Canon violates journalistic ethics...twice
Earlier this year the National Football League (NFL) announced new "security" rules requiring that all professional photographers wear NFL-issued red vests or lose their stadium access. What the photographers discovered was that these NFL-issued vests also carried the Canon logo, and that has led to outrage and protests across the professional community. Turns out that outrage was justified.
CNET senior staff writer Stephen Shankland covered this controversy in a NewsBlog posting, and the National Press Photographers Association makes it quite clear what Stephen reported: that Canon put professional photographers into an ethical pickle, and they are furious. So furious that the Chicago Tribune, for example, has decided that if the NFL won't change the vests or their rules, they will "cover the NFL without visuals."
In theory, any random Joe should be free to endorse any random product and, if they are lucky, be paid a fair price to do so. But when a person of a specific profession makes a specific recommendation related to that profession, it should be completely clear what compensation, if any, is being paid. And such compensation should be fairly negotiated between the two parties. Would you want to know if your doctor was being paid to push a drug on you (or that the drug's regulator has a financial interest in the companies they regulate)? Would you want to know if your financial planner was paid by companies whose stocks he's recommending (or that they don't even know what they are selling)?
Sadly, fewer people and organizations are upholding high ethical standards as companies find new ways to push people from neutral to biased territory. That in turn makes many of us suspicious when we read a glowing review in a magazine or on the Web. And yet, some crave-worthy products are worth buying. And some products are of such quality that they are worth recommending. I have bought and used Canon cameras and lenses for nearly 30 years, and they are fantastic products in every way: mechanically, electronically, and optically. As products go, I recommend Canon. And no, I have never been paid a penny by Canon to endorse its gear. So what's the beef?
As an industry leader, Canon should know that the first job of the photojournalist is to faithfully and accurately report the news through images, not to become an image unto themselves. Forcing photojournalists to become props at the events they cover violates the first principle of the job. And now Canon is using just such images to promote its gear:
Inspired. By Canon.
(Credit: Canon)Ouch!
But that story was already told, its consequences predicted. What makes this report news is the following image, copied from a print ad in Newsweek magazine last week:
Falsified. By Canon.
(Credit: Canon)Do you see that these are almost the same pictures? Except that the lens hoods in the online photo have been "enhanced" in the print ad. Here's a better picture showing real lens shades in use:
Lens shades don't have lenses!
(Credit: Canon)As you can see, there's no lens at the end of a lens hood--that would defeat the entire purpose! I find the altered image particularly disturbing because I own several of these beautiful white lenses, and it's just so unnatural. Look again at the Newsweek ad and you can see how stupid those lenses look with the lenses painted on to the end of these massive lens shades. And you can see how ridiculous is the claim that the NFL makes, which is that the logo on the vest is just acknowledgment for financially supporting the manufacturing of the vest itself, not an advertisement. Visible or not, Canon has used these photographers to tell a photographic lie in a print ad. It's advertising!
The professional photographers were right to cry foul on the NFL's collusion with Canon. Now those who wear the vest have not only the shame of ethical breach, but the degradation of appearing as props in a blatantly manipulated image. What does this have to do with parenting and technology? Canon is a leader in digital photography technology. But its advertising campaign stinks by corrupting those who are responsible for reporting the truth. We have ample evidence that ethical compromise is a slippery slope, leading good photographers to make questionable choices. Unless we are prepared to doubt everything reported that we do not witness firsthand, we need to do more to protect, not pressure, the integrity of photojournalists.
Canon's lack of judgment provides an interesting 21st century object lesson. Perhaps next year my daughter will be reading The Red Vest rather than The Scarlet Letter. What a shame, because those who wear the vests are not the guilty, but the victims.
