Images and Objective Journalism

That photo essay is awful, especially that first split screen of the McCains and the last “inspiring” photo of Obama.
It’s almost as bad as Spike Lee on MSNBC this morning referring to “BB” and “AB” — Before Barack and After Barack. He says that’s how we’re going to start referring to things.
Has Obama hypnotized people with his voice? What other explanation can there be? What has he done to deserve this adulation?
He’s a fine speaker, but what are his accomplishments? It just doesn’t make sense.

How could you forget that charming stunt by tThe Atlantic’s hired shooter, Jake?

The real villian is the media. Biased reporting.

I live in NH and our local paper, the Union Leader, is so blatantly biased for McCain it’s embarrassing. The editor actually puts anti-Obama editorials on the front page of the paper. I cancelled my subscription several months ago when I realized that I wasn’t getting “News” anymore. With the economy the way it is and newspaper readership down, you would think the editors would be smart enough to not disenfranchise people who have a different point of view.

One sided media pushing for an Obama administration. Why? Because the MSM is liberal????? What are the other reasons?

Time for fair and balanced reporting! You need to give us 100 blogs vetting Obama.

Why should the media be positive about Palin when McCain’s top adviser calls her… “a whack job” !?
This will be the shock of the day and the end of the McCain/Palin liaison!
It’s WAR in the McCain camp!!!
See Mike Halperin’s The Page!

Images chosen by editors are always a leading indicator of the conventional wisdom that will follow in the next few days or weeks. Images seem non-judgmental — it’s a picture, how could it lie? — but it’s the choice of image that gives the editor or producer discretion to ‘tell’ a story.
I don’t think most journalists are objective, but that’s okay. Everybody has a point of view. My main concern with journalists is that the bulk of them are simply not very smart, or perhaps I should say not very wise. They parrot talking points as their own thoughts, they follow the conventional wisdom heard, and they use their power not to inform but to grandstand. Try to think of a reporter who really provides you with thought-provoking words or observations and you will probably go wanting.
A case in point. In 2004 John Kerry lost. In 2008 Barack Obama is winning. The average reporter takes this to mean that Kerry was a failure while Obama is some kind of star. But where’s the context? Kerry ran against a sitting war president, and against an administration that was quite literally doing everything it could, via the bully pulpit and the government itself, to cling to power. (Remember the red/orange threat warnings? Remember the suppression of the report on illegal wiretaps that the NYT held until after the election, even though it was ready to run?)
Barack Obama is running on eight years of documented failings by the Republicans and George Bush. Kerry ran against an administration that had its greatest debacles ahead of it — Katrina, anyone? — and he did so against a party that still demonstrated strong allegiance to the peace movement, most notably through the candidacy of Howard Dean.
So where’s the actual reporting on this? Sorry — no time! Reporters have to write and talk in sound bites, which may be why they think that way.
Another case in point: is Obama really getting a free pass from the press? It was only a few months ago that nobody — and I mean nobody — was really looking at who was running ‘Maverick’ McCain campaing: the same hardline lobbyists that McCain said he disliked, and the same (the same!) campaign operatives that had painted McCain as a kook in 2000. This was not discussed at all until the Obama campaign made an issue of it, yet it was there for all to see, and it was germane to (and hypocritcal to) the message McCain was putting out about himself.
Jake, if you want to be seen as objective, I have one word for you: context. Not the context of the moment, not he-said/she-said, but reasoned historical context that embraces truths that the average voter is already aware of. The Repubicans are hurting because they’ve failed. The Democratis are ascendant because they’re the only real alternative. That’s American politics. That’s what’s happening. That’s objective.

BREAKING NEWS
TOP MCCAIN ADVISER CALLS PALIN ‘A WHACK JOB’!!!!!
SEE MIKE HALPERIN’s “THE PAGE”

Images are tricky.
I guess, if the press wanted to be entirely objective, you wouldn’t pick the images that portrayed the candidates at their best or worst–but rather, select the images that are somewhere in the mid-range of being neither best nor worst.

“I guess it’s always in the eye of the beholder” — Ya think? Um. And the media wonders why layoffs continues in their field.
Journalists have all but declared this election over–why do we even need to have the election? The media has told us that Obama is the One.
And, when exactly did Mark Halperin become reliable??

Where are the “headlines” that talk about the polls showing the tightening race, Jake? Zogby and Rasmussen have the race at +4 & +5 for Obama–but not worthy of talking about here, eh? No bias… right?

Politico’s Mike Allen: “In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling her “a whack job.” ”
Is that all?

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going rather well.
Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

Just checked out that Vincent Price shrunken head link –pretty funny!

Jen: True…the media has already called the election. It will be interesting to watch the various outlets respond as they are systematically removed from the press list under the Obama regime. Although, as long as they continue to ask the questions “The One” likes…they will stay in his good graces…and keep their jobs….and the public will stay blissfully unaware.
Yay.

McCain and Palin run on a platform of attacking the media – the right wing has survived for the last 50 years by attacking the media – talk radio survives by attacking the media – and one day America wakes up to discover that they don’t trust the media.
What a shock…

I find it laughable that Repubs are crying about media bias. After selling the American people and the media a bill of goods, what do you expect. Americans are ###### off that they were misled time and time again. The media was used like a tool to promote a lie. We have a right to be angry and the media has a right to seek the truth. What I find most astonishing is the kid gloves they have used with McCain. I mean a couple of unflattering photos? Give me a break…John McCain isn’t the easiest subject to beautify. with lens, camera, air brush or photo shop.

