I completely understand how this is an important issue but how will the idea translate into practice? How will this affect digital artists? Can’t the person who airbrushed the photo just lie? How will it be proven that the image has indeed been airbrushed? Models used in pictures are still too thin so a ban on airbrushing won’t stop the portrayal of anorexia in magazines…it may stop one of the practices of magazines but it doesn’t change the ideology. What would change their ideology is having by law to use a range of models from size 0-24…

That doesn’t answer my question, it just re-states the ‘problem’.

The overwhelming majority of photographs that appear in any kind of advert have been digitally re-touched to some extent. That’s true whether it’s a photo of a celebrity, or a holiday destination, or a car, or a can of baked beans. So the proposal isn’t about putting warnings on photos that have been re-touched, it’s about putting warnings on an arbitrarily defined sub-set of those photos; photos that have been re-touched ‘too much’.

And if this policy is to be enforced at all then not only do you need to come up with a much tighter definition of what constitutes ‘too much’ than ‘just the most egrarious examples’, but you need to come up with a way of identifying which photos belong in that category, and of proving that they do once identified. Waving your hands in the air and declaring that the ASA will sort it out just doesn’t cut it I’m afraid.

Really, this whole thing smacks of ‘Something must be done. This is something, therefor we must do it.’ If I’d seen this proposal in isolation I would have assumed it to be a Harriet Harman policy, and there’s really no worse condemnation than that. It’s exactly the sort of half-baked New Labour nanny-state drivel that people are sick of, and it’s astounding and depressing to see it being championed and supported by so many Lib Dems.

I’d even go so far as to say it makes me oddly glad that you have no chance of forming a government. As trivial is the issue may be (which is part of the problem) it does give a little insight into what a ‘liberal’ government might look like in practice, and it’s not flattering.

It makes no difference to the basic point. The ASA couldn’t enforce it either, because it’s unenforceable. So what’s the point?

However it would be pretty easy to enforce it partially (which is all the ASA does with it’s current rules anyway). Which according to the science bods in the article above (I can’t say I’ve ready any of the research) would improve matters.

As someone who works with digital images, I can’t see any way that doesn’t simply rely on trusting the publisher to tell the truth.

And if you can’t enforce it, then what’s the point in legislating for it?

Banning airbrushing is a bit silly but having a line of text of a certain size on the advert saying “These images have been airbrushed” etc. would be a good thing.

Have those involved in this issue given any thought to how this would be policed, and how much that would cost?

Do those involved with this issue really think that making professionally lit, professionally shot models very slightly less perfect will make a measurable difference to anyone’s body-image problems?

Have those involved in this issue considered that they might be better off in the bloody Labour party with all the other reactionary dingbats who think that banning things is the answer to everything?