Editorializing the News Through Pictures, do you think this was done here?

Question

I just found this photo of Bush on the net

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/President-Bush/ss/events/us/081201presidentbush;_ylt=AnzLwhujdSdSeWXDKcipRNZvzwcF

It makes him look like a buffoon.

While I dislike Bush, the point to this question, do you think the news manipulates through these kinds of photo's?

Example:

The criminal usually looks like a criminal

The environmentalist usually looks like a tree hugging hippy.

The politician, depending on the sound bite, either looks noble or stupid.

I take a lot of photo's of people, and in one instance they can look like they got every cell in their brain working in high gear, the next second they can look retarded.

Remember the photo of Bush in the flight suite, with mission accomplished behind him, looking like a modern day Ceaser, to this, looking like a baboon.

Your thoughts on the state of our editorializing the news through picture.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 1

I totally agree with you, pictures paint 1000 words.

I went through all 260 pictures, and it is obvious that the pics that were chosen, made him out to be a man of little integrity.

It is surprising, that out of all of the pics the photographer took that these were the ones that they chose to publish. It is  a bit disheartening that the world gets to see these moments in time, especially when we as a nation, are so disliked throughout the world. These pictures can only fan the flame.

You have opened my eyes. I guess that I have gotten used to seeing him with other leaders, looking like he was scoffing at them, and Mrs. Bush, eyes bugging out like a fanatic, which I am sure that they have pictures that show the softness of her demeanor. Him and Ms. Rice look like two schemers plotting to do what imps do.

What was the picture of the Iranians moving a container of radioactive material doing there in this pictorial? Couldn't they find a similar pic from later than 2005? Or was it only there for shock effect? Whether or not this is even an issue, it gave me pause.

This is a very good question. It made me think, I like that.

peace.

Answer 2

Jim, when I clicked on your link and the picture that popped up was one in which Bush is walking with the Queen, I couldn't understand the point you were trying to make. Even the caption was in my opinion innocent of what I think you are defining as editorialization.  And this was a slide show containing 260 photos. I viewed nearly half of them and stopped.  While there were several shots in which he looked, rather baffoonish, I still don't get the connection to the editor or publisher, as editorializing these photos, in the manner in which you define the word editorialize.  

May happen that I'm over my head here, so I'll answer your question with a question of mine.  Webster's dictionary gives this definition of the word editorial ---- (n. article in a newspaper, etc, stating the opinions of the editor, publisher, etc,) So, isn't that what they are meant to do.  I would think, that in order to accuse them of what I think you are meaning, they would have to caption these photos with words like "Look at the Baffoon".  Correct me if I'm over my head.

Answer 3

In No.4 of that series he looks unusually goofy (EDIT: ah, the order has been changed!  Now that shot is No.8).

In the others, he just looks "normal," whatever the heck THAT means.

If No.4 (Now 8) was used, say, as a front-page photo in a paper, or was the first pic that came up when you went to a web-page, it would give your thesis about this particular photo series a little more weight.

Certainly there is a good deal of "stealth," and NOT so hidden, editorializing in the big-business-owned media.  I was privileged to be involved in a political campaign in California back in the 1990s in which a self-described radical socialist came within two percentage points of winning a local political office.

Two days before the voting a photo of him was on the front page of the local paper showing him caressing the child of a supporter.  It was taken as he brushed the hair out of the child's face, but it appeared as if he was slapping the kid.

It appeared next to an article about his criticisms of the disciplinary system in the local schools.

Would such a presentation be considered "editorializing"? I can see the headline now, if this had taken place in a city with a Murdoch-style tabloid - "Commie brutalizes school child."

How about when someone like Zbigniew Brzezinski or Henry Kissinger are presented with serious, "scholarly" miens, perhaps with pens, pads, and an open book on the table in front of them, with a bust of some iconic "statesman" visible behind them?  In real life these men are responsible for literally millions of deaths.  Is that a "fair presentation" or editorializing?

How about photoshopping Nero-like Roman robes on them, with a picture of someone being tortured on a crucifix behind them?  "Fair" or "editorial"?

What about a genuine picture in context, say, one of them smiling at a seminar when describing the bombing of Haiphong (Kissinger under Nixon) or starting the Afghan war (Brzezinski under Carter)?  Fair or editorializing?

This is a pretty wide, and deep, topic.  I would tend to lean towards labeling only the most clear-cut, obvious examples as "editorializing."

After all, somewhere in my family's photo albums there is a photo of ME at a family picnic, with a peculiar, maniacal-looking grin on my face, as one of my cousins, unknown to me at the time, is shown falling and breaking his ankle in a frisbee toss.

