BAGnewsNotes

Your Turn: Vogue + LaBron (Kong?) + Gisele = Kaching

Some say the photo of LeBron James -- in a gorilla-like pose -- perpetuates racial stereotypes.

Men's Fitness editor-in-chief Roy Johnson says: "It's a reminder that as African-Americans, we have come very far to have an African-American male featured on the cover of Vogue, but we have very far to go to continue to educate people within our industry regarding the power of images and the potential impact they can have on their readers."

Jason Whitlock: "Would we be having this discussion if LeBron struck the same pose on the cover of Ebony while holding Selita Ebanks?"

... I think the image is worth our deconstruction, but I don't believe for a second Vogue/Leibovitz didn't know exactly what they were doing.  In spite of his approval (before, and up to this moment), did LeBron get the shape of it?

More images in the shoot (Vogue/style.com)
Is Vogue's "LeBron Kong" Cover Offensive? (Jezebel + more links)
Memo Pad: People Are Talking About... Soon To Be a Ph.D Thesis.. (WWD.com)
If They All Do It... (The Beyonce lightening treatment - BAGnewsNotes)
Selita Ebanks (wikipedia)

(h/t and paragraph 1-3 from Wayne Dickson.)

(image: Annie Leibovitz. 2008. Vogue Magazine)

The Mere Sight Of Wright

Both Mark Halperin and the NYT call out the Obama campaign for circulating this photo.  It features Reverend Wright at the prayer breakfast where then-President Clinton apologized to and for Monica Lewinsky.

The photo has an interesting composition.  The fact Bubba swerved to make a point right at the snap creates the impression he's not that engaged.  And all the better now, the picture offering Bill avoiding direct eye contact with this future pariah.  What's a little buried, otherwise, is the right hand action, and a pretty friendly shake.  Of course, Wright's expression confirms a more connected moment.

But whether there was more connection there or, as the Clinton spokesperson said yesterday, "Bill Clinton met with, corresponded with and took pictures with literally tens of thousands of people,” the facts are no longer the issue.

Sadly, in spite of Obama's eloquent snapshot of Wright the other day, the pastor has come to symbolize the racist stereotype of the scary, angry, unpredictable and anarchistic black man.

Strange turn of events, I'd say.  A few months back, the idea of Bubba's infidelity being referenced in the media sphere in any way at all would have set off a three alarm fire in the Clinton camp.  But instead, Bill's "sin," which is what he was airing that day at this ecumenical breakfast, is completely overshadowed by the sight of a man who has come, somehow, to represent some far deeper stain.

(slightly revised: 12pm PST)

Rev. Wright Was Clinton White House Guest (TIME/Halperin)
Photograph of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright Surfaces The Caucus
Trying Times for Trinity  -- Features what has become the "gotcha" shot of the campaign (Newsweek)

(image: truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com)

Panic In Waukegan

This image appeared in Friday's NYT  about a deportation panic in Waukegan.

After local police were trained to begin deportation hearings on immigrants with a criminal record, rumors spread that any undocumented person pulled over by the police was also at risk.  Several recent raids have only added to the anxiety level.  The offshoot is that undocumented Hispanics and their legal relatives or loved ones are living in fear and have begun dropping out of public life.

The backstory on the image is as follows:

Miriam M. and her husband, married in 2004, own a tidy house on a peaceful street and are raising four children from previous marriages, all United States citizens. He runs his own landscaping company, paying business and property taxes.

Even though Miriam M. is a citizen, it is difficult for her husband to obtain legal papers, since he entered illegally from Mexico 12 years ago. She did not focus on her husband’s illegal status when she first met him.

...

Now he stays close to home and avoids downtown Waukegan, driving around the city limits when he can.

The physical symbolism is actually quite broad, making similar, but distinct references to: "pulling in," "clinging" and trying to "hold on." 

With the immigration issue having devolved into little more than a paranoid fanning of the ideological fires, this image speaks to the rising emotional fallout.

Facing Deportation but Clinging to Life in U.S. (NYT)
Slide show feature (NYT)

(image: Sally Ryan for the NYT.  2007.  Waukegan, Ill.  nytimes.com)

Coated Layer Of Grace

Even among voices that have been extremely even-handed over the past week or so, there has been a lot of disappointment around the 'sphere regarding the anti-Obama remarks issued yesterday by BET President and Clinton surrogate, Robert Johnson.

