On Media: More Fun With Face Time

Since my first installment of Fun With Face Time was fairly well-received (thanks for the emails), and since I promised photographs from my time with Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson (governor of New Mexico), I thought I'd offer Part II, though with some modifications (of Part I).

Brady, a dear soul and friend of Contratimes living in faraway Switzerland, asked if I could post images and invite readers to submit their own headlines. I think that is a capital idea. So I will post the very first image I took (ever) of Gov. Richardson when he visited Peterborough, NH on August 24, 2007. Remember that I have a thesis in mind when I take these pictures: a picture creates an impression, and all of these candidates for president sorely want to impress (and control their image). Without question the media play an important hand in forming our opinions about a person running for office; how we see these folks in photographs, and how those photos are connected to headlines, captions and stories, help frame our thoughts about a candidate. (If you read Part I, and the link provided therein, you'll get a clearer sense of my intent. And no, my intent is not to make any candidate look bad.)

So, here is the very first picture of Bill Richardson I took when I arrived -- late!! -- for his speech (which was on CSPAN, by the way. Did you see me? Well, some folks did.).


OK. Now, write your headlines!!

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade/Contratimes 2007. All Rights Reserved.

On Media: Fun With Face Time

I have discussed this sort of thing before in my series of critical essays, The New York Times Drug Dealers. And now that we (Americans) are once again in the midst of the many great campaigns for the White House, I thought Contratimes readers might find today's post dealing with image not only different, but rather fun. Who knows?

Trust me when I say that all presidential campaigns are obsessed with one thing: image management. In the media-rich culture in which we live, news editors and photographers serve as midwives, delivering the fresh images each campaign hopes to use to nurture voter interest in their candidates. Irrespective of feigned "balance" in much image obstetrics, hardly a single journalist covering these campaigns is without partisan interest. Everyone, it seems, has a special interest.

Recently I attended a John Edwards event. I showed up with my photo gear; though I was dressed in yard-work rags, my cameras and lenses suggested to many in attendance that I was "media," despite the fact that I was and am merely an interested voter (I only shoot for myself now). My motives and status aside, the Edwards handlers continuously flagged me down: Who are you shooting for? Are you with the press? There's a ladder over there for a better view. At these events, such questions and advice come forth freely and in torrents -- image control is balanced with the highest possible visibility: show our candidate and show him (or her) well.

But as I shared in the essay to which I linked above, not everyone in the media is content with showing a candidate in the best light. I will allow you to explore that more philosophical dimension on your own. Today I merely want to treat you to the impressions created by a frame, a lens and a shutter curtain.

JOHN EDWARDS IN PETERBOROUGH, NH, AUG 23, 2007

When Mr. Edwards finally arrived at his meet-and-greet in a park at the confluence of the Contoocook and Nubanusit rivers in downtown Peterborough, I looked for a vantage that would give me a decent background for the presidential candidate. I wanted color; I wanted people, or signs, or a flag, or a lot or little of each. Indeed, I was able to find a flag, the one flag that was there; luckily, there was also a hint of racial diversity -- one black man and one hispanic woman -- standing in the crowd gathered beneath the Stars-and-Stripes. Unbeknownst to that small sample, they were backdrop; they did not know that I would edit and frame the scene -- a 360-degree world and ampitheater in the round -- to such a narrow slice. I wanted to convey patriotism (as did the handlers who hung the flag); I also wanted to show that Edwards was supported by a racially diverse crowd in what is considered lily-white New Hampshire. All this despite the fact that there was probably only one black man at the event, which boasted close to 500 supporters.

Unfortunately, the light was variable, often drab and low. Thus my lens and aperture choices resulted in very shallow depth-of-field: my backdrop, colorful as it is, is too blurred out to convey all that I was hoping.

Now, the fun. You'll see that John Edwards can look handsome, noble, good, kind, gentle. An editor might even pen a suitable headline: "Edwards Comfortable In NH". This picture proves that he's got the confidence and the looks to be president:


Not bad, really. Edwards looks fresh, solid, straight.

