October 3, 2005
what's the part above the subtext? oh yeah, the "text"
10/3/05
Old-timers to this blog will know what a hopeless fanboy I am of the Yahoo! Most Emailed Pictures Page, as I think (by way of Lars) that it provides the perfect snapshot of America's brain: obsessions with sex, gore and kitty kats. It also infuriates the living shit out of me, like when low-rent photographers use dime-store metaphorical skills to further some bullshit agenda.
Last year, I bemoaned this picture:
...when, on the other side, we were getting shit like this:
And so, because I am a Photoshop MASTER OF ALL I SURVEY, I offered this:
It seems I wasn't the only one who got sick of this nonsense. Over at the Corrente blog, they spotted Reuters' photo of "another Leni Riefenstahl-esque 'Triumph of the W'-style photo of Dear Leader, this time, sweet Jeebus, with a halo" and responded thusly:
I have to ask Lars if he's reading: what possesses these photographers to do this? Is it merely money, or is it some other sort of freakish devotion? Or is it freakish devotion to money, because they know the Washington Times is going to snap up every picture of Bush with a subtle halo and beaming Latino schoolchildren?
Us Americans are no better. The Number One picture on September 11th of this year was this:
Um, yeah, sure, it's about the "reflecting pool memorial." Or maybe it's about HER TITS. You be the judge.
The only good thing about the new low standards in photojournalism is that it feeds off whatever prey is hobbled. After years of Bush-worshipping pictures, his unfathomable ability to bungle every aspect of American leadership has finally trickled down into the trenches of political photogs. Here it is, a groan-inducing, dime-store visual metaphor to make the progressives happy AT LONG LAST:
Do you seriously think U.S. newspapers or their photographers were biased against Kerry (or biased in favor of Bush)? I'll give you the Washington Times, but after that. . . No. That's just crazy.
It's Americans who are choosing to forward these photos, not the photographers. If they go to a ceremony to take photos of Bush, they're going to take ceremonial photos of Bush.
Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that a screenshot got sent around the internet of Bush above the caption "Bush: Nation's greatest disaster" or something?
I'm not a fan of lazy journalism either, but this ain't an example.
Here's an interesting blog that dedicates a fair amount of time to analyzing bias in photojournalism...
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/in_a_picturespin_focus/index.html
I especially like this one (note at the bottom)
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2005/09/bushs_undoing.html
Sometimes the "pro's" from the MSM do a little work themselves to make (or break) a point.
A link with analysis to prove a point:
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/re- "Or maybe it's about HER TITS.."
Not fair. I've been admonished about discussing those things in this blog!
B2 (real)
That "Anatomy of a Photograph" link is a good example among many, B2.
Re your earlier admonishment: there are some things Ian doesn't want Republicans talking about. I'll leave the dime-store psychoanalysis to someone else.
Oh, you two. For every picture your pal "Zombietime" can see in San Francisco, I can forward you a hundred more images of right-wing nutjobs showing up to a funeral where a kid died of HIV from a transfusion, holding signs that say "AIDS: Kills Fags Dead." I'm sorry, but your end of the spectrum holds all the trump cards in the Cruelty Dept...
As for "things I don't want Republicans talking about," I don't think I need to explain to you why I'd like to KEEP COMMENTS ABOUT MY WIFE'S BODY OFF MY OWN FUCKING BLOG. You can start your own blog and say whatever you want.
Mostly, I think the both of you have plenty to add to the discussion without being jerks. Why don't you talk about my acne or something?
a hundred images of right-wing nutjobs could be forwarded because media outlets disseminated those images to portray those people as...
...well, nutjobs.media mission accomplished.
am i missing something?
See? So very touchy.
Last I heard, the God Hates Fags crowd were picketing the funerals of servicemen killed in Iraq. They're anti-war nutjobs.
Roger that Matt. The God Hates Fags crowd led by a Mr. Phelps is about as right wing as Mr. Farrakan and the Nation of Islam is left wing.
