Visual Gatekeeping – Selection of News Photographs at a Flemish Newspaper

Galtung and Ruge (1965), in their seminal study on foreign news items in Norwegian newspapers, composed a list of twelve news values: threshold, frequency, negativity, unexpectedness, unambiguity, personalisation, meaningfulness, reference to elite nations and elite persons, consonance, continuity, and composition. The existence, accumulation and concentration of news values increased the probability that a certain event would be selected. The taxonomy was not a normative list of criteria of what news ought to be nor a working list for journalists, but rather an analytical tool for shedding light on the intrinsic elements that made an event turn into a news event.

Harcup and O’Neill (2001) reclassified the news values into a new list that also included celebrities, entertainment, good news, and newspaper agenda. More recently, Harcup and O’Neill (2016) also took social media into account and added exclusivity, conflict, drama, audiovisuals and shareability, while at the same time acknowledging that ‘no taxonomy can ever explain everything’.

Journalistic practice differs from theory as journalists themselves testify to ‘a seemingly self-evident and self-explaining sense of newsworthiness, the journalistic gut feeling’ (Schultz 2007:190). Schultz argued that the ‘gut feeling’ entails both explicit news values such as timeliness, relevance, identification, conflict and sensation, as well as implicit, unspoken news values, for example exclusivity.

Shoemaker and Reese (1991, cf. 2014) identified five levels of influence on news processing as represented in a model of concentric circles: 1) the individual level of experiences, attitudes and values in the inner circle of the model, 2) the professional routines (among them the reliance on news values, but also routine sources and working practices), 3) an organisational level including ownership and structure of the enterprise, 4) social institutions such as advertisers and interest groups and, finally, 5) the outer circle of the social system including ideological, cultural, political and economic factors.

Shoemaker and Reese emphasized foremost the forces beyond the individual’s control. Voakes (1997), who focused on the ethical decisions of journalists, likewise found that small groups, organisational, and extra-media factors all weigh more than individual influence.

Bissell (2000a) kept close to the classic study by White (1950), both in method (observation) and focus (individual gatekeepers). Bissell stressed the individualistic decisions photo editors make on the basis of personal biases: ‘Each decision made by a gatekeeper represented one individual’s perspective of reality’ (Bissell 2000a:11). In line with this, Bissel found that many decisions seemed to be based on race, gender, age, or political orientation. It was only in her second article (2000b) that Bissell also explicitly addressed routines and organisational influences.

Peterson and Spratt (2005) also focused on the individual level, demonstrating how picture editors are influenced by emotion and traumatic personal experience in their decision-making. They are ‘professionals for whom emotion plays a role’ (Peterson & Spratt 2005:8).

Human interest and human emotion appeared as strong selection criteria in the photo coverage of Hurricane Katrina (Fahmy, Kelly & Kim 2007). Emotion, in this study, is not situated at an individual level but considered a media routine, part of the ‘photo editors’ professional values, traditions, and practices’ (Fahmy, Kelly & Kim 2007:558). Deference to audience interests is another media routine, as found by Wanta and Roark (1992–1993), who conducted a content analysis of wire photos in newspapers. They concluded that selection patterns reflected the society newspapers serve (routine level) as well as a specific newspaper’s tradition (organisational level).

Schwalbe et al. (2015) were interested in the perceptions rather than the practices of visual gatekeepers, both photographers and photo editors. In their perceptions, the gatekeepers’ own judgement and values – thus, the individual level – played the most important role in choosing newsworthy visuals. After factors at the individual level followed work routines such as work habits, responses to deadlines, codes of ethics, newsroom culture, and technical factors such as the source of the visual, quality, immediacy and availability. Outside factors such as the interests of the media played, in their view, a lesser role.

Harris (1991) pointed to the digital manipulation problem, which results from software such as Photoshop, which essentially endangers truthfulness and leads to deception or, in his words, ‘gives rise to a “slippery slope” ethical decision making’ (Harris 1991:164). The most direct way to attempt to correct this situation, according to Harris, is through peer pressure, protocols and the ‘how-to’s’ of ethics rather than codes (Harris 1991:169).

