Photographs are extremely powerful things. Pick up a newspaper (something I no longer do) or read a news story on the Internet and you’ll probably find an image attached to that story. Most legitimate news organizations will try to show you a photograph that was made at the time or event of the article, but don’t bet on it. A lot of what you see is a stock or file image that displays the subject, or something related to that subject, but not necessarily an actual image captured for the purpose of generating an accurate depiction.

I would note that the photographs in my article are links to the original publishers posted images and have not been copied or modified by me. They are used here for illustrative purposes, just as the original publishers are trying to illustrate their article.

I’ll use Donald Trump as an example. Why? Because he is constantly in the news, and he is a prime example of how images are selected to stimulate your emotional response to the article. This manipulation isn’t limited to Donald Trump, this manipulation is used time and time again by bloviators around the world.

Here’s an image of Trump used in a Salon article on why Donald Trump wouldn’t concede the 2020 election. He looks deranged.

Okay, I’m not trying to promote or defend Donald Trump. He’s more or less his own architect of his public image and to many Internet writers, he comes across as a despicable human being, so when they write about him, it’s more or less a good idea to put an unflattering photograph of him in the article, regardless of rather or not it’s actually related to what is being written.

Here’s an image used to show a smug expression of Vladimir Putin in an article on the 15 times Vladmire Putin beat the West. Who knows when the photo was made, but I’d bet money it was used to reinforce the article and not really related to anything in the article. He sure looks smug.

Again, I’m no fan of Vladimir Putin and neither is the Western Press, so any article about him is most likely going to contain a photo that visually reinforces the content of the article. Not really news, its opinion writing, and those opinions are amplified by finding a stock photo that meets the requirements of the bloviator. To me this type of stock photo usage is a bit on the deceptional or manipulative side of publishing. Everything in publishing is manipulating you to one degree or another, but when you purposely try to use an unflattering image of someone to promote your unflattering opinion, well, it’s not about “just the facts mam”, it’s more about spreading negative or hateful opinions under the guise of journalism. There’s no shortage of hateful journalism, but to me it’s just irrelevant gossiping. I don’t participate.

This stuff isn’t just limited to people in the news. On a more benign scale, stock photographs are often used to simply illustrate something that is informational, promotional or newsworthy, but they don’t actually depict the situation as it happened. I know this from firsthand experience as many of my stock photos have been used for this purpose (marketing & promotional.) On other occasions my stock photos have been used in news articles as a depictive element but not actually directly tied to that news article.

Here’s a good example of how one of my images was used to illustrate an article in Travel Pulse magazine “Top 15 Spots to View Fall Foliage by Boat.”

Okay, great for me. They purchased my stock photo and published it in an article It’s what they do and it’s what I do. But here’s the problem, this location is not even remotely related to boating. It’s a private pond in the San Juan Mountains and the only thing that relates it to boating in Autumn is it’s an Autumn photo and there is water in the scene. Put a boat in this pond and somebody would probably drive up in a pickup truck and give you hell about being there.

Of course, there are many different types of stock photos used for marketing or advertising and even news. A good example would be an image of happy office workers at their desk or computer, or lifestyle stock photos used to promote health care, travel, senior interests, etc… I tend to avoid doing any type of stock photography depicting human beings doing anything. Mainly because they require model releases which are time consuming and tedious to manage, and they are boring subjects to me. But some stock photographers thrive on this type of subject matter.

As a stock photographer, I’m aware that I have no real control over how my images are used once a license is purchased, at least beyond the terms of the license agreement the image was purchased under. Still, it bothers me when I see a wildlife photo used in a publication promoting hunting, which happens from time to time.

In the end, it’s really up to the reader to understand what they are looking at. It’s a fuzzy line trying to determine the difference between news and op/ed (opinion/editorial), and I think many people don’t really differentiate between the two. Having worked in the press/publishing world since 1981, I can easily tell when I’m being fed a load and when it’s an honest attempt at giving you factual information.