Daily Show Criticizes Newsweek For Running Unflattering Photo Of Michelle Bachmann

[Formaldehyde]

My point is - that much blurriness is a deliberate choice, whether it's down to lensing chosen by the photographer or image manipulation/post-production.

Yes, it is. But it isn't "over-exaggerated" at all.

From the Wiki article:

At f/32, the background competes for the viewer’s attention.

At f/5.6, the flowers are isolated from the background.

At f/2.8, the cat is isolated from the background.

It is good basic photographic technique, is entirely due to the lens aperture and f-stop selected by the cameraman, has nothing to do with "image manipulation/post-production", and it is quite intentional.

Once again, the official Bachmann shot uses exactly the same technique.

Boehner posed for this photo and likely saw it long before it was published. Has he ever complained about it?

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah given the fact that you defended those photoshopped pictures of Democrats on Fox last week, your objectivity on this is a tad suspect

Could you for once use some context to describe my point about that? That issue was from a humor piece on an early morning fox show, it was done as a joke, and explained as a joke.

The cover here of Bachman isnt a joke.

Please, PLEASE tell me you understand the difference.

 

[CaptainF]

The cover here of Bachman isnt a joke.

No, but Bachmann herself is.

 

[Agent Cooper]

Well, I'd love to talk shop all day since I worked with images/photos in the digital domain for years professionally, but I feel like were are getting way off-topic.

...and my knowledge of applied photographic techs/tricks and cameras in detail is limited

 

[TopGearFanatic]

No, but Bachmann herself is.

Just like Obama.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Could you for once use some context to describe my point about that? That issue was from a humor piece on an early morning fox show, it was done as a joke, and explained as a joke.

Only there wasn't anything "funny" about it. You are conflating turning one of them into an "attack dog" with the clearly irresponsible journalism of deliberately photoshopping their images merely because these talking heads thought they had been overly critical of Fox News:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002

The NY Times take on it:

When Fox News Is the Story

A little more than a week ago, Jacques Steinberg, a reporter at The New York Times who covers television, wrote a straight-up-the-middle ratings story about cable news. His article acknowledged that while CNN was using a dynamic election to push Fox News from behind, Fox was still No. 1. Despite repeated calls, the public relations people at Fox News did not return his requests for comment. (In a neat trick, while they were ignoring his calls, they e-mailed his boss asking why they had not heard from him.)

After the article ran, Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy of “Fox and Friends,” the reliable water carriers on the morning show on the cable network, did a segment suggesting that Mr. Steinberg’s editor was a disgruntled former employee — Steven V. Reddicliffe once edited TV Guide, which was until recently owned by the News Corporation — and that Mr. Steinberg was his trained attack dog. (The audience was undoubtedly wondering what the heck they were talking about.)

The accompanying photographs were heavily altered, although the audience was probably none the wiser. Mr. Reddicliffe looked like the wicked witch after a hard night of drinking, but it was the photo of Mr. Steinberg that stopped traffic when it appeared on the Web at Media Matters side by side with his actual photo. In a technique familiar to students of vintage German propaganda, his ears were pulled out, his teeth splayed apart, his forehead lowered and his nose was widened and enlarged in a way that made him look more like Fagin than the guy I work with. (Mr. Steinberg told me that as a working reporter who covers Fox News, he was not in a position to comment. A spokeswoman said the executive in charge of “Fox and Friends” is on vacation and not available for comment but added that altering photos for humorous effect is a common practice on cable news stations.)

It’s a particularly vivid example of how the Fox response team works, but hardly the only one. Julia Angwin of The Wall Street Journal wrote a profile of Roger Ailes in 2005. Again, her coverage was right up the middle, but that is not the way that Fox News saw it, and she was held out for ridicule over and over in items on various blogs penned by Fox News staff when she jumped the gun on the start date for the Fox business channel. (Ms. Angwin is on book leave and did not answer a message left on her cellphone.)

Nobody knew those photos were doctored until it was exposed.

This is now considered to be an excellent example of blatant media irresponsibility and a prime example why Fox News is considered to have no journalistic integrity.

 

[CaptainF]

Just like Obama.

Obama wants to "cure" the gays and ban pornography?

 

[warpus]

Article about a crazy woman who says crazy things, accompanied by a picture of her looking her usual crazy.

I don't see an issue here.