Michael Tiemann is president of the Open Source Initiative and vice president of open source affairs at Red Hat. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
As to the Canon logo on the NFL sanctioned/ordered sideline vests, consider this. The NFL (like MLB,NBA, NASCAR and the Olympics to name but a few) are very effective and aggressive marketers who collect large fortunes from corporations in order to be designated the official whatever of the league and have their logo appear on official league sanctioned items. What's more, that logo is exclusive within that field. Only one sport drink, only one car company, only one airline, only one camera company. By providing journalists with the opportunity to stand on the sidelines to cover the games photographically, the NFL has the right to demand that no ads conflicting with their licensing intersts be displayed on clothing and Canon has a right to expect that as the official camera of the NFL, their logo would be displayed on the photographer's NFL mandated photo vests.
Any media outlet that would rather cover the games without visuals than comply with league rules has a perfect right to do so. Ironically, next time you watch an NFL game or just about any other major sporting event, count the number of white lenses on the sideline. Those are for the most part, Canon lenses on Canon cameras. Nikon, the other choice of professional sports photogs have black lenses. Given the greater number of white lenses to black lenses, the endorsement of the professional community seems clear without logos.
Finally, comes the question of endoresement compensation to the photo journalists who are forced to wear the logoed vests. Nobody is asking for their endorsement and if they were being asked they would no doubt be compensated. They are simply being offered a quid pro quo by the NFL...wear the vest, stand on the sidelines. Don't wear the vest, watch on TV. If there are to be complaints, they can address them to the NFL among others for tatooing brand logos on everything that moves and everything that doesn't move. Canon anted up the promotional bucks to be seen as the NFL's camera brand of choice. They have a right, ethically and otherwise, to see their brand appropriately displayed within the guidelines the NFL establishes.
How is Canon violating journalistic ethics when an advertisement shows the surface of a lens at the end of a lens hood? The ad is an ad, not an article on the construction of a lens. Are you suggesting that the lenses depicted in the ads don't really have lenses? Are you concerned that a customer will be duped into buying a lens only to find out that the lens surface is deeper inside the hood than as shown in the ad? What does the location of the lens surface and the lens hood have to do with the red vests?
If you are going to accuse a company of violating journalistic ethics, you should first consider whether such an accusation has merit. The facts presented in the article do not justify the accusations made in the article. Journalistic ethics should require a journalist who is making claims of ethical violations to use higher standard than the one used in this article.
How about if all photographers at White House press confererences were required to wear shirts stating "We support George Bush"?
The claim that a Canon logo on a shirt somehow improves security is a farce ... I'm sure there are some photographers who do not use canon products, and I'm sure many of them decided to nix NFL coverage as a result, which helped Canon monopolize for these ads. They actually benefit from severely angering people!
As analogies go, this one is so disproportionate as to be absurd (as were analogies in the original article like the one about Doctors pushing certain drugs for financial gain). For one thing to be analogous to another it must be in proportion and this simply is not equal to President Bush strong-arming the press or Doctors co-opting their Hippocratic oath for a hot kickback from the pharma giants. Corporations get away with literal murder in this country and we "seemingly well-educated" types have been attacked relentlessly anytime the subject arises. Canon's logo on a red sideline photovest does not remotely rise to that level of corporate interference. And for the record, if there is any claim to a safety/security aspect of the vest it is the red color and not the Canon logo...but I suspect Mr. Agnew already knew that.
Frankly, I know of no professional sports photo journalist, assigned to cover the NFL (a prized assignment I would add) with their trusty NIKON of choice, that would turn down the job because of a logo on their vest. Maybe there are a few, but I doubt their dominance. They would certainly not give up their coveted assignments because the equipment in their hands and around their neck doesn't match the logo on their vest. Besides, the logo is just a logo...it doesn't say "I Support Canon."
Mr. Agnew...when you take on the health establishment, the oil and energy establishment and the military industrial complex let me know and I will join you. I'm guessing a number of my seemingly well-educuated peers will join you too. Hell, focus on the lack of journalistic ethics demonstrated by every major media outlet when they spent the first few years of the Iraq war cheerleading the President instead of reporting the truth, largely because they wanted continued access and were afraid of the public backlash any criticism might bring their way. Then I will pay attention.
