BAGnewsNotes

Baquba #2

(click for fuller text)

Here's more Scott Nelson imagery from Baquba. 

Following yesterday's shot of a U.S. fair-haired detonation machine, how is this for a follow up? Maybe the military thinks that taunting the enemy is a fair trade off it it fires up our flagging crusaders?

And then, could someone please tell me where The Times is going with this caption:

During the operation, Specialist Paul Goodyear wore a headband bearing a passage from Psalm 91: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust."

Talk about holy war, sounds like the (online) newspaper of record got sucked in, chapter and verse.

View the rootin'-tootin' slide show here.

(image: Scott Nelson/World Picture Network, for The New York Times. Baquba, Iraq, June 2007.  nytimes.com)

Baquba #1

(click for full size)

Scott Nelson's photos for the NYT this week make the intensely fierce, but largely ambiguous U.S. attack on Baquba seem only that much more so.

Take this shot from Saturday, for example, of a U.S. soldier strapped with shoulder-fired grenades.  The accompanying article paints a blurry picture of continuous detonation, with U.S. "combat engineers" engaged in a back-and-forth, street-to-street blast-a-thon with their Iraqi antagonists.

As success, or even the definition of it, moves further out of reach, the visual narrative become that much more bizarre.  Is the I.E.D.-addled U.S. fighting man morphing into a cyborg?  Or does this matériel (and Nelson's clever capture of it) represent a mockery of the suicide belt?

...And then, if it is a mockery (with our military so desperate to demonstrate some efficacy), exactly who's being mocked?

(image: Scott Nelson/World Picture Network, for The New York Times. Baquba, Iraq, June 2007.  nytimes.com)

Who Do You Think You're Looking At?

Once again, the unraveling of the Cheney/Bush Administration has proven too messy for the visual press to dirty its hands, newsprint and electrons on.

I'm referring specifically to Monday's coverage of the EPA Director's Congressional testimony.  After initially trying to dodge it, Christine Whitman finally appeared before a House Judiciary Subcommittee attempting finesse the agency's negligence in addressing the health dangers of the 9/11 attack.

Although most mainstream media sites featured isolated images of a combative or over-rationalizing Whitman, I was interested in shot number #1 above, which actually earned a small, side-column spot in an AP feed at nytimes.com (the day before The Times ran their own story led by the more "typical" finger-waving Whitman).

So, what's the difference?

Blair's Retirement Hobby

(click for full size)

As Tony Blair leaves office today, I just don't see where he derives serious credibility as the new Middle East envoy.

Reflective of the problem is how the British Royal Academy, obviously mindful of the timing, chose to laud English artist Michael Sandle's 'Iraq Triptych' at the 239-year-old Royal Academy Arts Summer Exhibition.  The fifteen-foot-long work, portraying Blair and wife Cherie after the fall (and demise of Iraq) earned the show's prestigious Hugh Casson prize for drawing.  (Here, via the Star-Telegram.com, is the view from the street.)

According to The Guardian:

The brutality panel is based on the case of Corporal Donald Payne, who admitted inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians at a court martial last year in which other soldiers in his unit were cleared amid controversy. Sandle has called the panel "Corporal Payne's Chorus" because the soldier invited others to hear what he called his "choir" of victims screaming.

I thought George Packer's piece leading the New Yorker's Talk of the Town two weeks ago perfectly captured the Blair conundrum.  Discussing the play “Frost/Nixon," Packer lays out the unavoidably reductive nature of a presidential legacy.  No amount of protestation, alternate PR or denial can redeem Bush from being permanently saddled with the Iraq catastrophe -- with the same infamy etched into Blair's new retirement hobby welcome mat.

(image: bbc news. June 2007. bbc.co.uk.  Star-Telegram linked image: AP Photo/Sang Tan.)

Hillary And Obama:The Issue At Hand(s)

 

(Bloggers Note: I am pleased to welcome John Lucaites to BAGnewsNotes as a regular contributer to lend us his expertise on political iconography, media imagery and visual rhetoric.)

by John Lucaites

A few weeks ago, The BAG posted covers of the newly released Gerth/Van Natta and Carl Bernstein Hilary Clinton biographies.  Because the images are so similar, I've chosen to compare them with a sample of cover shots of Obama biographies published this year.