If you haven't heard Ian, Phelps has branched out from attending AIDs funerals and is presently protesting at serviceman's funerals. It's a lawsuit money making scam; check out his wife.
Hate is hate. Check out this link at Blackfive (conservative, right wing paratrooper blogger) about the Phelps traveling hate show at serviceman's funerals. Read the article and read the comments from us right wingers. Enlightening, ain't it? We hate Phelps too.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/06/index.html
Now, I'll bet you didn't read about the Phelp's Clans "real deal" in the NYT or at the daily kos..
No, and that's because the NYT's wants you to think that the average Joe Blow from Manhattan, Kansas, because he is a republican, thinks like Mr. Phelps--- wrongo Ian- bigtime.
Personally, I detest being manipulated by arrogant journalist majors writing shit and misrepresenting the truth for an agenda. How about you?
Re- well anatomy..
shhhhu....rrrrre '''' Ian, please don't hit me.re- acne: I am way too sensitive from the early 1970's to discuss that topic. LOL
B2 (real)
Hi there,
Nice to be called out on the blog. Why do photographers do what they do? I'll tell ya, but first I've got to debunk a few of the assumptions above:
1.) Photographers are right wing. Well, no. As you might expect, political inclinations of photographers mirror those of any personality type attracted to creative, socially aware activities.2.) Photographers make a lot of money selling pictures to right wing newspapers. Ah, no. Campaign photojournalist work is largely carried out by staff journalists working for major media outlets. The majority of photographers have no financial interest in whether their pictures sell. Their ultimate masters may have an interest, but, in every media organization, sales figures are considered top secret. That information would never make it down to the first rung of the organization ladder where the photographers are.
Ok, so why do photographers take insulting/complimentary pictures?
It's easy to explain the insulting ones. I will guarantee you that every photographer working any campaign has been lied to, treated poorly, hassled, and indirectly his job threatened by the people managing a campaign. Mean-spirited coverage is much less the political inclination of the photographer than how badly the campaign treats you. Philosophy gets tossed aside, and the behavior of campaign officials determines whether you want the candidate to win or not.
I know one photographer who was won over to the Bush camp (a very rare occurrence) simply by the fact that Bush events tended to run on time. Events that don't run on time are incredibly stressful because typically you are booked for other assignments that day. Suddenly you are double booked and your assignment desk doesn't care. It's an awful feeling.
Complimentary pictures are explained more generally. PR flacks try to design every photo op to be complimentary. Who do you think put those flags behind Bush in the picture above? The photographer didn't. In most cases, candidate photo ops are largely designed to look the same every time for fear of the unpredictable.
This explains the halo shots you love to hate. Because campaigns strictly homogenize photo ops, boredom sets in quickly. When there's an opportunity to include an unlikely visual symbol in a picture, boredom usually provokes you to do it. Believe it or not, the halo shot is generally pretty rare. It depends on the facility and how the stage is oriented therein. Most old timers photographers know which ballrooms foster halos. Because the ideal halo is round, you're talking about round chandeliers. Round chandeliers are found in older hotels (go look, I'll wait) which have generally smaller ballrooms. Campaign events are held in bigger spaces, so the round chandelier is rare to get in a picture.
FYI, the best halo pictures come from Cipriani's 42nd Street (across from Grand Central Station). The same photographer who preferred Bush events actually put a halo over Bill Clinton at that location.
It's all wheels within wheels man. There's plenty of grist for the mill for both sides.
The forgotten angle is that search engines don't forget who's master. Have you read about Yahoo's cooperation with China's jailing of journalists or MSN's delisting of the words "freedom" and "democracy" from their chinese site?
I heart Lars.
I reckon you didn't want to read about the "Phelps's Crazy Traveling Roadshow" eh?
Happy with 1/2 the story...
Lars, I was hoping you would respond so I could say hey, how are you? And I'm glad you're doing well.
Aimee D