When you seek to fault a company for having their logo appear on an officially sanctioned garment of a sport that they pay dearly to be the official sponsor of, then you lose me. It's not only a non issue, it is nonsense.
What if Secret Service tells that all the press members got to wear SS-provided jackets. Which coincidentally are visibly branded with "Bush" company (not related to GWB, of course) logo?
It is definitely an issue, and a glaring example of a much larger problem. And if you can't recognize that, you are a part of that problem.
Please enlighten us all Chuckle as to the the nature of that "much larger problem" as you see it and how my belief that when someone pays for sponsorship they should receive value from that purchase is part of the problem.
Are you simply opposed to sponsorships?
Are professional sports too commercial for your taste?
If so, where would you begin to de-commercialize these multi-billion dollar industries?
Are vests with logos on them your only hot-button or shall we do away with all branding and co-branding campaigns?
Is it only the media that you are concerned with? If so I can understand, given the inviolate, even chaste way they typically do business. After all, the news media exists in an environment sans advertising, promotions, special events, political pandering, paid endorsements or sweeps week sensations.
Beyond your vague assertions and personal attacks, what exactly are your objections to my two rather lengthy and specific posts on the subject and how can I repent my sins in this matter and live a righteous, commercial-free life in your eyes?
Please enlighten us all Chuckle as to the the nature of that "much larger problem" as you see it and how my belief that when someone pays for sponsorship they should receive value from that purchase is part of the problem.
Are you simply opposed to sponsorships?
Are professional sports too commercial for your taste?
If so, where would you begin to de-commercialize these multi-billion dollar industries?
Are vests with logos on them your only hot-button or shall we do away with all branding and co-branding campaigns?
Is it only the media that you are concerned with? If so I can understand, given the inviolate, even chaste way they typically do business. After all, the news media exists in an environment sans advertising, promotions, special events, political pandering, paid endorsements or sweeps week sensations.
Beyond your vague assertions and personal attacks, what exactly are your objections to my two rather lengthy and specific posts on the subject and how can I repent my sins in this matter and live a righteous, commercial-free life in your eyes?
Please enlighten us all Chuckle as to the the nature of that "much larger problem" as you see it and how my belief that when someone pays for sponsorship they should receive value from that purchase is part of the problem.
Are you simply opposed to sponsorships?
Are professional sports too commercial for your taste?
If so, where would you begin to de-commercialize these multi-billion dollar industries?
Are vests with logos on them your only hot-button or shall we do away with all branding and co-branding campaigns?
Is it only the media that you are concerned with? If so I can understand, given the inviolate, even chaste way they typically do business. After all, the news media exists in an environment sans advertising, promotions, special events, political pandering, paid endorsements or sweeps week sensations.
Beyond your vague assertions and personal attacks, what exactly are your objections to my two rather lengthy and specific posts on the subject and how can I repent my sins in this matter and live a righteous, commercial-free life in your eyes?
The problem lies in the fact that journalists need to maintain an arms length relationship with the entities they're covering, and that INCLUDES photojournalists. Forcing us to become a billboard is no different than your daily paper agreeing, for a price, to force the local business reporter to cover the opening of a certain business. It's just not done, at least by ethical papers.
The ad in question that I've seen is available here: http://www.usa.canon.com/app.html/NFL . (I believe there is a link to this in the original source article). The bottom of the ad says very clearly: "Individuals shown wearing red vests are arctors, not real photographers."
Does this change your position?
First, it's not like NBC or ABC stuck their lable on the vests, so there is no competition issue with the photographers, just competition with other equipment suppliers.
Second, what's the gripe? That the photog's aren't getting a cut?
Third, and best, journalists using the word "ethics". I follow too much politics to take journalists gassing about ethics as anything but the rankest hypocrisy.
had to cover up the on loan keys printing on the back and top brand due to
the artist being endorsed by the other company. If they don't care to have
that name exposed just use your gaffers tape or a similar color duct tape to
cover it up. As long as you didn't agree to any terms or endorsement
agreement by wearing it then go ahead, you would not be in violation of
contract. Don't look into it deep.
