- 3 -the popular press, the guidelines say, “in effect, that nothing should be done to any part of an illustration that did not affect all other parts equally” (Wade 2006).The articles frequently emphasize Rossner’s sleuth-like enforcement methods andtactics. The headline of the piece in
, “CSI: Cell biology”, references “CrimeScene Investigators,” the popular TV drama based on police forensics. The story’s leadcontinues the analogy:In a cramped office in midtown Manhattan, a forensics expert peersintently at a flickering computer screen. The shadowy image, hugelymagnified, reveals a tell-tale dark smear. Something about it, she can tell,is just not right… (Pearson 2006)Such descriptions of the manual, labor-intensive process abound, and most articlesinclude descriptions of Rossner’s next pursuit: an
system for detectingmanipulated images.
The narrative above presents many possible subjects for a study of “the scientificestablishment”: the role of journals or journal editors, the relationship between thepopular press and research scientists, the changing nature of evidence, and so on. Yet forthose involved, those “pragmatists” like Mike Rossner, these issues are secondary to theproblematic nature of the digital image and its potential for modification.Why does someone like Mike Rossner view the digital image as problematic? Dothese justifications hold up under scrutiny? What might be at stake?By looking closely at journal policies and related articles, we may be able toanswer these questions. As this venture is necessarily broad and multi-disciplinary, thispaper will focus primarily on the language and justifications provided by Mike Rossnerin support of the
guidelines he co-authored. Without venturing beyond the original