With regard to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Seelig (2006) found that no digital manipulation was tolerated with regard to hard news. However, feature photos could be composed before the camera and slightly manipulated. Overall, editorial policy was characterised by reticence: ‘a news photo is to remain within the boundaries and conventions of legitimate news’ (Seelig 2006:18). Standard practice encompassed dodging, burning, cropping, balancing of colour, contrast adjustments, and correcting technical defects in a photo such as dust spots.

Several studies focus on singular cases of war, conflicts, violence and the selection or rejection of shocking images (e.g., Fahmy 2005, Fahmy, Kelly & Kim 2007, Kratzer & Kratzer 2003, O’Brien 1993). According to these studies, newspapers do not intentionally seek shocking pictures, but only a minority chooses not to use them at all. Although final decisions concerning publication diverged a lot throughout the studies, all decision takers were aware of ethical implications. Overall, organisations’ codes of ethics were perceived to be less important in the gatekeeping process than personal ethics, political sensitivity and situational context. The studies pointed to such traditional practices as ‘the breakfast test’ – not disturbing people over breakfast – or mechanisms explained by Potter and Smith (2000) such as the observation that a close-up image of a violent act is more graphic than a long shot of the same act, or that the degree of physical alteration of the victim (e.g. lying in a pool of blood, the eyes wide open instead of shut) matters in the visual selection decision.

As the news editors decide which topics the newspaper will cover, the first step in the process is taken before the photo editors enter the scene, in this way the photo editors are limited to ‘illustrating’ the chosen news. They have three main sources to do so: firstly, photo editors give assignments to a pool of about 15 freelance photographers; secondly, they select visuals supplied by agencies as Belga, Photo News, Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France Presse and The European Pressphoto Agency; and thirdly, they search archives for suitable photo material. One editor described it as matching supply (wire photo’s, archives, photos by photographers) to demand (news topics).

Photo editors narrow down the possibilities to only a few but actual decision-making tends to be a collaborative process. Interviewees referred to lengthy discussions with other staff members, including other photo editors, news editors, page designers and the art director. Most discussion takes place between photo and news editors and not within the group of photo editors. A frequent discussion topic occurs when a news editor opts for a wire photograph while the photo desk has sent a photographer on location. In these cases, the photo desk always prefers its ‘own’ photographer’s picture.

In general, photo selection decisions on the front page and pages two and three tend to be made in consultation with the news editors, while picture issues on the pages further back are either decided on by photo editors alone or in consultation with layout professionals. Decisions are made in consensus – ‘If we really can’t work it out, we can push it through but we try to avoid the conflict model because it’s not pleasant’ (photo editor, male) – or by the highest in rank: ‘If we really do not agree, I say: “Ask the editor in chief” and he decides’ (photo editor, female). When violent and shocking images are on the table, no editor decides alone. Instead, lengthy discussions are held to debate about whether the images are fit to print. The debates are aimed to unite the staff behind this kind of delicate decisions. Finally, the editor in chief decides.

Without using the word ‘socialisation’, our interviewees referred to a certain type of learning process:

There are no strict guidelines or prohibitions but when you are working here for a while, you feel the newsroom culture, what is allowed or not, and what has been published a lot before.

All respondents referred to an unwritten newsroom policy, not least the photo editor in chief: ‘There are six people working for me. In fact, you try to make all these people look with your eyes because you want to have photos in the newspaper that you yourself would choose.’

Early in their careers, new photo editors start working on less risky pages such as the Culture or Economy sections. These pages are sent to the printing department by 6 p.m. and still have a lot of other ‘gates’ – people and checks – to pass. More risky pages – those whose pictures are selected closer to the deadline and where there is less control afterwards – are the responsibility of more experienced editors. Evidently, the front page is the one you only ‘earn’ after many years of hard work and experience. In those years, a photo editor selects less risky photos, learns the job and makes the norms and values of the newspapers his or her own.

It is not an easy task for the editors to describe selection criteria explicitly. Choosing a picture is partly driven by emotion: ‘When I look at photos, at least one thing has to happen: either in my head, in my heart, or in my belly’, one editor claimed. When words are chosen to name the self-evident, ‘truthfulness’ is the first word that came to the mind of the photo editor in chief since ‘the photographer is a transmitter of reality’. The information value of the photo prevails: ‘A photo has to fit in with what the newspaper stands for and that is, above all, giving information. Information above aesthetics.’

