Q&A: Why Media Outlets Took Down Princess Kate’s Photo – and Why It Matters

“It appears that the source had manipulated the image in a way that did not meet AP’s photo standards,” the AP said in a statement. “The photo shows an inconsistency in the alignment of Princess Charlotte’s (Kate’s daughter) left hand.”

Kate, who hasn’t made a public appearance since Christmas and reportedly stayed two weeks in the hospital in January after a planned abdominal surgery, later apologized for the “confusion” the photo caused.

“Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing,” she said in a social media post.

Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C

— The Prince and Princess of Wales (@KensingtonRoyal) March 11, 2024

Aside from fueling more speculation about Kate’s health and whereabouts, this week’s developments have also raised questions about journalistic ethics in this fast-paced, digital age. We caught up with Sweeney, who once worked as a producer for National Geographic, for further insight.

Q. What is the public disservice in a reputable media outlet publishing a doctored photo?

A. It’s a step away from truth. While the public may not understand why it’s an issue because they’re so accustomed to seeing filtered and doctored photos on Instagram, this is the same public that has a lack of trust in the news today.

Kate Sweeney, a former journalist, is in her second year as a professor of practice in UVA’s Department of Media Studies. (Photo by Matt Riley, University Communications)

So, for journalists, it’s really this idea of upholding that standard of seeking truth, that it’s wrong to mislead. And a doctored photo is misleading. And the second we start misleading, we chip away at any remaining trust that exists.

Q. What did you make of the decision made by The Associated Press for retracting this image from circulation?

A. I think The Associated Press did what it needed to do. One of the core ethics of journalism is to be transparent. They explained what happened; they explained why they’re removing the photo. They didn’t just hide it or bury it or conceal that it happened. They also didn’t just go along with running it, either.

When you think about the four tenets of journalism being seeking truth, acting independently, minimizing harm and being transparent, the photo isn’t truthful. It’s not accurate. It’s misleading. So, we’ve got to get rid of it. And the next act as a journalist is to be transparent to the public about what happened and share what happened in order to attempt to maintain any form of trust.

AI Photo Edits

Just like the royal family, we too doctored a photo this week. Can you spot all of the manipulations? (Photo by Emily Faith Morgan, University Communications; illustration by John DiJulio, University Communications, assisted by AI)

From top left to bottom right:

1. White Bicycle
2. Inflatable pool donut
3. Water slide
4. Red Bicycle
5. People added to steps
6. Chick-fil-A cup copied
7. Union Jack added to railing
8. Yellow wireless charging devices
9. Bodo’s Bagel
10. Dog
11. Laptop on stand
12. Cat
13. Large electronics
14. Cat
15. Princess sitting in chair
16. Cell phone
17. Frisbee
18. Pile of books
19. Laptop
20. Dog in jacket
21. Pigeons
22. Pond, koi fish, and rubber duck floaty
23. Cat
24. Seagull
25. Everyone’s face was replaced with a smiling face

Q. In this day and age, where seemingly everyone with a social media account can act as a news source, how are legitimate news organizations trying to distinguish themselves for consumers? And how challenging is that?

A. One key thing is that reputable news organizations have standards and practices, and they publish them. The Associated Press’ news values are available on their website for all to read and see. Reuters is the same. The New York Times is the same. The Washington Post is the same. Most regional papers, you can access their standards and practices, whether it’s through their website or through a collective site.

And to me, that is the first thing that distinguishes reputable news from just media information: It’s that there’s a transparent set of values published and attempted to be enforced.

But with a platform like Instagram, it’s a delivery device. So, it’s delivering stuff from The New York Times, it’s delivering stuff from The Associated Press into your palm of your hand, but it’s also delivering unvetted content – from fun posts from your friends to misinformation designed to appear as news.

And that’s confusing for the person who’s reading and scrolling through endless content to know what is truly news and what isn’t, because I don’t know that people have had exposure to really understand that there are news organizations that do have standards and practices and they try to uphold them and that’s part of their decision-making and reporting process.

Q. The publication of the princess’ photo probably isn’t the first time news organizations have run doctored photos. What’s an example of a similar situation from the past? And how did newsrooms react to it?

A. In 2003, at the beginning of the Iraq War, there was a photo that landed on the front page of the L.A. Times and it was a combination of two images. The photographer admitted that he had edited two photos together in order to improve the composition (and was fired). It was an image of a British soldier telling Iraqi citizens what to do.

That caused a lot of conversation within the world I was in; everyone was talking about it. And it was after that point where there were adjustments made. There was more protocol about the number of eyes that would be on an image and the checking process.

Q. You worked at National Geographic from 2000 to 2006. What were the ethical standards there when it came to publishing photos and video?

A. National Geographic was a special place to be, because during the era in which I was there they had a very prominent standards and practices department. And that standards and practices department employed a number of researchers and – I don’t want to call them fact-checkers, because that wasn’t their actual title, but that’s essentially what they were.

Every single piece of video we produced, any bit that was written for the magazine, any images that went through National Geographic, the standards and practices department was all over it.

But whenever something was greenlit, a researcher would be assigned to your project from the standards and practices department. And to be a little blunt: They could be seen as an antagonist because they were there to keep the purity. They were there constantly asking, “How do you know what you know?”

It was the same standard for all visuals. “Does the photograph or video represent what the photographer or the videographer saw?” This meant that we could crop things. It meant that we could do basic kinds of color correction because maybe the white balance was off or something like that. Anything beyond that, though, was not OK.