Images and Objective Journalism

I disagree. Cindy McCain doesn't look gruesome at all. I'm sure there are prettier pictures of her, but this wasn't bad.

I think you trying to compare her picture to baked apple heads was quite gruesome.

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."

"I guess it's always in the eye of the beholder."

What needs to be added to that is "when it's the conduct of liberals." There's a double standard here. When it's non-liberals, it's not "in the eye of the beholder." Then it's hate, hate speech, or a hate crime. And "hate" and "hate speech" often includes mere different beliefs from what liberals hold. Even calling evil governments and evil political systems "evil" is considered "hate." On the other hand, liberal hate can just be a "gaffe," as the Washington Post calls it. Rep. Pete Stark recently said, "Republicans were sending the nation's youth to Iraq 'to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement,'" ("Stark's Latest Gaffe Is Just One In a Long Line," Washington Post). The Post story includes some of his other "gaffes," such as in 2001 referring to Rep. J.C. Watts as the "current Republican Conference chairman, whose children were all born out of wedlock." Is that hateful? If a Republican had said something like that, he'd never have survived it. Even what Biden said about Indians and convenience stores, liberal groups would have been calling for his head if he were a Republican, holding it up and saying no one could deny that it clearly represents a bigotry. They would have caused an uproar until he was punished somehow, including by possibly be pressured to resign.

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.

Question Jake,

If Republicans and Independents alike are saying Obama is running a better organized and decent campaign while both groups are chiding McCain for his negative tone and tactics; if many Republicans and Democrats also agree that Obama had a better response than McCain to the economic crises, had a better debate performance in all 3 rounds, and also had made the better veep pick, should the media now smear Obama in order even the playing field or should McCain reap what he has sowed?

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.

umm, wouldn't GQ be considered more editorial media, you know, a magazine with a point of view? It's withing their scope to slant things however the heck they want

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.

"I guess it's always in the eye of the beholder, but it's something we all need to keep an eye on."

What a comfort to know that, henceforth, the media will be self-policing for bias.

Way to go, Jake!

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?

The problem is that Mccain is such a bad candidate, makes gaffe after gaffe, has a terrible running mate and runs untrue LIES, SMEARS it's hard not to run negative about him when that is the truth.

McCain stories are all engative because Mccain is a negative, terrible, LIAR

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

Speaking of objective journalism:

Anyone notice that we've never seen any of Obama's college friends? That he doesn't really have many close friends, period? That his known "associates" end up being folks that he ends up not knowing they were "like that" and having to disassociate himself from?

Here's an interesting perspective from someone with insight into an associate of Obama's:

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.

I don't take quotes coming out of the campaign camps too seriously. The professional staffers tend toward inbreeding as far as socialization goes the Beltway being a company town.

Palin is solid. Look at the 24 hour a day assault launched by the Obama campaign and the media, then look at her stand up in front of the camera and take it all like a walk in the park. She is unflappable, focused and continuously improving and polishing.

I couldn't be more impressed. Palin IS the face of the new feminist and the Republican Party: smart, tough, compassionate and normal.

For the Hollyweirdies and the Beltway Bozos, she is the face they fear in secret places even they don't talk about. She is the real America and she is going to win.

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.

Molly---If a president declares martial law, basically, we're screwed. The Constitution as we know it become at best--on hold, at worst--dead. Depending on your perspective.

There have been a ton of Exec. Orders already signed regarding Martial Law. Do a google search if you're really curious.

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

Then there's the Chicago Tribune's blogger, who this morning declared the 2001 radio interview where Obama graced us with his views on the Constitution and the redistribution of wealth, showed Obama is "scary smart." This blog entry was so unbelievably biased I'm still incredulous over it.

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?