Another photo editor referred to the ‘illustration value’ of photos. This does not mean that pictures have to be ‘neutral’: a strong image is ‘an image that speaks for itself and reverberates for a long time’. A good image tells a story and gives news facts a face.

Truthfulness not only applies to contents (what is pictured) but also to technical aspects (how it is pictured). Truthfulness implies natural and spontaneous photographs. Ideally, one does not notice the hand of the photographer in the photograph, according to the editors. They prefer images that look as if they have been cut out of reality, are full of energy, and dynamic. For that reason, photos of people are always preferred to landscapes or buildings. Truthfulness also implies that digital manipulation with the use of Photoshop is not acceptable when it leads to a false representation of factual events. It is only considered acceptable to enhance the quality of the picture, for example in lightning conditions. Re-using images in different contexts, e.g. an archive photo of children in a school canteen in a new article on child poverty, is disapproved of.

According to the editors, images need to be correct, and preferably dynamic, but also ‘serene’ and ‘detached’. Other words that were used to describe the newspaper’s house style are ‘responsible’ and ‘quiet’. The aloof attitude manifests itself in, for example, long shots instead of close-up images of a violent act or car accident. Interviewees also referred to the same aspect as a matter of ‘good taste’. The newspaper wants to dissociate itself consciously from tabloids and sensational press by a serene style – ‘You have to avoid shocking only to shock’, one of the interviewees said. In judging shocking images, the notion of ‘relevance’ appears as an additional ‘why’ component next to the ‘what’ (contents) and ‘how’ (camera technique and aesthetics). Explicit photos of decapitations by the Islamic State, for example, were not deemed relevant to understanding the news story and therefore not published.

We also asked the photo editors about the impact of the ethical code for journalists on their selection decisions. The current code in Flanders was formulated by the Council for Journalism in 2010 (and updated in 2012, 2013, and 2015) and deals with four domains: truthful information, independent reporting, fair play and respect for privacy and human dignity. Next to textual information, ‘images’ are explicitly referred to in the code as falling under the demand of truthfulness: substantive manipulation of images is not acceptable or has to be communicated to the audience; archive photos need to be recognisable as such (Raad voor de Journalistiek 2015:Article 3). Additional restrictions rest, for example, on photos of minors who need protection from journalists (ibid:Article 15).

Journalists and editors in our study were aware of the ethical code but did not actively or consciously fall back on it. They take it for granted and consider its principles intrinsically interwoven with the profession of journalism:

It’s something like doctors washing their hands after every visit. I think it has become an automatism so you don’t wonder every time: oh yes, that’s the code.

When in doubt about the suitability of a specific image – for example, with regard to the protection of the right of privacy of people depicted in the photograph – editors told they tend to opt for another picture in order to avoid problems. The tendency to avoid problems supports the reserved and cautious newsroom policy and can also be singled out a decisive factor:

The newspaper has an ombudsman, who in turn actively reverts to the code in his columns and advice. The ombudsman does not receive many complaints about photo selection in the newspaper but the majority of them deal with privacy or identifiability of people and shocking images raising questions about relevance. Notwithstanding the cautiousness of the staff, these topics are not without controversy among the readership of the newspaper.

Besides the content of a photograph (with criteria such as truthfulness, information value and correctness, as well as serenity and distance) and technical aspects (with criteria such as quality of the image and spontaneity), ‘contextual’ aspects also play a vital role in the selection and rejection process. By ‘contextual’ we mean external to the photo itself but dealing with the immediate newspaper context. Editors pointed at trivial factors such as ‘avoiding the colour red’ due to the low quality of paper print, at economic/amicable factors such as the preference for ‘house photographers’ above wire photographs, and at rather decisive elements concerning pages’ layout, display issues and composition:

If there are already two ‘landscape’ orientated pictures on the pages before, you need to look for a ‘portrait’ orientated picture, otherwise there seems to be a fixed pattern.

