The Trip : I Say Energetic, You Say Flat

With the newswires full of emotional images -- the troops, brass, and just about everyone coming into contact with Obama in Afghanistan engaging him so warmly  -- why was this pic chosen to represent the story on Monday's NYT front page so, well, autistic?  (You might compare it to something like this, for example.)

This is the same thing that drove me so crazy in '04, and it really troubles me to seeing it creeping into the NYT print coverage of the Obama trip. When I see this, it makes me wonder if the intent  -- whether conscious, or not -- is to visually neuter the imagery, stripping the energy and excitement out of an otherwise historic and emotional trip.

Just like you see in this markup of a Kerry campaign photo in October '04, the shot of Obama is characterized by two things, either people (in the boxes) oblivious to his presence, or people (call them functionaries) who are only there because they are doing their job.  On top of that, by the way, is the fact we are screened from witnessing any personal reaction from the single person Obama is interacting with.

Lest you conclude the cover shot is strictly an anomaly, however, check out the shot of Obama and Karzai on page A14.  Again, in contrast to this photo that ran in a WAPO slide show, there is not a hint of connection between either man, rather Karzai looks like he's going through the motions and Obama, more isolated as a result, looks more like a tourist.

And then, to put the Obama images into a larger context, take a look at page A14 and 15 together, the Obama shot (A) on the left having to contend with three shots from a front page story on John McCain's "new political sophistication" following the 2000 campaign.

(click for full size)

Now, juxtaposed with an Obama who -- factoring together the front page shot and the facing image -- doesn't appear to connect much with anybody, it's hard not to be drawn to McCain the super-conciliator, with such respected buddies as (B) Feingold and (C) Kennedy.

(linked photo: AFP/Getty. July 20, 2008. ; Feingold: Paul Hosefros/The New York Times)

Comments

[black dog barking]

Cyber-wandering a couple of days ago I chanced on a quick story of Obama in Afghanistan. There were a couple of pics of the Senator addressing a military assembly using a visual frame that Bush has used countless times, the speaker in the center of the shot facing us, a wall of soldiers seated behind him -- kind of like Sunday morning church except the choir is in uniform instead of robes. The thing that caught my eye was those in the backdrop seemed to be *enjoying* themselves, connected to what the Senator was saying. In the Bush photo-ops the extras are somber and serious, the church analogy works here too. Wow. I thought, this will make an impression when lots of people see it.

I'd provide a link but I didn't bookmark it. I assumed those pics would be all over the news.

[ratfood]

Good analysis. The NYT appears to be actively promoting McCain's manufactured image as a Senate leader, willing to work with even the most "liberal" Democrats such as Kennedy and Feingold, while simultaneously marginalizing Obama's trip abroad, which by all accounts has so far been a rousing success.

Even the recent NYT decision not to run the McCain Op/Ed works in his favor, since it would have undermined any lingering perception of him as someone with a vision for the future.

To borrow from Stephen Colbert, (sometimes) reality has a liberal bias. To ignore reality because it reflects badly (in this case) on the Republican candidate isn't being fair or balanced, it is simply deceptive.

[E Fisher]

No, No, no. I love the NYTimes front page Obama picture. It looks so normal. Obama is interacting with a normal human soldier while getting a meal - and the others are getting food also. It is a snapshot of something real, not a staged photo-op.

[DennisQ]

The press can manipulate images of the candidates up to a point, but John McCain still comes off as phony when he tries to be pleasant. McCain was a smartass as a young man, then matured into something of a curmudgeon. McCain can't hide being the sort of man who would call his wife a c*** because that's the sort of man he is.

Obama may be a more slippery politician than a lot of us thought we were voting for in the primaries, but he doesn't come across as being different in public from the person he'd be if he weren't running for office. Bad photographs can't take away that advantage from Obama.

Some people still regard George Bush as the down home feller he represents himself to be, but for most of us, that act has long worn off. McCain doesn't inspire confidence that he won't do exactly the same thing that Bush did - pretend to be a Man of the People but in reality be a servant of the elite. In my opinion the election is going to turn on this very issue. Who do you trust - McCain with the phony smile? Or Obama who is occasionally self-serving but basically believable?

[cenoxo]

All photographs of politicians seeking political office (or in-office) are political propaganda. For example, if and when Obama or McCain become President, photographs of the First Man and Lady that will be released by the White House are meant to put them in their best possible public light, irregardless of their actual character or feelings at the time.

The instant someone becomes President by taking the oath of office, they are no longer a Man of the People — as if they ever were — but become the Man of the Government, happy smiles notwithstanding.

The pinnacle of American elitism is reached in that person at that moment: they are no longer what they were.