BAGnewsNotes

All The Ashley Alexandra Dupré That Fits To Print

Thank goodness, with everything else going on, The NYT is managing to stay abreast of Ashley Dupré.  So, what's your take?  Do you think the trashy shot they published from Ashley's MySpace page is more reflective of the woman who did you-know-what with Governor you-know-who, or do you prefer the other one, the girl-next-door?

For an Aspiring Singer, a Harsher Spotlight (NYT)
Can Spitzer Call Girl Cash In? (NYT)
Report: Spitzer Call Girl Identified (NYT)
Magazines to Spitzer Call Girl: Call Us (NYT)
Times Topic Page: Ashley Alexandra Dupré (NYT)

Which reminds me, we never got around to talking about this....

Shooting Britney (Atlantic.com)
Atlantic Assures Fans It Hasn't Sold Its Soul (Ad Age)

(image 1, 2: Ashley Alexandra Dupré, MySpace. image 3: X17 for The Atlantic)

The Spitzers

With the news that Ms. Wall Spitzer has been insistent that her husband not resign, we are reminded that people and relationships are famous for defying conventional logic. Starting from there, I find this photo accompanying a profile of the governor's wife to be a beautiful portrait involving a radiant woman and a strange and powerful looking man.

What the NYT article says, exactly, is that: "she has even, at times, been able to take the edge off his abrasive style."  The way it reformulated in my head, however, after looking at this image, is that: Silda Wall Spitzer has been able to somewhat smooth her husband's rough edges.

I'm interested in what you see in this.

The Public Ordeal of a Private Person (profile of Silda Wall Spitzer - NYT)

(image: Narayan Mahon for The New York Times. nytimes.com)

UnWeavering Love For McCain

   
(click for full sizes)

In spite of the fire McCain is taking right now on the ethics front, the "baseline" in the campaign -- in response to generous access -- is that the press has either been blowing kisses or looking the other way.

In light of this tendency, coupled with the backlash to this week's NYT story on Mac's supposed affair with a lobbyist, an obvious question to ask is how much the press will now be (however unwittingly) running interference for the campaign.  The day after the NYT  McCain/Iseman/Paxon story broke, it was curious how YahooNews, the popular purveyor of newswire imagery, broke McCain's way on a key dimension of the story.

As Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic pointed out, the obvious "fall guy" in the dust up with The Times is McCain's former chief strategist, John Weaver.  Dumped last July with the campaign DOA, Weaver was one of the only named sources in the NYT story.  And, although he kept the campaign informed of exactly what he told The Times, Weaver's comments -- addressing the campaign's escalating concern over Iseman, and his subsequent banishment of her -- seemed to offer the paper enough of a sense that something illicit was going on.

In doing a search for "McCain Weaver" on YahooNews between Thursday and Friday (one and two days after the sloppy bombshell from The Times), four images were offered.  Let's just say, knowing how many photos of Weaver and McCain the newswires have on file, that this group wasn't the most flattering for one of them.

Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? Is Anybody Looking At Condi?

Looking at this photo, which was included in TIME's 2007 Images Of The Year, you immediately think of Iraq, don't you?

The photo was taken just before Condi Rice testified before the House Foreign Relations Committee last October.  As she prepares to sit down, she is confronted -- in a stark act of protest theatre -- by a member of the group Code Pink.  I thought Iraq, too, at least up till December 27th, when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated.

If you read through a series of investigatory articles published in late December by Newsweek and its sister publication, The Washington Post, the context surrounding Bhutto's assassination takes on a disturbing political light -- one which the media has failed to draw conclusions from.

At this point, Benazir Bhutto's death has been consigned as a fateful tragedy or a kind of cruel inevitability for "that part of the world."  It's as if Bhutto survived to the age of fifty-four simply out of sheer luck.  The reality, however, is that Bhutto was nothing if not shrewdly tactical in her decisions and highly circumspect when it involved her safety.