Consequently, decisions are not only made on the basis of the qualities of one picture alone, but in accordance with what comes before and after a picture or a page. The newspaper as a whole strives for an alternation between small and large photographs, between different orientations (portrait and landscape) and contents (people, buildings, landscapes etc.). The ‘rhythm’ of the newspaper appears as one of the leading concerns in making visual selections: ‘A good newspaper issue has a bit of everything’ (photo editor in chief).

Even advertisements play a role in the layout of pages and consequently in the choice of news photos, with regard to form, shape and contents: next to a garish advertisement, the photo editors opted for a quiet and serene photo. In short, final visual selection decisions were always taken with an eye to layout.

The photo desk’s main task is to illustrate the news with visualisations, not to search for visual news. Consequently, the most decisive criterion is a photo’s capacity to tell the news and to give essential or additional information about the news event. Information value and truthfulness prevail over aesthetics but are preferably combined with aesthetic values. Photo editors clearly give more weight to the aesthetic and more generally to the ‘appealing’ character of a picture than news editors do but they try to come to a decision in consensus or at least in consultation with one another.

Aesthetics has to do with artistic value and professional quality (technical aspects such as composition, colour and lighting) but also with good taste. The newspaper in this study has the status of a broadsheet newspaper and wants to live up to that expectation. It dissociates itself from sensation, which is considered a characteristic of popular newspapers. In the words of its editors, it chooses distance, serenity and balance instead. Starting editors internalise these values through experience, observations of other staff and peer discussions or, in other words, through socialisation.

Photo editors do not consider a series of single photographs only but they consider the whole of the visual newspaper, its complete visual composition. Photos are weighed one against another in the light of the bigger picture. Placement issues and possible (dis)harmonies with surrounding pictures, advertisements, and layout elements may appear as trivial but are nonetheless decisive criteria for selection and rejection. A newspaper is a total product and balance therefore is not only a quality on the level of one single picture but also a quality on the level of every single page and of the newspaper as a whole.

Individual editors tend to overrate the individual decision level (with its individual preferences, emotions and tastes); both conversations and observations point to the importance of the routine and organisational levels. Routines in work are unavoidable and indispensable in order to meet deadlines. Some routines or standardised practices are prompted by sources: the newspaper’s own, local photographers are systematically preferred to wire-service photographs. Other routines are inspired by the audience: the newspaper is seen as a quality newspaper which has to live up to that expectation to inform about events rather than entertaining the public.

Peer discussions are very much part of the routine and can also be considered part of the learning process. The more controversial the issue (e.g. violent or shocking images, involvement of minors) and the greater the ethical implications (e.g. invasion of privacy), the more important the discussions become, resulting in shared decision making instead of individual choices. Moreover, the more controversial the issue, the more the hierarchy in the newsroom comes to the fore: in delicate cases, editors in chief take their responsibility in making difficult and final decisions. The professional environment wherein photo editors work is clearly broader than only the photo desk or even the newsroom as a whole. Furthermore, extra-editorial influences, such as advertisements and layout policies, define the framework within which decisions are made.

According to our findings, increased digitization of the production process has not fundamentally changed the gatekeeping process since the 1990s or 2000s: it essentially remains an interplay of criteria and influences at divergent levels. Some findings, however, can be considered in light of the digitization processes.

Increased possibilities to manipulate news pictures (e.g. Photoshop) led, at the same time, to increased awareness of the risks involved and to a clear and shared rejection of manipulation. This rejection is also registered in the ethical code. Similarly, as the re-use of archive photos became easier in a digitised environment, the risks of re-use became recognised by editors and registered in the ethical code as well.

In our study, at last, contextual factors such as the newspaper layout and format appeared as strong decisive elements, which might be, at least partially, due to a digital production process wherein not only page designers but also photo editors are already in an early stage confronted with composition issues.

Overall, the findings give insight in the visual gatekeeping process at a middle-sized newspaper in Flanders and contribute to existing theory on visual gatekeeping and methodology on news ethnography. Future research can look into smaller sized newspapers and mass oriented newspapers. In Flanders, not all newspapers have a separate photo desk; in some newsrooms lay-outers and copy editors make the photo selection themselves. Whether they are driven by the same criteria as ‘real’ photo editors is one possible question to ask in future research.