The Obama images are in line with what Kress and Van Leeuwen call “demand” pictures, while the recent Hillary book covers reflect what these theorists call “offer” pictures.  In the “offer,” the image is put there for you to gaze upon, marked by the fact there is no eye contact with the viewer.  In the Hillary covers, the upward angle puts the viewer below the picture, in the role of “spectator," literally looking “up to” the subject as one might look at a statue.

In the Obama cover, the eye contact is usually direct, "demanding" we engage with the subject.  And the angle is straight on, implying a degree of equity or realism --opposed to a presentation that is “larger than life.”  Although one of the covers is more ambiguous, the eyes are still present, and because he is engaging with someone outside of the frame, it feels it might as well be us.  That Obama is smiling also suggests the demand is friendly, sociable.

In an editorial example, by the way, take this front page visual from Saturday's nytimes.com.  It offers the opening shot of a short video on "Obama and volunteerism."  Note that the image is doubled so we see the degree of interactivity in the original image (notice the backs of the heads) which gets even more  pronounced as we move into the "audience" and the viewers become fuller, more real, engaged with Obama on the wall as well as the laptop.  ... And, of course, so too do we as we move back one more step.

Then The Planes Hit The Buildings, Mr. Shadow President

Along with the 'spheric attention lately to Dick Cheney as the "fourth branch of government," there seems to have also arisen a renewed interest in the Cheney-Bush relationship.

Last week, Digby summarized the (delayed) storm over the Cheney power grab, lamenting the fact that the MSM still hadn't noticed.  She came back on Sunday, however, to highlight an in-depth WAPO piece detailing the Cheney ("just don't call it that") shadow presidency.

Although we've been excavating these visual dynamics for years, the recent candor and clearer vision is leading to more pictures being reviewed and still more shaking loose.

My fuel for the fire is a lesser known portrait of the pair, shot by the White House, immediately after Bush returned from Offutt Air Force Base following the 9/11 attacks.  It seems fairly obvious the hyperkinetic Bush is offering Cheney a rather grade-schoolish enactment of how these two planes approached the World Trade Center towers.  (Like Cheney didn't know?)  And Cheney, in his typically stoic style, is doing what?  I'd call it an archetypal example of his playing along.

In any case, most of my observations are embedded with the photo.  What I thought you would also be interested in was how closely this shot mirrors a couple others in the damning WAPO piece.  Specifically, for example, take a look at the first photo featuring Cheney with Colin Powell.  The caption reads:

Vice President Cheney, standing behind the president's desk during a July 2003 meeting, circumvented Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in 2001 on the military commissions order.

Having seen many examples of Cheney standing close to or behind the President's desk, it's hard not to read these images as someone with the instinct for, if not, an actual grip on the seat of power.

(image: Eric Draper/White House.  November 2001.  whitehouse.gov. caption: Upon returning to the White House from Offutt Air Force Base, President Bush and Vice President Cheney discuss the attacks on America while secure inside the operations center in the White House.)

Belvedere

Guest post by Susan Murray

A brand-new shiny car, buried half a century ago in a time capsule, was recently revealed in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Oklahoma's statehood. People had hoped to find a pristine, gold '57 Plymouth Belvedere. Instead, they discovered a rust-covered relic. The capsule had been infiltrated by water and the car was ruined, keys hardened into the ignition.

I have followed this story closely in major news outlets and on blogs. It is generally presented as a fluff piece, which isn't really surprising. Except that the imagery ought to raise bigger questions.

As Aaron Donovan, writer for streetsblog.com, points out in his piece An Old Car Interred:

What was an asset in 1957 has become an enormous national liability. Fifty years ago, the oil fields of Oklahoma were awash with ever increasing amounts of oil and the United States produced more oil than any other nation in the world. We didn't have to import a drop. Nobody had ever heard of the terms global warming or climate change.

Digby 1, Beale 0. (Or, She's Mad As Hell And She's Still Not Taking It Anymore!)

As long as I've known ... her, Digby has never left anything on the table.