Photography, although intended to objectively portray a moment in time, is actually quite subjective, dependent on the photographer’s choice of lighting, angle of shooting, background, and many other factors. For example, many of the photos in the GQ essay are shot from an upwards angle to convey the power or importance of the subject. Many of the photos are also shot in harsh lighting to bring out the imperfections of the subject. So, not only is the interpretation in the “eye of the beholder,” but also in the eye of the photographer. Otherwise, how else would such unflattering photos of any particular candidate be included as grotesque image in an ad for an opponent?

If a president declares Martial Law, what happens? Does anyone know?

If a president declares Martial Law doesn’t he remain in office even after his term is up, hum…., maybe forever. Wouldn’t he then be declared a dictator? Guess maybe this might give us something else to think about on November 4.

Well, even if McCain isn’t as handsome as Obama due to his age, couldn’t you put a “halo” behind his head, too?
I don’t know if the press’s bias is convincing more people to vote for Obama or not, though I suspect it can’t hurt. However, the bias is palpable in the imagery and tone in articles and photographs of the two candidates.
I am not going to blame the media for McCain’s inability to do better in the polls, as it comes across as sore loser territory.
However, it is very annoying to watch the press in this campaign. They refuse to investigate obvious leads, and the imagery has been skewed…Jake’s example is a good one. One that springs to my mind is the glowing portrait of the Obamas in US Weekly and the “Babies, Lies, and Scandal” cover for Palin. Or the close up Newsweek cover of Palin…
Also, how about the Newsweek “journalist” who fantasized about “taking out” Giuliani while covering him? What if someone said that about Obama? It would be national news and the guy would be on the front page of every newspaper, pilloried as the worst journalist and most horrible person ever. Oh I forgot, it’s okay to talk about assassinating republicans because they deserve it.
Of course, when the candidate one is rooting for gets all the great press, it is hard to say that it should be more critical.
All I would say to democrats is that if Obama does not live up to the hype, 2012 might be not be a such a breeze.
I like Obama, I just do not want to love ANY candidate. I don’t like charismatic politicians, because people tend to follow their policies even if they are reversed or changed from what was promised. At least with McCain you get what you see. A cranky old son…with Obama, you get affect.
I figured out why I feel, subjectively, why Obama’s campaign is actually very negative, even more negative than McCain’s or Clintons. It goes beyond advertising. The negativity, ironically, springs from the very message that Obama’s campaign has a corner on “hope” and “chage.” The feeling is very similar to a born-again christian sort of intimating that they “get it” and you are going to hell. You, in contrast, are doomed, because you don’t believe.
Obama’s message has been uniform, even against democrats: I bring hope, he or she brings “the same old politics.” I am sure Hillary loved that.
The same message is directed at all republicans, of course. Obama is the future, who will bring us out of the benighted horrors of the dark one’s misery. And, well, if you happen to have a disagreement with regard to policy, you are getting in the way of hope.
So, if you oppose higher taxes during a recession on anyone, even the rich, and understand that lower taxes leads to more revenue for the government, you are not just wrong, you are bad.
To me, it is cleverly developed propaganda, so clever that it makes people feel that they are subscribing to a “movement” rather than just another Clinton/Kerry/Mondale/Kennedy democrat.
It seems to also make Obama supporters feel “righteous” and that others who don’t support Obama…well, they might just be evil, racist, closed-minded, etc.
Long post, sorry, but the bottom line for me is that when one candidate claims that he or she is the bringer of hope, and change (remember the “lightbringer” article?”) to the exclusion of all others, it is a monolithically negative statement about any and all political opponents.
Plus, the bonus is you sound positive all the time and can just basically say, “quit hatin on hope!”
Just my two cents.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think Cindy McCain is pretty — at all!

All we need to know about the press is on display in California. A Sarah Palin dummy is hanged in effigy and the dope of a homeowner calls it “art”. Can you imagine if Obama was in that art? Where is the outrage from the press or from NOW?

Phil:
We don’t need to imagine. We know. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would already be calling for Hate Crime prosecution. The NAACP would be protesting in front of the house where this “art” was on display. There would be media from all over the country–and perhaps even some international media present.
But…hey, its just some anti-abortion, Christian Republican woman…hanging in noose in effigy. And the unbiased media corp shrugs in unison. Along with more than half of the country.
Yay.

After all these months they are noticing the bias in photos and articles? Sometimes I wonder how they can report this stuff with a straight face. I don’t know how they can do all this bias reporting anyway, knowing all the facts. Sean Hannity is right, this is the year journalism died.

This started way back in February when Hillary was in the race. The MSM should be the TIME persons of the year for the worst and biased political coverage ever.

Actually, I got what blog entry I was in mixed up, thinking this was the one about Palin’s effigy hanging from a noose, and that Mr. Tapper’s “eye of the beholder” comment was about that. So I’m sorry about that, Mr. Tapper. I apologize for my mistake.
On this particular topic, Newsbusters has a story which questions some of the wire service photography of Palin – “Indecent Wire Service Pictures of Sarah Palin.”