Getting Panned

If the NYTimes is the official media arm of the Democratic party, why aren't they acting the part?

Facing a week in which Senate Republicans are expected to push the nuclear button and detonate the Senate filibuster, this is the shot the Times selected to showcase the opposition.  As a technique, politicians often use public backdrops to frame initiatives. (Here, Senators Clinton, Boxer and Schumer speak out against the nuke tactic in front of the Jefferson Memorial.)  I seriously doubt, however, that Hilary and friends expected a wide view of the plaza calling attention to the photo-op itself. 

Obviously, panning out puts the situation in a completely different context. One impact is that it suddenly looks like a public event.  Displayed this way, the empty background implies that the Senators are completely lacking in popular support.  You can't say no one is around, however.  The security detail certainly showed up.  (If you drew a line from the agent directly to the left of Clinton, to the cop at the left edge, to the agent with his back to us at the extreme right edge, to the guy facing us just below him, and back again, you would have close to a big empty triangle.)  One could draw a number of implications from this too -- however, none of them good.  Can't you just hear complaints that the Dems are both wasting taxpayer money and endangering safety by tying up vital security personnel?

Certainly, this kind of portrayal has been bleeding the Democrats.  In assessing the problem, however, you have to ask if the Democrats look weak as a result of the coverage, or because they give the media (even the outlets that are more friendly) every opportunity to make them look that way.

(Revised: 2/10/05 1:37 PST) 

(image: Stephen Crowley. May 8, 2005 in The New York Times)

Comments

[Aaron]

I like how the threesome on the steps is staging a much better shot of their own.

[aethorian]

Summarizing this image then, you have to ask if:

1. Democrats look weak because biased media have selectively made them look that way.
2. Democrats look weak because they have given unbiased media an improperly staged photo opportunity.

And maybe there's a third option:

3. Democrats look weak because not enough people, press, or fellow Senators care about this issue to rally 'round them.

This bored trio has broken one of the old leadership rules, Find a crowd that's going somewhere and get in front of it. There no crowd, no emotion, and nothing to see here: we might as well be listening to it on NPR. (Somebody nudge the security guy stage right, OK? Hillary left ten minutes ago.)

There was a more emotional photo opportunity not long ago where the charge of few trees and no forest was laid. Perhaps shutter blades can cut both ways?