Of course, there is no question she was terrifically interested in returning to Pakistan, and resuming power.  What has somehow escaped attention as a central factor in her death, however, is the pressure applied by Condi Rice for Bhutto to return to Pakistan, and, particularly, the representation Rice made to Bhutto -- against Bhutto's own intuition -- that President Musharraf was in support.

Wingnuts Looking The Part -- For A Change

Surely, you're familiar with that power-tripping phrase: "Are you going to believe me, or your own eyes?"

This Administration has consistently avoided judgement by defying expected norms of reaction and standard emotional cause-and-effect.

... What that means is, if a guy does wrong and that wrong catches up to him, we are neurologically wired to expect a certain type of behavioral response.  That reaction -- be it oral and tonal, or facial and gestural -- could be anything within a familiar spectrum, ranging from contrition or shame on one end to defensiveness or defiance on the other.  The completely subversive thing about this Administration, however, is that, with as much damage as they've done, one would barely recognize it because the physical and emotional indicators the key players display bears so little sign of impertinence toward laws, ethics, and moral standards, or much hiccup, at all, at the level of personal conscience.

That's why it's such a relief to me to see Senator Craig in these mug shots.

Craig's expression, playing out below or just short of the camera eye, appears to say "I'm not here.  ... And because I don't see you, I'm expecting (in my little bubble) you won't see me."  In the profile, his gaze appears downward.  Accordingly, we (as creatures each equipped with a set of emotional antennae) are trained to consider -- through instinctive, psychological pattern recognition -- a set vocabulary of corresponding emotions.  Likely in the expressive mix -- and easier to recognize if you happened to listen to "Larry on tape" yesterday -- are qualities of shame, denial and rationalization.

Extreme narcissists, like sociopaths, however, just don't come with that kind of emotional programming.  So while the world, based on their direct actions, could be on its way down in flames, what you are likely to see, even if judgement day is closing in on them, is a completely incongruous disconnect between the actor, his actions and his reactions.

Unfortunately for the country, the fact that you can get a mug like the one DeLay provided for his perp portrait, or ones like this or these, in the face of blatant wrongdoing and rampant abuse of power, sends a psychological signal, at a deep cognitive level, that nothing seems so wrong.

(image 1: Harris County Sheriff's Office/Handout/Reuters. October 20, 2005. Via YahooNews.  image 2: Metropolitan Airports Commission Police Department/Handout/Reuters)

Gonzales: What Goes Around Comes Around

(Typically, the crashing-and-burning of any part of the Bush Administration is foreshadowed from the beginning. In honor of today's resignation of the AG, let's flip back the picture album thirty months to The BAG's visual confirmation hearing coverage of February 2, 2005.  This post was originally titled: "The Two Faces of Alberto Gonzales.")

Having mentioned Antonio Gonzales yesterday, I thought it was worth talking a closer look.  In doing so, I guess I'm actually going to post this picture.  I've been holding on to it for weeks, concerned that if I used it, people would find it cute.

I think it is illuminating, however, in a number of ways.  While it shows a picture of Gonzales' son making a face behind Senator Leahy's back, the boy's striking similarity to his father makes him look like a double.  Given that the senior Gonzales also looks remarkably young, the Gonzales in the foreground might as well be the persona the public isn't supposed to see.

If you've been following Gonzales' confirmation hearing to become Attorney General, you know the debate over the nomination was postponed from Tuesday to today (Thursday).  The reason for the postponement was to allow the Democrats more time to gather opposition.  The cause is right there in the photograph.  It would have been one thing if Democrats were merely troubled over Gonzales' view that the President is above the law.  The real dissent, however, stems from the feeling that Gonzales disrespected the Judiciary Committee through evasive answers and repeated refusals to respond.

Gonzales' response to many written questions was that he had not conducted a search for the requested documents. As Senator Kennedy explained:

"The documents we want may exist, but he's not going to look for them. There's nothing more arrogant to say to this body.... It's an insult not just to the Senate, but to the American people."

It was also disclosed last week that Gonzales, in response to a direct written question, failed to disclose his role in a legal arrangement allowing then-Governor Bush to avoid disclosing a D.U.I. conviction as part of a jury duty appearance.

