When the media industry changes one aspect of the media production process, an entire domino affect occurs. Will changing some part of the industry affect profits? Will people lose their jobs? Will negative social issues occur?
Many of my classes have discussed the issue of women and men being photoshopped in magazines and how it promotes false images to the readers. It is easy for us to say that the best way to improve the false promotion of female and male beauty is by adding a form of warning. This can lead to numerous problems for the industry. Many people would lose their jobs, new ethical situations would arise and in turn companies could go under due to loss in profits.
If advertisers or magazines had to clearly state when they used Photoshop, some companies may decide to take on more creative photographers in order to create flawless photos without computer enhancement. So what happens to the millions of people who spent their lives training and working for this aspect of media production? They are out of jobs and left with a skill that has become useless for most companies. What about the companies who produce the digital tools and the millions of people who work for these technologic companies? These people need work to feed their families, pay their mortgages, and uphold a healthy standard of living. Is it worth hurting all these people for this one caption at the bottom of an ad, which may not make a difference?
Let's say a magazine decides to take the unique and creative road and they say that they will never use Photoshop. Then one day a celebrity comes in and has a blemish on her face and she insist on having it taken out on the computer. Should a company risk its’ credibility in order to keep a good relation with this particular celebrity? This may seem like a stupid situation, but small situations such as these cause ethical issues to arise. If a magazine is trying to make money, but their client doesn't want the public to know their face was technologically changed, what should that company do?
If the word got out that they used Photoshop, which goes against their motto, they lose their credibility and thus their magazine may not remain as successful. The magazine may have to make budget cuts and in turn more people end up without jobs. A small situation ends up affecting hundreds of more people.
Even if these companies agreed to place this caption on the image, companies will find ways to go around it. They will find models that have perfect skin, who never need to be photo shopped in anyway. This means discrimination will occur against any model who does not seem perfect in person. This would now cause issues between the modeling industry and bigger companies. If companies only hire people who in reality appear almost perfect, won't girls all over the world feel inferior to these women appearing in magazines and advertisements? Companies will still be promoting an image, which most girls will never be able to obtain. The self-esteem issues existing amongst women will remain in place. It may even become worse, because people will know that these women really do exist and look almost flawless without any enhancement.
Changing one aspect of the media industry leads to a complicated mess of more issues, which will need to be resolved. The industry must figure out whether it is worth the consequences to simply place a caption on the bottom of a photo. I am sure this is one of the main reasons why the US has taken precaution in adopting this law.
Examples of photoshop :
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ebeautydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/0720-faith-hill-photoshop.jpg&imgrefurl=http://dezertprincess.wordpress.com/tag/vent/&usg=__4UwaCqrRG_LTNYe6BnSp3A2KhNA=&h=331&w=450&sz=34&hl=en&start=19&sig2=Vdn7byGcKcysVzDkUZt-dA&um=1&tbnid=3j7ye5GrouQeCM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddoctored%2Bfashion%2Bphotos%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=zOjrSuOgN5HplAfTrrH_BA
No comments:
Post a Comment