If I were someone prominent, couldn't something like that be published with the caption "Lefty Chortles As Cuz Is Hurt"?

I guess I'm one of the strange people who thinks that listening to the audio interview, watching the rest of the video, or reading the text is more important than headlines or "grabber" footage.

Although I WILL say that it doesn't take much for Bush to be shown as a buffoon.  Have you seen that video that was going around of him drunk at a wedding party, babbling about the bride and the groom?  The date, by the way, is AFTER the time when he supposedly quit drinking.

Some people just lend themselves to that sort of thing.  In fact, I could argue that the corporate media worked overtime MINIMIZING the damage of existing footage and photos of him.

I guess it depends on WHOSE ox is being gored.  I WILL say that powerful or wealthy people seem to be the victims of that in the corporate media a LOT less often.

Coincidence?

Answer 4

Well as they say, a picture speaks more than a thousand words.

Answer 5

They press is probably just getting back at him for making THEM look like fools first.

What's the old saw about being nice to people on your way UP because you'll be meeting them again on your way back DOWN?

Answer 6

Wow, this is a really interesting question. Star for you. Anyway, I guess I've always thought that in the back of my mind and I know that it's not beyond the media to do so, but I never really consciously scrutinized what I viewed on the news in that way. Really though, if you see President Bush during his speeches, it's not hard to imagine countless shots of him looking like a buffoon. Perhaps the media was more selective in showing only good shots in the past, and now they just show more. Some people just aren't very photogenic, so naturally he has more bad looking shots. However, I know for a fact that the media manipulates both photos and words to convey a certain message, I've seen it done so many times, so your theory is definitely a possibility.

Answer 7

No.

I can see what you are talking about, and NO I do not think that is what occurs. As a people, the press knows their CUSTOMERS have a certain view of Bush. They are selling their CUSTOMERS exactly what they want to see and hear.

Remember, it is the press's job to report the news, and get your advertising dollar, so they have to keep you and I buying their PRODUCT.

Nobody wants real news, that is the stuff everybody skips for the drama. So why shouldn't the media skip it to?

They were given this power in the 80s with deregulation, and that power was reinforced when a judge agreed with FOX that the media had no responsibility to report the news honestly.

So that is what they do, sell drama and entertainment to keep ratings up to keep the advertising dollars flowing.

Answer 8

I disagree. While, I know from looking at your web-site you are a very good photographer, I feel you may be doing a disservice to the field of photo-journalism...which is by definition, I think, telling a story through pictures. The job is not only to augment the story but some would think to tell it.

The photographer may take hundreds of pictures for a story but one is chosen to 'best' portray the moment and there lies the 'rub'...The editor(s) choose the final photo. That is the difference between a photo journalist and an independent fine art photographer.

The photo of Bush that you refer to merely makes him look large and self important, to my eye, not a buffoon (as he did on 9/11 or many of his moments on his 'debates') Perhaps that was the story; I did not read it.

Yes, images sear quicker and deeper into our minds than words often do because they are processed without the buffering effect of language which requires processing.

I think that photos accompanying news stories have always represented a point of view. Perhaps it just may be we are more sensitive to the rash of skewed news that our noses are giving the smell test to all media.

Sorry about misquoting you on the "baboon" statement ...I just reread your post. Baboon or buffoon...same idea- sort of.

edit: hahahaha I guess I was wrong twice...you did say buffoon first...oh nevermind.

Answer 9

I learned long ago that if someone really wants to know what's up in the US of A...read a European Newspaper or watch a European TV News program.

On Dubya. I believe it would be a very difficult task to find him looking...halfway...smart.

After all, he came by his reputation the old fashioned way.

Answer 10

I think what you say makes sense and I think there's a lot of editorialization through photos. That being said, though, I can't help but think that it's probably hard to get a picture of Bush in which he looks intelligent or serious.

Answer 11

Absofreakinlootley.

I assume you are referring to image #8.  LOLOL

Note** image #7 reminds me of Hitler...just draw a little black mustache on him.

Yes, I do think the media editorialize the news with photographs; "a picture is worth a thousand words."  However, sadly I see a lot of "editorializing" and outright biased reporting on a daily basis.  It seems "fair and impartial" news is a rare thing nowadays.  That is why a truly informed reader must gather news from a variety of sources.

Answer 12

Bush looks like a chimp period(.) Chimps should not be allow to run for any public office, OH snap, another LIE from bush, he was a monkey all the time !!!

http://www.wacitonline.net/images/funny/...