"The camera cannot lie, but it can be an accessory to untruth"

The camera’s reputation as an objective witness is often assumed, stemming from its ability to capture reality mechanically, without the human hand intervening in the act of creation. Photographs are trusted because they seem to present something that “really happened.” Yet, the act of photographing is never neutral. The choice of what is in frame, what is omitted, the angle, the moment the shutter is pressed, and all post-processing decisions introduce subjectivity. The camera may not fabricate the raw materials of an image, but it is wielded by individuals with motives, biases, and intentions.

When Harold Evans states that the camera can be an accessory to untruth, he highlights the human element that manipulates or stages what the lens records. Photographs can mislead not only by the way scenes are constructed, such as staging, selective cropping, strategic timing, or digital alteration, but also by how images are presented, paired with certain text, or left without context. A candid moment, taken out of sequence or paired with the wrong narrative, may twist interpretation. In journalism, history, advertising, and politics, images are persuasively used to evoke emotions, reinforce stereotypes, or suggest relationships that are not real.

Thus, although cameras cannot “lie” in the literal sense, they do not invent data as paint or words might, they are readily co-opted to tell half-truths or outright falsehoods. The photograph’s perceived authenticity then becomes a potent tool for manipulation. The very trust invested in the image renders its deceptions all the more effective, making it crucial for viewers to maintain skepticism and awareness of photographic context. Critical literacy about images requires understanding both the technical processes behind photography and the motivations of those who produce and disseminate photographs, recognizing that every image reflects a series of decisions that can serve the truth or undermine it.