If no blogger is more consistent on a day-by-day, paragraph-for-paragraph and even word-for-word basis, the speech she gave at her "unveiling" at the Take Back America Conference this week was simply an elevated example of her gift for hitting a target with the utmost precision.  In the name of progressive bloggers everywhere, she explained what we do, why we exist, and how we came to be in the clearest, most exact, and most exacting terms.

But you can read all about the speech from superlative textual bloggers, like Glen Greenwald.  In this house, it's mostly about the picture -- which is what Digby gave us on Tuesday, with purpose.

As she explained to Joan Walsh at Salon:

"There wasn't any real plan to 'come out' but when Rick Perlstein approached me about this I felt it was an important moment for the progressive blogosphere, and I knew that it would be a good use of my (otherwise useless) mystique.

Digby's comment reveals two points in her thinking, both consistent with her impeccable instincts.

First, her revealing herself represents one more step in the rising visibility of the blogosphere.  Like it or not, we are a personality-driven culture.  To let herself be seen -- to put a face to the name, and a face to the words ... as well as to extinguish any last fantasy that Digby starred in "Network" -- was to play an ace she'd been holding to further boost the sphere's maturation.

Final Bush-Blair Feat

Maybe this image from the recent G-8 meeting in Germany was just pure happenstance.

Still, I find it a curious selection, as the one image in the White House (Summit) Photo Gallery highlighting George Bush together with Tony Blair.  (In most of the White House portraits of the leaders socializing in Heiligendamm, by the way, it seems like Blair -- 1, 2 -- mostly ends up at the periphery.)

What struck me about these summit photos, where Blair was concerned, was the Administration's lack of deference -- and sense of the moment.  Whereas the White House photographer seemed tasked -- over the three days in Germany -- to create at least one portrait of Bush with each world leader (see gallery links below), it seems this was the shot they chose to commemorate the deep and close relationship between these two men, and to mark the Prime Minister's last hurrah on the world stage.

I probably would have overlooked this image, however, if not for the headline today.  Apparently, Bush/Rice is pushing hard to persuade Blair to become a super-envoy to the Middle East.  That's where this (not at all unfamiliar) body synchrony comes in.  With Rice having utterly failed to accomplish anything in the region, and the so-called "road map" less than a scribble on a napkin, could BushCo. be turning to Blair as an independent power broker, or as a lock-step agent who, as his last act, gave a symbolic demonstration of being fooled twice.

White House Photo Gallery, Heiligendamm: June 6, 2007; June 7th;  June 8th.

(image: White House/Eric Draper. Heiligendamm, Germany. June 7, 2007. whitehouse.gov. caption: President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom walk to the Grand Hotel after their meeting Thursday,, in the Music Salon of the Kempinski Grand Hotel in Among the issues covered, the two leaders discussed AIDS, global warming and Darfur.)

Bubba's Back (If Without The Same Badda Bing)

What was brilliant about the Clinton/Sorpranos video was not so much the hype over the "campaign theme song" -- or even the parody of the Sopranos episode.  What was brilliant was how the buzz over both topics provided effective cover, and a smooth entree for Bill Clinton to officially enter the campaign.

With most eyes on cameo guest-star "Johnny Sack," the video also allowed Hillary -- through the cinematic sub-text -- to take America into her confidence over Bill's supporting role.

Most of the communication occurs in the "carrot" scene.  In contrast to Tony Soprano, who ordered onion rings in the final Sopranos episode, Hillary takes the initiative to order carrot sticks for Bill.  Noticing his dejection at the sight of the vegetable, Hillary informs Bubba: "I ordered for the table."

"No onion rings?" Bill asks.

Hillary smiles, announcing: "I'm looking out for you."

The underlying message to the folks at home?  a.)  The syndicate has a new boss.  b.)  Bill's on a short leash.  c.)  Bill -- unlike Tony -- is going to do what's good for him.  (After all, if she can't manage the one person, who is going to trust her with another 300 million or so?)

Finally, drawing an analogy between the Clintons and the Sopranos was also a master stroke.  By way of comparison, Team Hillary points out that a family's dark side can not only yield stronger bonds, but can even form the basis for wide popularity.

Video here.

(screen shots:  hillaryclinton.com)