In a world where images are omnipresent, the question of truth in photography remains as relevant as ever. As Karl Popper suggested about science, the objectivity of photojournalism does not stem from the individual photographer but from the medium itself. To paraphrase him :
“It would be a mistake to believe that photographers are more ‘objective’ than others. The objectivity of the photographer is not a matter of the individual but of photography itself (what could be called the ‘friendly yet hostile cooperation’ of photographers, in other words, their ability to exercise mutual critique).”
When it comes to capturing reality, especially during significant events, the truth is not constructed from a single photograph but rather from the multitude of images taken by different photographers, each offering a unique perspective.
The Collective Gaze of Big Events
When major events unfold—be they protests, natural disasters, or historic milestones—they are often documented by countless photographers. Each image is a fragment of reality, shaped by the photographer’s position, intention, and the split second they chose to press the shutter. Alone, a photograph can be compelling but also limiting and extremely subjective. However, when hundreds of images of the same event are layered, compared, and contrasted, a more nuanced and multi-dimensional truth emerges.
This is why big events carry more truth—they are seen by many subjective eyes. These perspectives, while individually biased, contribute to a greater objectivity. The diversity of angles and approaches allows for a truth that is resilient to manipulation and misinterpretation. It is through this convergence of viewpoints that photojournalism approaches a collective truth.
We have seen this recently with the Olympics. Between the thousands of professionals supported by the hundreds of thousands of individuals, it was impossible for anyone to fake any image, even if so slightly. We have seen it again during electoral campaigns where even arguments of fake news were quickly defunct by the hundreds of independent electronic eyes also present, carried by either amateurs or professionals. Truth as a social construct.
The multitude of digital eyes makes it less likely for fake or biased images to enter our realm of understanding without being challenged. Photo Harris Campaign
The Danger of Singular Narratives
Conversely, events with fewer images, or those where imagery is tightly controlled, are more vulnerable to the influence of a singular vision. When only a few photographs exist, the truth becomes malleable, more easily shaped by those who control the narrative. This is particularly dangerous in authoritarian regimes or conflict zones where access to visual documentation is restricted. The fewer the lenses, the narrower the truth.
Technology as a Double-Edged Sword
The rise of digital manipulation and AI-generated imagery has added a new layer of complexity. While technology can democratize the creation of images, it can also fabricate realities. Here, the multiplicity of images once again becomes a safeguard. The more authentic, light-based images there are of an event, the harder it is for a synthetic reality to take hold. Verification through volume becomes a new method of establishing authenticity. In some way, the proliferation of surveillance cameras is helping in that process, sometimes offering a raw perspective on an event.
The Resilient Truth of Many
At a time when we celebrate and venerate the single eye through the work of famous individual photojournalists, we stray away from its actual mission. Photojournalism’s strength lies in its plurality. It is not the individual photograph that holds the truth, but rather the network of images that surround an event, even and mostly taken by those with no names. In a media landscape where seeing is not always believing, the collective gaze of photojournalism offers a deeper, more resilient truth—one that is built not by a single viewpoint but by a multitude of perspectives. If photojournalism is to endure in this post-truth era, it must draw strength from the sheer multiplicity of perspectives. Less superstars and heroes of the camera and more anonymous multitudes. The aggregation of many subjective eyes ultimately leads to a more objective vision—one that is validated not by technology, metadata, personal experience or point of view alone but by the power of collective testimony.
