Since everyone wants to look their best, and since facial expressions don't actualy say anything about people's craziness or ideas as anyone could look like anything, it only seems fair to use the best photo available.
That would actually be the
opposite of "fair." Let me ask you: if that's "fair," why does every other media outlet do the exact same thing? Are they
all "unfair" - right, left, and center across the board?
Re-read my post about how all publications pick photos that suit the content of their articles. "Fairness: has nothing to do with it. HuffPo wants to castigate Boehner's handling of the debt ceiling deal? They put up a pic from last year of Boehner looking disappointed, abashed, eyes down, frowning. Fox wants to critique Obama's reelection chances based on the economy? They use a photo that shows Obama looking frustrated or upset - that was taken before he was President. Are these things "fair" by your definition of the word (which seems to mean "100% beneficial to")? No, of course not; but again, the media's role is not in ensuring that our political figures always look as attractive as possible!
And again, I point out that I dont even like Bachman, and am certainly not voting for her in my primary. I absolutely dont want her to be the GOP candidate. But that doesnt mean I advocate how Newsweek has treated her with this cover. Its appalling, especially so since she is running for President.
So is it appalling when another media outlet does it to someone who
is President?? You simply can't argue that Newsweek is wrong and every other media outlet is okay.
Is Hillary running for President again?
Oh, okay, so it only matters for presidential
candidates - they should be made to look as attractive as possible in every story in every media outlet, but stories about other politicians or public figures - well, it's open season on
them? That's a laughable differentiation.
But I think the true double standard here is several peoples perfect willingness to castigate Foxnews as they do, but give an absolute pass to Newsweek on this particular issue whereas most people do indeed see the obvious. I mean if its wrong for Foxnews to do it, then isnt it wrong for Newsweek to do it?
Show me where I said it was wrong for
anyone to do it, Mobster. Go ahead. I dare you.
You don't have to
like this practice, but you need to either drop either this faux outrage over Newsweek or start getting outraged over USA Today, Fox News, the Washington Post, The National Review, The New Republic... you name it, they do the same exact thing. When's the last time you saw an article
critical of a political figure show a picture of that person cheering, grinning wildly, pumping their fist and generally looking awesome? Conversely, when's the last time you saw an article
applauding a political figure use a photo that showed them shamefaced, frowning, downcast, resigned, or upset? It rarely happens because this is standard practice. I'm not defending it, I'm just surprised that you're unaware how commonplace it really is, and seem to think Newsweek somehow invented it. Would you be this upset if The National Review showed an unflattering photo of Obama on the cover? [Because holy crap I'm even better than I thought and bring you....]
The latest edition of The National Review!!
Is it fair for the National Review to use this unflattering photo? He's our President, we should honor that office so he should look his best, right? Isn't it this conservative publication's responsibility to ensure that our President is portrayed looking as handsome as possible at all times?
