DENNIS MYERS Against the Grain Advertisement

One of the pitfalls of journalism is the casual use of photographs. One picture is worth a thousand words, goes the cliché, but few news photos standing alone make much sense. They have to be accompanied by words -- a caption, at the least, or a story on other occasions.

The problem is that the journalists who write the words that go with the photos often have a limited view of what those words should say. Frequently a photo can be misleading, but not many caption writers or reporters see it as their responsibility to correct the impression that a misleading photo can leave.

On April 22, 2000, two photographs were taken of Elian Gonzalez, the small Cuban boy who was rescued at sea and given to his Miami relatives until he was returned to his father. After the relatives refused to give the boy up and one of them told immigration officials that there were weapons at the relatives' house and that people "could be hurt" if any attempt was made to remove the boy, SWAT-style immigration agents were sent to get him.

One of the sailors who had originally rescued the child at sea was present when the agents arrived that day. The sailor grabbed the boy and took him into a closet to hide. When they were found, a famous photograph was snapped. A helmeted agent in riot gear was pointing an automatic weapon at the two and the boy's face was stricken with fear.

After the boy was reunited with his father a few hours later in Maryland, someone took a snapshot of them. It was released to the press and showed a happy, smiling boy with his arm around his dad's neck.

Which photo showed the truth? They couldn't both be true. Journalism seemed to render a judgment that the Miami photo was the accurate one by awarding it the Pulitzer Prize.

There is another photograph that is the talk of the Internet these days. It was taken on Sept. 11, 2001, by Thomas Hoepker of Magnum Photos and it shows a group of five people sitting and talking across the river from New York City while in the background the World Trade towers are burning. Because the people in the photo were in casual physical postures, Hoepker concluded that they were unmoved by the tragedy. "They were totally relaxed like any normal afternoon. It's possible they lost people and cared, but they were not stirred by it." Believing that it would be difficult for people to see the image in the emotional aftermath of the tragedy, he withheld it until this year. It has generated a considerable amount of discussion. (You can view the photo at www.slate.com/id/2149578/)

Last month Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times: "This is a country that likes to move on, and fast. The young people in Mr. Hoepker's photo aren't necessarily callous. They're just American."

But soon new facts emerged. Hoepker clearly had not done his job. He had not spoken to the people in the photo to get their names, much less find out what they were feeling. One of the people in the photo contacted Slate, which published his email message. This "young person," Walter Sipser, was 40 when the photo was taken. He wrote, "It was clear that people who ordinarily would not have spoken two words to each other were suddenly bound together, which I suppose must be a fairly common occurrence in the aftermath of a catastrophe. We were in a profound state of shock and disbelief, like everyone else we encountered that day."

It should be noted that only one of the people in the photo was in the kind of laid-back posture that so disturbed Hoepker, not that it matters. As one blogger asked, "What is the proper position to assume when viewing a national tragedy?" Who among us would like to be judged by his or her physical stance at such a moment?

Sipser also wrote, "A snapshot can make mourners attending a funeral look like they're having a party ... A more honest conclusion might start by acknowledging just how easily a photograph can be manipulated, especially in the advancement of one's own biases or in the service of one's own career."