What I haven't heard discussed, however, were the visual trappings surrounding those remarks.

For Obama partisans, the blasphemy was likely heightened by situating Johnson's public presence that day in a house of worship.  From the Clinton side of the coin, however, the setting interjected a dissonance between the day's picture and Johnson's words, as if a visual dose of piety might lend a coated layer of grace to the offending executive and his words.

(click for full sizes)

To the extent this attack also had Hillary's fingerprints on it -- at least, as suggested by the photo WAPO ran of Clinton and Johnson together in church (link) -- the day's other "worship action shots," starting with the first image above, offer similar warding off.

From the vicarious morality boost provided by Rev. Richard Dozier's finger; to the grounding effect of being situated between those two angelic girls; to the effect of splitting the space between the Reverend and Mr. Johnson; the only thing that possible breaks the "sanctity show" is that little matter of the Secret Service agent accompanying the choir.

Controversy Over MLK Remarks Continues (UPDATED) Carpetbagger
Not Bean Bag TPM
New York Times Prints Truncated Version Of Hillary MLK Quote Yet Again Sargent/TPM
Race Talk updated (Taylor Marsh)

(image 1& 3: Elise Amendola/AP.  image 2, 4 & 5: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters. All Northminster Presbyterian Church. Columbia, S.C. January 13, 2008. via YahooNews)

Opening The Black-Pink Divide

Forget the (imagined) blue state/red state split.  What the practitioners of wedge politics are currently fixing in place -- in collusion with a media hungry for conflict, fear and negativity -- is a black-pink divide.

In a piece titled "Rights vs. Rights" in today's NYT WIR, the article lends historical energy to a Campaign '08 race-gender split by playing up friction between women and blacks in gaining access to the ballot box.

The article offers two images side-by-side, one of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the other, Frederick Douglass.  Cites the caption, Stanton and Douglas "worked together on abolition, but then had a bitter split over who should be first to get the right to vote."

The problem with the juxtaposition, as well as the article's other photo, featuring Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson, is that the figures can't help but serve as proxies for Clinton and Obama. Surely you've seen shots of Clinton and Obama eyeing each other warily, often at the end of a debate.

The period photos of Stanton and Douglas are oriented as if they are facing off but, in states of pique, are refusing to look each other in the eye.  (The other image, with Abzug and Steinem spatially offset from Jackson and a male colleague also telegraphs this gender - race divide.)

I was expecting the wingnuts to eventually engage full-force in racial or gender baiting.  It is very troubling that the shaded blue teams, stoked by the ratings-hungry media, appear to have beaten them to it.

(revised 9AM PST)

Rights vs. Rights: An Improbable Collision Course (NYT)
The Crucible Of Racial Politics Ambinder/The Atlantic
Who's Ready For a Female President? Kunin/WAPO

(image: Bettmann/Corbis via nytimes.com)

Shading Obama

(revised 4pm PST)

The image above -- taken while Obama was waiting to be introduced at a campaign event in South Carolina -- was the "Barack entry" in TIME's just released Images of the Year.  Employing the shadow, the implication is that this meditative Obama is personally split between dark and light.

Yesterday's NYT front page feature exhibited a similar split, chiding Obama throughout for not being more responsive or accountable to traditional African-American issues and power brokers.

The image leading that article conjures its own suggestion of conflict.  By exploiting the reflection in a car window, what is actually a friendly, face-to-face moment between Obama and Jesse Jackson is refashioned to seem like Obama has turned his back on Jackson, leaving the civil rights icon behind while Jackson attempts to hold on to him.

Is it so threatening to corporate media that Obama identifies himself, not as a black politician, but as a politician who happens to be black?  And why the need to cast him as either one or the other, or as someone particularly torn between the two?

A Biracial Candidate Walks His Own Fine Line (NYT)
The Year In Images (TIME)

(h/t: Chris & Jacob.  image 1: Callie Shell / Aurora for TIME.  time.com.  image 2: Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press. June, 2007.  nytimes.com)

Blinding At The Border

by Bryan Finoki

This image, spotted in a recent LA Times article entitled "Apprehensions of Border-Crossers Drop," should bring a smile to the face of anyone who believes the border fence has a constructive role to play in the issue of illegal immigration along our southern border.