The primary reason companies are doing this is people like me record the
game on DVR like devices (or on the PC) and skip over the commercials and
time between plays. I have NOT watched a commercial break in a year. This
is how it's heading and the industry is starting to see the light. They will have
to be using product placement (like the name on the vest here!) or all
characters driving brand name XYZ cars, or the office has 123 computers.
It's advertising without the commercials.
This particular issue has been discussed at length by photographers on www.sportsshooter.com. Many photographers were concerned about the vests in the beginning. But after thinking about it we realized that we are walking ads anyway. Nike shoes, Canon or Nikon camera straps, North face jackets, on and on.
Professional soccer, Skiing, the Olympics all require media vests, credentials etc, so it really is nothing new. It is done for security reasons so that at a distance the pro photographers are readily visible. The vests are ugly, the color runs when it rains and it makes using vests or fanny packs more diffcult. If photographers wearing the vests don;t like the logos they can use gaffers tape to cover them. It has pretty much become a non issue.
Les
You argument is bogus.
If it violates photo-jounalists ethics, that is a different story, and they can deal with it in several ways
I commend the Chicago Tribune for refusing to accede to this demand. The AP's response, "The Canon and Reebok logos, while of some concern, appear reasonably sized and we acknowledge the common practice of sponsorship" stinks of appeasement. "The Sudetenland invasion, while of some concern, appears reasonably sized, and we acknowledge the common practice of imperialism".
- by rich ea November 27, 2007 11:53 PM PST
- "...The AP's response, "The Canon and Reebok logos, while of some concern, appear reasonably sized and we acknowledge the common practice of sponsorship" stinks of appeasement. "The Sudetenland invasion, while of some concern, appears reasonably sized, and we acknowledge the common practice of imperialism".
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(20 Comments)--mattflaschen
Matt, Matt , Matt...and everyone else with the overblown analogies...we're talking about a vest with a logo here...it is NOT analogous to a Doctor pushing drugs on patients for graft...it is NOT analogous to the President or the Secret Service strong arming the White House press corps for endorsements, and it sure as hell is NOT analogous to the aliies complicity in Hitler's invasion/annexation of the Sudetenland.
A little proportion, A little perspective, please. Not everything is the same as everyhting else. Sometimes appeasement is just saying, "Yes, Dear" to your spouse because it's easier than fighting. It doesn't make you Neville Chamberlain.
And how did Canon get to be the villain here...and the only villain at that?
If its the ad showing the sidelines, the most recognizable thing in the picture is not the red vests, its row after row of the white lenses. I must say, the red vest does set the white of the lenses off nicely. In the meantime, no individual photojournalist or media outlet was identifiable or recognizable (except perhaps to each other) and no one was asked for a pro-Canon testimonial. Indeed, if there is any testimonial it is a tacit one, represented by that gaggle of white lenses.
In reality, Canon did not and could not mandate the wearing of the vests,,,they only funded their manufacture in exchange for their logo appearing on the vest along with manufacturer Reebok (which has not been accused of anything) and of course the rather large logo of the NFL which did and does mandate the wearing of the vests and whose logo is the largest on the vest.
Furthermore, the photojournalists objecting to "advertising" Canon on their vests (when Canon is not even the object of their coverage) makes little sense in context with any ethics question since they have voiced no objection to the big NFL logo that appears on the same vest. And guess what folks...they are standing on the sidelines to cover the NFL, while I suppose advertising the NFL. Shocking!
Why that would be like a reviewer from Car & Driver test driving a Mustang while wearing a FORD sweatshirt. How ethically bankrupt can one get?
(That, by the way, is an analogy with some proportion to it).
If there is any complaint to be made, any accusation of breach of ethics -- which I still think is baloney -- the complaint should be directed at the NFL.