Of course, I could submit this image to an editor's desk:


The depth-of-field is a little better, though I don't like that Edwards' right hand is off-frame and that the flag has moved in the breeze. But surely he looks stronger and more assertive in this frame than in the one previous. Perhaps a headline writer could riff off the image: Edwards Unveils Bold Initiative In NH; Edwards Turns Tough On Campaign Trail; Edwards Determined In NH.

Of course, there are other impressions one can leave. The next picture gives us a sense of the whiff: Edwards' nose seems to have picked up a foul odor. How about "Edwards Smells Defeat In NH Primary"? (This image doesn't really work; it doesn't convey enough voter interest, as one person in the background is obviously interested in something other than John Edwards.)


Perhaps the following photograph lends itself to this headline: "Edwards Concerned Over Shrinking NH Poll Numbers". Perhaps.


But I could emphasize this sense of "My-advantage-over-Richardson-is-really-really-small" even more with an aggressive crop of the original frame.


Then there's the headline, "Edwards Soft-Pitches Plans On Iraq, Terror, Katrina":


When I look at the next image, surely I can believe this: "Edwards to NH's Poor: I Won't Leave You"; or, "Edwards To The Jobless: Help Is On The Way; or "Edwards Speaks To The Second America: I FEEL YOUR PAIN."


Personally, I find that, despite Edwards' strong left hand in the following image, his face suggests weakness, softness. There's even a pleading aspect to his countenance. No doubt it's a perfect facial expression should I want to imply such weakness, such need.


Maybe in a week or two we'll see this headline above the following image: "Edwards Feels The Heat: Moderate Dems Turning Elsewhere."


And just note how the next image could be used, especially since it is so close and tight, almost intimate: "Edwards Cool And In Control: Looking Good In NH."


Lastly, think what fun it would be to read this headline: "Singing A New Tune: Edwards' Croons, Women Voters Swoon."


I doubt this is the sort of image "Edwards in '08!" supporters wish to see. But I sure can hear him sing.

Look for my Bill Richardson images next time.

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Permission required for use of any and all photos posted herein.

The New York Times' drug dealers, Part II

(Part I of this ridiculously outstanding series begins here.)

[In keeping with my claim made yesterday that "the New York Times is the opiate of the people," and that its columnists are essentially dealers in said opiate, I continue with Mr. Frank Rich.]

On Sunday, 5.8.05, Frank Rich rebuked the media for its increasing complicity in perpetuating the propaganda of the Bush administration; for its pandering to its own corporate interests; and for its lack of journalistic standards. Laced through Rich's essay, Laura Bush's Mission Accomplished, are heavy doses of soporifics that yield little else but oscitancy, you know, yawning.

Here's essentially Rich's argument: Media respect in the broader culture is on the skids because the masses are sick and tired of the media kow-towing to the Bush adminstration. A more liberal, aggressive, and independent press would do wonders for the press' bad image problems, at least Rich believes.

To think that Rich only mentions the Jayson Blair scandal in passing - which is a real scandal at the Times - and yet suggests that Laura Bush's jokes were scandalously applauded by a "sycophantic" press, reveals that Mr. Rich has his priorities in odd order. It's not that the press has been too timid in its reportage, Mr. Rich, a timidity that has media ratings sliding down the tubes. It's that the press' reportage has been dishonest.

What? Does Rich forget the 60 Minutes documents already? Does he think the Jayson Blair story is a rare anomaly? Does he think that most consumers of news believe that the media are fair, or unbiased? Come now, Mr. Rich. Most people recognize that the media are almost entirely composed of supporters of one political party. That is why media outlets are finding it hard to dominate their markets: Because more and more consumers are hip to the fact that NEWS is no longer the scoop. SPIN is the scoop.

Media outlets no longer (largely because it is a 24/7 never-to-stop lustfest for one-upsmanship) take the time to find real news rooted in real events; they look for real events and real news to spin in a particularly unique and marketable way. Should the NYT begin to market a product that was spun conservative (no gay wedding announcements, an op-ed page like the WSJ, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Bob Herbert replaced by Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry, and David Horowitz), that paper would see its left-leaning market decline, a market it has created by appealing to the left in the tri-state area; complete with a mystique that the "paper of record" is where serious thinkers get their news (a mystique which appeals to the Democrats in my sleepy little NH town). So, it's not about the news, Mr. Rich, but the ideology in which the news is cradled, even shaped.

