Ethics Reading Post 2: "Samples of Retouched Photos"

I liked this article because it showed me the examples of photos that have been edited. It showed the original photo(s), and also the final edit that was published. Along with telling me, it showed me exactly what had been changed about the picture. Although all of this helped me see why people might have been mad about the edits, it still did not convince me that any of it was morally incorrect. Certain photos that completely change the meaning of something in a negative way or made up photos are not okay, but there are others that do not seem like a big deal at all. The OJ Simpson photo, for example, had a filter on it that made it seem darker and more evil. It said some argued that it could have sent the racist message that "blacker is more sinister," but that is not a solid argument at all. Anyone can make up any crazy opinion like that about any photo. One could say that because a main female character in a movie is dumb, the movie is sexist. But that isn't necessarily true. It's just one person's opinion that cannot be backed up. The other photo that doesn't seem like a big deal is the one of the British soldier that had been edited so that he was pointing a certain way. In no way at all does the edited version of the photo change the meaning negatively. So yes, maybe it is against the rules of the magazine or newspaper to edit the photo, but was it morally incorrect? No. Overall, the messages of these articles did not convince me that every edit is against ethics. I now know that there are strict rules to prevent it, but I don't believe it is always a bad thing.