Altered States: Values we can't live by?

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was in an office tower in Arlington, VA. The conference room where we were all watching the horror unfold in New York City overlooked the Pentagon. When the plane hit there, we panicked and rushed down 30 flights of stairs into an underground parking garage and from there into the biggest traffic jam I've ever seen. To this day, when I see a plane flying low or making that slow, wide turn, a chill runs up my spine and my hands start to sweat.

So I can completely understand the reaction of New York and New Jersey residents to the Air Force One photo op Monday. It was costly, senseless, insensitive and just downright stupid.

But that aside, the part that really confuses me is the flip-flop attitude toward altering reality that is evident both in the press and the public.

A week ago, the mainstream media reported on the shirtless photo of President Obama planned for the May cover of Washingtonian Magazine. Bad enough that the leader of the free world's pecs and six-pack abs would be cover fodder, but many outlets covered the fact that the original photo - taken last year in Hawaii - was actually altered by the magazine, apparently both for ashethetics and design considerations.

The Associated Press wrote: "That didn't hold water, hot or cold, with some commentators and academics, who felt the magazine should have adhered to a central tenet of photojournalism: You don't alter photos: period."

Howard Kurtz, media critic for The Washington Post and host of CNN's Reliable Sources, said:
"Journalistic organizations shouldn't doctor photos of the president of the United States."

CNN and Fox anchors decried the Photoshopping of the president as well. And I agree with them all. Photographs purporting to be news are snapshots in time and they should show the world as it is - not as we would like it to be. Alterations of photos - changing the color of the president's swim trunks, for example, turn the photo into a "photoillustration" and should be disclosed by the publication (digital or print).

Now, on the heels of this outcry over changing black trunks to red and possibly adding a bit of a health glow, now comes the NYC flyover and it's mantra: 'Hasn't anyone ever heard of freaking Photoshop."

Analysts on CNN's 8 p.m. airing of The Campbell Brown Shown on Monday said the military should have saved the money and angst by just Photoshopping the picture. Pete Dominick on XM Radio's Stand Up program reiterated this same statement several times on Tuesday's 4 p.m. show. And CBS anchor Katie Couric in her notebook wrote: "As for Lady Liberty, she's wondering if anyone at the Pentagon has heard of a little program called Photoshop."

The New York Daily News - a newspaper that established its reputation with news photography - is actually having a Photoshop contest and asking readers to send in photos with Air Force One in improbably places.

I can appreciate what we used to call in the newsroom "the hoot value" of the Daily News's contest, but not the message it delivers.

We are truly a nation of expediency and, it seems, our values are easily dispatched with or modified to suit particular circumstances. It makes my mind reel to think how quickly the media would react to news that the administration had photoshopped a photo of Air Force One flying magestically over New York.

What other altered realities might we accept: Instead of a smiling handshake between Chavez and Obama, suppose we photoshop in a different pix of the prez with a more stern and disapproving look? How about an upright Obama facing the Saudi Arabian king eye to eye rather than the he's-not-really-bowing bow that caused such an uproar?

Is that really different? No, it's not. A photograph is a moment in time captured forever. We rely on its accuracy for our historical perspective. They document our times, our attitudes, our struggles and our victories. If we cannot rely on what we see with our own eyes as being factual, then we are truly lost.

Certainly photos are altered all the times in publications and on the internet. In this case, they are either clearly altered - such as the muscle bound Ronald Reagan that once graced the cover of Washingtonian magazine - or identified as a photoillustration.

We seem to be growing into a nation of situational standards. We thump our chests about our values but we are quick to put them away when they are inconvenient.

The flyover was a mistake, period. The White House office that approved it - at a cost of $382K - made a major miscalculation. The NYC mayor's office, which was notified four days in advance, was careless in not realizing the impact this would have.

But the answer that our media commentators and experts put forward should not be to alter the reality to the give the government what it wants. The answer should be that the government should not have done it. Period. We cannot open the door - however small the crack - to permitting the government to lie to us whether in a photo or a statment or an action. There is no situation where we should ever consider that acceptable. Period.