Comparison
Labria Hines
En 101
Dr. Howe Although Mitchell Stephens and John Long believe that technology gives way to computerizing images, Stephens believes that it is okay for journalists to alter such images, while Long does not. Both authors talk about honesty in altering images, but neither feels the same way about them. Each author makes valid points in their essays and the reader can clearly distinguish which side they stand on. In Mitchell Stephens’ essay, Expanding the Language of Photographs, he strongly believes that journalists altering images is okay, as long as they are changed within reason. Throughout his essay, he gives specific reasons for why he feels this way. He also gives specific examples to support him on his belief. Stephens believes that manipulating photographs gives journalists “unprecedented ability to shape the meanings their photographs, not just their sentences, can communicate” (15). The purpose of this essay is to emphasize journalists’ reasons for altering images. Stephens clearly states that the reason journalists manipulate photographs are to have a new form of communicating stories to their audience. In John Long’s essay, Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography, he says that it is not okay for journalists to alter images for any reason. He believes that such images are a visual “lie” and that they ruin the existence of photojournalism. Like Stephens, Long also gives specific examples and reasons to support his standpoint. In paragraph thirty-eight, he says, “no one has the right to change these photos or the content of any documentary photo. It is our obligation to history to make sure this does not happen.” This quote defines the purpose for his essay, which is to condemn manipulated photographs from photojournalism. Stephens suggests that with the aid of computers, photographic images will be able to show us much more than what they present itself. At the start of his essay, he uses the example of the two
En 101
Dr. Howe Although Mitchell Stephens and John Long believe that technology gives way to computerizing images, Stephens believes that it is okay for journalists to alter such images, while Long does not. Both authors talk about honesty in altering images, but neither feels the same way about them. Each author makes valid points in their essays and the reader can clearly distinguish which side they stand on. In Mitchell Stephens’ essay, Expanding the Language of Photographs, he strongly believes that journalists altering images is okay, as long as they are changed within reason. Throughout his essay, he gives specific reasons for why he feels this way. He also gives specific examples to support him on his belief. Stephens believes that manipulating photographs gives journalists “unprecedented ability to shape the meanings their photographs, not just their sentences, can communicate” (15). The purpose of this essay is to emphasize journalists’ reasons for altering images. Stephens clearly states that the reason journalists manipulate photographs are to have a new form of communicating stories to their audience. In John Long’s essay, Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography, he says that it is not okay for journalists to alter images for any reason. He believes that such images are a visual “lie” and that they ruin the existence of photojournalism. Like Stephens, Long also gives specific examples and reasons to support his standpoint. In paragraph thirty-eight, he says, “no one has the right to change these photos or the content of any documentary photo. It is our obligation to history to make sure this does not happen.” This quote defines the purpose for his essay, which is to condemn manipulated photographs from photojournalism. Stephens suggests that with the aid of computers, photographic images will be able to show us much more than what they present itself. At the start of his essay, he uses the example of the two