But here is the reality, gleaned from my own years as a print journalist. Please allow these few anecdotes to help build my case.

In 1983, I believe, while sitting with my father during his lunch break in the main hall of the MacDowell Art Colony (my father was the maintenance foreman at that esteemed retreat), I watched a televised mid-day news conference with President Ronald Reagan. I recall that at no time did President Reagan raise his hand, or touch his face, during his opening statements. Then, as he fielded questions pertaining to numerous topics including the invasion of Grenada, President Reagan scratched the side of his head while listening to one reporter's question. The instant he raised his hand, every motor-driven 35mm camera in the White House press room ripped off countless frames, the mad whirring and clicking evident to the TV audience.

The next day, on the front page of the Boston Globe, above the fold, was a photo of President Reagan, in a boxed story. The photo showed Reagan scratching his head, his mouth slightly open as if speaking, with a pullout quote in bold text adjacent to his image. The quote, about Grenada, read something like this: "Um, I am not sure ... I don't know about ..." Amazingly, the question that was being asked when Reagan touched his head was not about Grenada at all. So, the editors of the Globe ran an unflattering image of the President scratching his head to convey the idea that he did not know what the hell was going on. (Please realize: He was not speaking when the photo was taken; he was listening, and, for an instant, the camera lied.)

THIS is why the media are (and have been) losing America's respect, Mr. Rich!

But there is more. While I was covering Barbara Bush's 1991 campaign for her husband's presidential bid, I recall the repugnant commentary of the press pack following her. It was replete with indecency. The topper? A Boston TV news anchor turned to me and asked rhetorically, "Why should we care what she says. She just f---- the president."

While working as a staffer at what is touted as the "most liberal newspaper in New Hampshire" (the 60 town region it covers now votes almost exclusively Democratic. Surprised?), I recall that the sarcastic, critical attitude that pervaded the newsroom without so much as a moment of self-reflection, struck me as endemic to the whole newsgathering process. And when it came to photographing candidates for office as they stumped through the region, countless photos were taken, with the least flattering images going to the Republicans. In fact, the chief of photography, one of my dearest friends and a longtime Massachusetts Democrat, confessed to me that he ALWAYS submits the least flattering photographs of Republicans possible. Why? Because to him they are nothing but "greedy, lying bastards." And this from an award-winning photojournalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Associated Press and Washington Post.

Recently, I was assigned by a major national news outlet (this admission may cost me my relationship there) to photograph (and I will be as discreet as possible) a story related to a major international conflict. The photo editor requested in an email photo request that I take a "moody portrait" of a particular person. Can you guess which way the story was going to lean when a photo editor asks for a portrait to be "moody"?

That the news media create news where there is none; that they bend it to conform to an ideological market they want to exploit for cash; that they scoop each other not with news but with spin; these are the reasons Americans no longer trust the media. Moreover, Americans don't trust the media because they think more carefully than Frank Rich.

Mr. Rich need only look at his own work, and the work of his paper, to see why the media have fallen in such disrepute and disrepair. The slovenliness of Mr. Rich's colleague, Bob Herbert, for instance, in his last two columns, is a perfect example of why Americans are looking high and low for more trustworthy sources.

Contratimes

PS. Dear Mr. Rich,

Do you mind if I challenge you, since you are part of the press? Surely you don't. So, one more thing. When you berate the press for failing to get into President Bush's face for his announcement two years ago that 'major combat operations were over' in Iraq, you know, the "Mission Accomplished speech"; do you realize how inane you sound? For how is it that controlling a nation's commerce; its infrastructure and superstructure; its airfields and airspace; its military, government and its power plants; its highways and schools, how is it, dear sir, that such an accomplishment does not signify to you the END of major combat operations? Are we still in need of hurling cruise missiles in the Sunni triangle from warships in the Persian Gulf? Are we still in need of B-52 sorties dropping Daisy Cutters on Saddam's Republican Guard? Do we need to send tank battalions to level Iraqi defenses?

How long, dear sir, does America need to control (total control is impossible) a nation thousands of miles away before you - and your clairvoyant colleagues - will tell us when major combat is indeed over?

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.