The Senator whose question he snubbed is the man Gonzales himself could as easily be standing behind wearing Junior's expression -- the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy.
](image: AP Photo/Susan Walsh in Yahoo News)

The Gonzales Black Out

Steve Benen at TPM couldn't understand why Alberto Gonzales was sent to Iraq.  Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog read it as prep work for the September pro-surge sales effort.

Now that AG² is unquestionably the Administration's largest albatross, however, (what with Karl out of the way), whatever benefit the White House was looking to gain from this visit must have clearly been weighed against the potential ridicule of any visual evidence.  (After all, sending Gonzales to advise the Iraqi's on the rule of law is like ... well, I can't even think of an analogy ridiculous enough.) 

The result was a visual blackout the likes I've hardly seen.

Amazingly, there was not one photo -- newswire or otherwise -- I could find of the trip.  WAPO had nothing.  The NYT had less than nothing.  Even Newsweek, which was all over the story and even had an exclusive "on the ground" interview of the lawless one (a caustic back-and-forth, at that), pictorially had zip, even though they had him right there.  (They, instead, ran a pre-trip shot of Gonzales and Bush at the White House.)

In fact, the only reason I can even show you Alberto in the desert dust is because, after scouring, this little media pic turned up ... from Iran.

(image:  presstv.ir.  Iraq. August 12, 2007)

By Tint Of Unraveling

I'm sure there have been plenty of opportunities to capture Rove in a similar hue.  If so, why the present glow?

The answer likely has to do with the harsh reality suddenly shining through the veneer.  Although Rove is scrupulous about always appearing optimistic, he is captured here -- during Prez's speech to the American Legislative Exchange Council last Thursday in Philadelphia -- as lost in his head.  With an assist from the visual effect, one could easily see how the failed architect, despite the front, has got to be blue.

And, on the same day Rove was subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee for his role in the federal prosecutor scandal, the visual extends the story line.  Beyond just presenting in a negative light, the operative nearly comes off as radioactive.

h/t: macsuperg1rl

(Larry Downing/Reuters.  Philadelphia, July 26, 2007. via YahooNews.)

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?

Your Turn: What About Anya?

(click for full size)

Why is it that the pharmaceutical industry comes under so little scrutiny?

Could it have something to do with the fact the industry continues to finance the FDA's oversight function, or that the industry buys off the media with $4 billion a year (yes, billion) in direct-to-consumer advertising (an amount that has doubled since 2000), or that it's standard operating procedure to buy off  financially reward doctors?

The scarcity of mainstream coverage on this subject makes every write-up that much more important.  That's why I wanted to focus on Thursday's article in the NYT regarding the way the industry markets psychiatric medication to children.

The story is structured around the experience of 15-year-old Anya Bailey (shown above) who, three years ago, was put on an anti-psychotic for an eating disorder.  (Her psychiatrist at the time was being paid by the drug's manufacturer to give marketing lectures for the product.)  Anya's appetite returned, but the medication -- which was also heavily sedating -- led to a disabling nerve condition in her back.

It wasn't until last year that Anya went to the Mayo Clinic and was told to stop taking the drug.  With counseling, her weight normalized.  According to her mother, her back is also improving with the help of medication targeted specifically for that condition.

Because, as mentioned above, the behavior of the drug industry receives scant attention, the accompanying photo also becomes a signature one.  I've got a number of questions about it, though.

How much is this portrait illustrative of the problem?  And if it does speak to the problem, could it actually be doing so at Anya's expense?  For example, if she's psychologically sound, does the pose, the expression, the exact location, the general setting, and/or the 16-ounce coffee mug suggest that Anya's a healthy girl who has been taken advantage of by the system, or does the photo, itself, take advantage of her again?

I was also wondering if the image might also be making some cultural inference about community and/or suburbia as a factor in the medication (and over-medication) of children or consumer passivity in the face of medical and commercial exploitation.

(image: Fabrizio Costantini for The New York Times. May 2007. East Grand Forks, Minn. nytimes.com)