaining appreciative to photographers’ continuous hard work and sacrifices in presenting different realities surrounding us, we have a need to be extra cautious and question what we are presented with by the media. In this day and age of media manipulation, the only way we can break free comes from gaining perspectives from as many sources as possible and examining the messages with our critical mind.