Reuters Questioned

Olivier Laurent in the British Journal of Photography has an interesting post Reuters maintains dogged silence on allegations of ‘staged images’ on the continuing controversies over some Reuters images from Syria first raised by the New York Times three months ago, and of their refusal to answer questions about these and the photographers concerned.

Reuters have always insisted on high standards from the photographers who work for them, and their ‘A Brief Guide to Standards‘ in their Handbook of Journalism sets out in some detail what it expects.  Laurent gives a short quote from it in his article, but here is another that I think is particularly relevant not just to some of the images from Syria, but also to current journalistic practice in the UK.  In a section headed ‘Set-ups / Staging of Pictures’ they state:

“Reuters does not stage news photos. Sometimes, subjects may strike an artificial pose, such as at a product launch, a show business event or a sports victory ceremony or when requested to do so to illustrate a feature. In some circumstances, such as during demonstrations, civil unrest, street celebrations or conflict, the presence of photographers and television crews may prompt subjects to act abnormally.

These images should be few and can be clichés. They must be clearly captioned to show the reader that the actions are not spontaneous and to explain the context.”

The guide goes on to say “The best news photography occurs when the presence of the camera is not noticeable” and I agree completely with them, though I think their suggestion that this can be achieved using long lenses is seldom the case. Although it may occasionally be necessary or advisable for reasons of safety to work from a distance, it seldom produces the best images – and almost always has a distancing and distorting effect.  Being ‘not noticeable’ is a way of working which you can use even with a fisheye.

Captioning is certainly important, but only goes a certain distance. Generally as far as the sub’s bit bucket.  It’s perhaps a part of our moral rights as creators, a part of the integrity of our work, that along with attribution that photographers and the agencies haven’t really ever stood firm on.

I think it is sad that so much of what appears in our UK newspapers is just such staged photography, and have often felt some annoyance at photographers who will come into events and start staging pictures. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but let these clichés be few. Even if some picture editors seem to love them.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the Reuters guide also gives some useful suggestions as to what is and what is not acceptable in camera settings and Photoshop, though I think it isn’t really possible to be as prescriptive as they are – nor do their ‘Technical Guidelines‘ cover every eventuality.

I’ve certainly occasionally transgressed over some things like selective sharpening, and I think their comment on saturation is simply incorrect – it does things which can’t be achieved using levels (and in many published images it is too high.) They might well find some of my local tonal alterations too extreme (as I’ve occasionally done.)  But it is the intentions that are more important than the detail.

Reuters set a high standard. One that I think all news photographers should aim to meet. But there is little point setting a standard if you refuse to demonstrate whether or not you meet it.