Is a Picture Always Worth a Thousand Words?

It has become a known phrase that “a picture is worth a thousand words” and in most cases I believe this to be true. Lecture 4 of introduction to journalism focused on the importance of pictures in journalism and how a picture alongside an article can in fact make or break a story. A quote which particularly resinated with me in the lecture is one said by Eetu Sillanpaa reading

 “a picture has no meaning at all if it can’t tell a story.”

This quote really captures the entire purpose of a picture; particularly in journalism and portrays how and why a picture can in fact be worth a thousand words. However I believe that digital manipulation, a fairly recent development in photo journalism, is in fact corrupting the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Digital manipulation is a topic that was thoroughly analysed within the lecture and has really caught my interest. It is used in its most extreme form on celebrities to improve their appearance and make them appear, what particularly magazine journalists believe to be more desirable to readers. There is much debate as to whether this development is in fact good or evil. In my mind there is no debate; digital manipulation is a tool for pure evil, portraying beauty which in most cases is impossible to attain, leaving readers with a distorted view of what real beauty is. Examples of digital manipulation were provided in the lecture and one which particularly appalled me is shown below. It is undoubtedly evident that Beyonce’s legs have been digitally manipulated to look thinner and if readers weren’t able to see this comparison it is very possible that they would see this picture and believe it to be real, providing an example of how readers can be left with a distorted view of what real beauty is.

Digital manipulation is providing readers with fake images and how can these images be worth a thousand words?