Photographed in Naco, Arizona, which is just outside of Nogales, the fence installation is the DHS’s attempt to steer the flow of migrants further out toward the Rio Grande desert where geographic conditions are dangerous and public scrutiny is scarce.

This photo of contractors hard at work has all the visual ingredients to convince the viewer this strategy has made considerable progress in slowing border crossers.  In the background there’s a clichéd panorama of the formerly open range of the wild west – the classic American landscape in all its glory – while in the foreground, we witness the fervor of heavy work with teams of tractors scoring the landscape in expansive flourishes of tough American steel.  The flag on the helmet adds the perfect patriotic stamp to the notion that America can be safeguarded by a ubiquitous external barrier.  Whether backed up by hard hat, heavy equipment or poured concrete, the message is the same: barricades are the answer.

A more interesting sign, however, is the blinding flash of light emitted from the welder.  What  does it mean that the barrier is presented with a light so blinding  that, even on a screen, we are forced to look away? Equally – if not more – disturbing is what is being politically shielded by this flash of light.

Your Turn: The Tension Of Clichy-sous-Bois

(click image for full size)

Yesterday, the NYT featured this image with an article on the upcoming one year anniversary of suburban rioting in France.  The picture, in fact, led the on-line edition.

The gist of the article was that, nearly a year after the controversial death of two immigrant boys in the suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, the French have done little to aid those warehoused in the slums, and that tensions (in part, spawned by the anniversary) are again on the rise.  (If you remember, last year's rioting was touched off by the allegation that the boys, who were accidentally electrocuted, had been running from the police.)

The image is intended to highlight government inattention.  It derives from an exhibition in Clichy-sous-Bois to raise awareness, and put a face on those who have been exiled by race and religion.  According to the article, last week's opening drew the participation and attendance of leading photographers from around the world.  Despite the "buzz," however, not one French official (beyond the local mayor) showed up.

As exhibition images, especially in Clichy-sous-Bois itself, these pictures seem extremely powerful.  They shout out desperation, anguish, and an urgency to be recognized.  At the same time, they viscerally convey how much these young men perceive themselves (and sense themselves, through the gaze of society) as animals, deviants, monsters, freaks.

Here's where I have the question, though.

This image led the NYT on-line edition.  (Granted, the paper also provided this objective caption: "A photo exhibit of young people tries to counter stereotypes in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, where riots broke out a year ago.")  Given the power of the image, however, and the fact a much smaller percentage of viewers would have clicked through to the article, to what extent does the picture lend appreciation of the problem, as opposed to dramatizing it, it or even exploiting these faces to sell news product?

Perhaps part of my discomfort has to to with the "anniversary angle."  Of course, the anniversary ritual is one of the most fundamental vehicles around which we construct meaning.  It is also a staple in the creation of news.  In the context of the story, however, how much is the image sacrificed in its social significance for a media "flash from the past," not to mention its teaser value in the dramatization of rising tension and even the anticipation of more spilt blood?

And then, I was also wondering how much the foreground figure is complicit in the concern.

Portrayed as moving past in a blur, perhaps we, too, are prompted to gawk for a second, then do the same?

(If you click through to the article, I'm also interested in your opinion of the visual clash -- and dialogue -- with the other image, featuring those protest signs worn by members of the police union.)

(image 1: Christophe Ena/Associated Press.  Clichy-sous-Bois. Published October 21, 2006. nyt.com.  linked image: Dominique Faget/Agence France-Press. Paris. Published October 21, 2006. nyt.com)

Going For A Ride?

Did you notice this shot on the front of Thursday's NYT?

The accompanying article (Overcoming Adoption’s Racial Barriers) examined the increasing tendency for white families to adopt black children.  I thought the examination of the issue was pragmatic and even-handed.  It was also gratifying to see a prominent write-up dealing with the dynamics of parenthood.  (If I had any complaint, the piece mostly avoided the economic and social roots of the "supply chain," in which white middle class families are the "beneficiaries" at the expense of what one assumes are mostly poor, urban black ones.)

Where I mostly had a hang up, however, was with this image.  I found it misleading, and exploitive of those sensitivities the article otherwise handles well.  Maybe it's the fact the JonBenet Ramsay case just broke, but the image seems to play more to abduction than adoption.  It might have been different if it was a woman holding the child.  Instead, the "language" -- the guy turning his back to us, and ducking his head -- reads like shame, or some sense of the covert.  And the child's expression?  It has a "Who is this (white) guy, and where's he taking me" feel to it.

