NOTE: BagNewsNotes is now located at Please update your bookmarks.

You will be automatically redirected in a few seconds...

« Baghdad, Ohio (11/2/04 minus 5) | Main | Bush To Explode? »

Oct 28, 2004

Watch Your Back


Given my weeks of hammering about the New York Times political photo coverage, my occasional guest blogger, Karen, alerted me to this shot from today's NYTimes on-line. It's the first shot I've seen in the Times (at least since the debates) that captures the thin-skinned Bush we saw on television.

While doling out credit to the NYTimes for publishing a more critical shot of Bush, it must be noted that the photo comes from an outside agency. To date, the two photographers they've had assigned to the candidates, Ting-Li Wang and Steven Crowley, have been incapable of capturing anything close to Bush's true nature.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Watch Your Back:

» The NY Times took crappy photos of Kerry from Five Live Links
The argument and evidence is fairly convincing. The reasons behind it are unexplained, though.... [Read More]



this is a first. it's about damn time.


"It's the first shot I've seen in the Times (at least since the debates) that captures the thin-skinned Bush we saw on television."

You're kidding, right? You can't tell from this split second shot what the photo supposedly "captures". Looks to me that maybe he's in mid-sentence while he looks over his left shoulder. Calm down a bit. Channel that hate into something a little more reasonable perhaps.


You missed the point. It's not that this is an accidental "outtake" in the course of Bush turning around. It's that the (normally intimidated) media actually chose to run a shot that reflects Bush's true nature. Bush's inherent aggressiveness and hostility is usually kept buried due to his organization's incredible p.r. skills. However, it was on plain display during the debates -- one of the few times he was not able to spin (ever second of) his image. Therefore, this shot is significant in suggesting that your man is not the guy he (continually) purports himself to be. It is also significant in that a news organization (in a rare instance) decided to publish something other than the rose-colored images that Bush intends them to consume.

Remember a Ting-Li Wang picture of John Kerry at a rally in Orlando, appearing in the NYT on October 16th? It's a striking image, with a small Kerry, who almost looks like a pasted-on collage image, at the bottom of the frame, and one, and only one, hand reaching out from the crowd toward him. I'm working with a class of college frosh; we're reading the NYT. The students look at this image and think it MUST be digitally altered. NYT says they don't do that in a news photo. Can anyone out there give me help on where the photographer would have to be positioned to get this image?

Thanks, Mary Russell, Professor of English, Indiana University Northwest

What a bunch of sore losers thinking up every excuse why bush could have won. You're even accusing the new york times of taking a conservative stance with these photographs...come on...the were talking about the NEW YORK TIMES. Why don't you take a scorecard to the major broadcasting networks who did nothing but slam Bush for the entire year before the election. My sympathies to all of you for the loss of Dan Rather... He was the frontrunner for liberal media(even painting a softer image of Saddam Hussein in their interview in an attempt to make our president look worse). Accept your defeat...quietly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

My Other Accounts

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 07/2003