Earlier this month, a political minefield erupted in Canberra when the communications team for Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton took umbrage to his portrayal by the media. So what could have caused the ire of his team? One might think that perhaps it was a misrepresentation of the minister’s comments on the controversial topic of asylum seekers? Maybe the minister was taken out of context by the journalists in attendance? As it would turn out, the commentary and broadcasting was not the concern of the minister’s team – instead, there was a more pressing issue – a photo deemed ‘unflattering’, and which was requested to be removed from Twitter.
This scenario is far from an isolated case – in fact, with the advent of social media, it’s no doubt a daily occurrence for many, including each of us. Think of that photo where you had your eyes shut. Or maybe you were caught in an awkward position. Perhaps you had a few too many drinks and were at your less than sociable best. Nevertheless, as you can probably gauge, there’s an abundance of instances where one might look unflattering in a photo. Which brings about two points of concern – what say does one have over the distribution of such a photo of them? And secondly, how should one channel their concerns to mitigate the impact of a photo?
The ‘unflattering’ picture in question. Source: Stephanie Peatling
On the first point, there are differentiations to be made. Someone who unwillingly or unknowingly has a photo taken of them should be afforded every right to voice their concern and ask for the removal of the photo – irrespective of whether others might not deem the photo ‘unflattering’, ultimately, it is the subject’s privacy that takes priority and their wishes should be respected.
But in the case where a person is expected to front the media as part of their job, and is fully aware of the common place nature of photos during such events, why is there a necessity to gag photographers and the like from doing their job? Of course the images might still be deemed ‘unflattering’ by the subject, however, that is part of a life in the public eye that accompanies acting as a figurehead or role model – even if at times that might seem like the furthest thing from the truth.
At the same time however, this is not to preclude people from voicing their concerns. It would be remiss to expect that a person cannot ask for the removal, or replacement, of an image – after all, it is this sort of scenario that in some respects spurs the use of Photoshop to ensure that other ‘flattering’ images are also published. But as a willing participant in fronting the public eye, these photos are effectively part of their duties.
Source: Timetobreak.com
Perhaps then, can people who front the media, have better control over their ‘image’, and how they are presented, by better managing their events? In this particular instance, no one can say that without some more thorough rehearsal or stage planning, Mr Dutton wouldn’t have been caught out in such a pose. Alternatively, it would be more effective for the minister’s team to specify and nominate photo opportunities – while it might still be a gag of sorts on the media, and perhaps a little backwards as such, this is certainly more aligned with a ‘proactive’ approach, rather than trying to react to something after the fact knowing full and well that once something is out there in the ‘Twittersphere’, it’s out there forever.
What are your thoughts? Should someone with a thorough expectation that they will be fronting the media, including photos, be afforded the same respect with regards to ‘unflattering’ photos? What about when there is a group scenario, or a subject is caught in the background of a photo – does the situation change?
