Kate Middleton’s photo and lessons – 03/15/2024 – Education

Anyone who has never retouched a photo before publishing it casts the first stone. In the age of social media, a few adjustments to the light, a filter to highlight the color of the sea or a trick to de-wrinkle the skin no longer shock anyone, but the British royals seem to have gone too far.

This week, a photograph of the Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton, alongside her three children, triggered intense debate about the reliability of information, transparency and journalism, in a context in which editing or image-making tools become increasingly accessible and popular.

The photo in question, released through the monarchy’s official channels, was Kate’s first “appearance” since mid-January, when she underwent surgery about which little is known, and served to fuel rumors and conspiracy theories rather than calm them down. Evidence of manipulation soon appeared, including flaws in the design of the floor, the finish of the clothes, the outline of the hair and even the vegetation (not consistent with the season).

The subject gained gigantic proportions because the photo, in itself, would already be news. In the absence of information for so many weeks, a supposedly recent and complete image would give the public clues about the health status of the future queen of England.

Reputable news agencies announced the decision to exclude the material from their image banks. Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence France Presse (AFP) were among the first vehicles to signal to their clients (generally other media companies, which buy photos produced in different parts of the world) that the photograph of the princess and her children did not it was in line with journalistic standards, which, in general, allow only slight adjustments.

Although other people also pointed out the problems on social networks, the position of the news agencies was essential as they did not endorse the information presented as a reliable portrait of a current situation. The action was a reminder that professional journalism can — and should — play the role of “guardian” of information, following protocols to verify the reliability of what is published and assuming responsibilities.

In post-truth times, when we have practically lost the common ground outlined by facts, this is no small feat. We have seen, in recent years, frightening discourses emerge in which points of view override reality, opinions are sold as irrefutable truth and groups that challenge science and evidence in the name of personal beliefs operate in broad daylight (let the flat-earthers say so ).

The challenges tend to increase and, also for this reason, the Kate Middleton case deserves to be debated. Artificial intelligence applications —although, apparently, they were not used in the princess’s photograph— should be increasingly used, expanding the nuances of disinformation.

Image editing is not something new (there are emblematic cases in history long before digital cameras, such as the suppression of characters in photos of Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler). What’s new is access to more sophisticated tools for a much larger number of people, as well as super-powerful dissemination channels on the internet.

Governments have discussed ways to regulate the use of such technologies. In Brazil, the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) opened this week the Integrated Center for Combating Disinformation and Defense of Democracy which, among other functions, will assist regional courts in monitoring deep fakes. Shortly before, a set of rules on the use of AI in elections was approved by the Court.

Media outlets have also prepared manuals on how AI can be used in journalistic work. Some have established, for example, that synthetic content must contain a warning or label, ensuring transparency in communication with the public.

For us, this news and the example of the British royalty are a warning that there is no room for the passive consumption of information. It has never been so important to exercise critical sense, even for matters more distant from our reality, such as the conduct of a monarchy that is not even ours.