(image: Mark Schiefelbein for The New York Times.  August 17, 2006.  nyt.com)

Sambo Joe And The Visual Blogosphere

If you missed the brouhaha, Jane Hamsher of firedoglake briefly became a subject of controversy in the Connecticut senatorial primary yesterday morning.  Having spent the last two weeks traveling with the Lamont campaign while blasting at Lieberman on her blog, Hamsher led off her most recent campaign update at HuffingtonPost with the image above.

What "inspired" the visual was the scramble for Connecticut's black vote, and what Hamsher pointed to as Lieberman's crass appeal for it.  (John Dickerson of Slate has a good summary of the whole affair, including Lieberman's bloviating indignance, and Lamont's amateurish reaction, distancing himself from both Hamsher, and the blogosphere.)

Obviously, this story is full of visual angles.  There is Hamsher's role (and the "photo-editorial" responsibility of the blogger), there is the image itself (which, after posting, was quickly withdrawn), and there is the peculiar light this illustration cast on the newswire photos of Lamont's campaign day.

What follows is a snippet of Hamsher's apology (or, "non-apology," according to Dickerson) for the photo-illustration (also featuring a link to a Connecticut site documenting a racial flier allegedly circulated by the Lieberman campaign).  What makes the response particularly BAG-worthy, however, is the question Hamsher poses about the relevance of her choice of images.  She writes:

For weeks, Senator Lieberman has attempted to woo African Americans by pretending to be someone he clearly is not.  Meanwhile, his campaign has liberally distributed race-baiting fliers that have the "paid for by" Joe’s campaign disclaimer at the bottom, lying to the press about their intended recipients.

But for some reason, more questions have been asked about me, a blogger.  With so much at stake this election, is the choice of images used by a mere supporter really newsworthy?

First off, Jane needs to step a little closer to the plate.  This "mere supporter" just happens to attract about 450,000 page views a week.  Also, excuse me for being technical, but the phrase "choice of image" is not that forthcoming, either.  As I understand it, Hamsher didn't just choose this illustration -- she conceived it.

More important, however, is the question of whether a blog image is newsworthy.  Interesting question coming from a site that leads nearly each post with an image, a great many of which constitute strong parody, or almost stand-alone op-ed.

Regarding the image itself, it doesn't make much sense unless you're following this contest as closely as Hamsher is.  Beyond that, you have to wonder how much the race question -- in a contest between two well-off white guys in Connecticut -- really involves platforms and qualifications, so much as it does a (Rovian-style) appeal to a strategic voting niche.

On the visual alone, the use of "black face" is so culturally loaded, it's hard to believe Ms. Hamsher wouldn't see this coming back at her.  But then, maybe she truly is missing the visual dynamics of the sphere.  (As a further reflection of the mindset, FDL -- in spite of its prominence and heavy use of graphics -- has yet to adopt photo or illustration credits as standard practice.)

Finally, doctoring Lieberman side-by-side with Bill Clinton only heightens the blasphemy.  But it's based on the controversial campaign flier, you say?  Sure.  But, because Hamsher's post made no mention of the flier, and had nothing to do with race, how were Huffington Post readers supposed to "appreciate" the context?  On the other hand, Clinton's affinity for the black community and black churches is so widely known, it lends an even harsher edge to Sambo Joe. 

(Because the post did have to do with Wal-Mart, maybe a better choice might have been to make Lieberman's head an oversized smiley face.)

 
(click to expand)

Finally, I'm wondering how much Hamsher's inside knowledge of Lamont's schedule this week inspired this illustration.  Perhaps Jane's (unconscious) motivation was to run interference while Lamont played his own race card.  Either way, as the visual fancy of "one blogger out there," it sure doesn't make these "other" images seem any more natural.

(image 1: Douglas Healey/AP.  Aug. 2, 2006.  Stamford, Conn.  Via YahooNews.  caption: Ned Lamont center, embraces Tommie Jackson, pastor of the Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church at a breakfast with Rev. Al Sharpton.  image 2: Bob Child/AP.  Aug. 2, 2006.  New Haven, Conn.  Via YahooNews.)