 

[MobBoss]

Only there wasn't anything "funny" about it.

Whether you personally found it funny or not is moot, it still remains the factual truth that it was a humor piece.

You can either deal with that reality or not. But thats not the topic of this thread. What happend to Bachmans is.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Still ... could be worse.

 

[IglooDame]

Have a better for Newsweek to use? Even her official House photo isn't that far from the one Newsweek used.

However, Newsweek has taken a recent turn toward trashy, what with their stupid 'Diana at 50' edition.

I'd have suggested that Newsweek use her official House photo, exactly because it isn't that far from the one that they actually used, and would have completely shielded them from this current controversy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Whether you personally found it funny or not is moot, it still remains the factual truth that it was a humor piece.

Once again, the piece itself was intented to be humorous by showing one of them as an "attack dog". However, physically changing the appearance of the two people, and in one case over-exaggerating that he was a Jew, clearly was not. There is nothing "humrous" about doing so, especially when it was completely lost on the audience because they had no reason to even know what they actually look like. They aren't celebrities in the least.

You can either deal with that reality or not. But thats not the topic of this thread. What happend to Bachmans is.

The "reality" is that it is very much the same thing. Only in the case of Fox News, it is now considered to be yet another example of complete lack of journalistic integrity for which they are so infamous. No doubt it is now used as a prime example of what not to do in journalism schools.

I think complaining that some publications use unflattering but undoctored photos of people, while trying to rationalize this blatant incident of clearly irresponsible journalism, is very much within the province of this thread.

Is this as terrible as Stewart, National Organization For Women, Fox News, and most other conservative pundits claim? Or is it just another example of blatant hypocrisy to ignore all the cases when the conservatives deliberately did the same thing while responding so vociferously when it happens to one of their own?

Even if the photos had merely been unflattering, instead of deliberately doctored to make them even more so, it would still be a prime example of a double standard.

 

[MobBoss]

Form, this thread isnt about Foxnews. The correct context is that it was done to be funny. I get the fact you didnt find it funny, but that doesnt change the original intent. In consideration of that, this Newsweek thing just isnt simply comparable nor is it 'the same thing'....for example none of those guys from the Foxnews piece were running for President. Now lets get back on topic.

 

[Ajidica]

The Newsweek picture, while not exactly flattering, is not much worse then her official House picture. Newsweek has her smile creepier to be sure, but that is hardly worth the annoyance it seems to be generating. Everyones picture in a magazine that is critical about them is going to look worse then their official picture, thats a given. If Newsweek had photoshopped witch warts and drool coming out of the corner of her mouth, the critics would have a very valid point. Currently, they don't have a point.

 

[SuperJay]

I agree, Ajidica. I don't think the photo of her is really that bad, truth be told. I don't think a news magazine is there to coach you on looking your best, frankly. If it was digitally altered, sure, bad form. But it's just a picture; where's the issue here?

Who was it that took Sarah Palin's picture from a running / athletic magazine and ran it as the cover piece on the profile of her? (Newsweek, Time... don't recall exactly.) That was bad form as well, as I understood the situation. I just don't think this thing with Bachmann is comprable; no deceit or malicious alteration was committed, was there?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Form, this thread isnt about Foxnews. <snip>

Now lets get back on topic.

What gives you that impression given that it is specifically mentioned 6 separate times in the OP, including my request for comments?

 

[MobBoss]

The Newsweek picture, while not exactly flattering, is not much worse then her official House picture. Newsweek has her smile creepier to be sure, but that is hardly worth the annoyance it seems to be generating. Everyones picture in a magazine that is critical about them is going to look worse then their official picture, thats a given. If Newsweek had photoshopped witch warts and drool coming out of the corner of her mouth, the critics would have a very valid point. Currently, they don't have a point.

I think the point is that Newsweek wouldnt go with 'worst pic' for other candidates and they have certainly given other previous candidate much better covers. Thats why it is generating annoyance.

What I dont get is why a mag like Newsweek doesnt get in touch with the candidates camp and ask them to ok the photo being used? Say give them a range of 5 to 10 photos, and say 'pick one'. Seems to me that would really solve the issue, and be fairly painless.

 

[Ajidica]

I think the point is that Newsweek wouldnt go with 'worst pic' for other candidates and they have certainly given other previous candidate much better covers. Thats why it is generating annoyance.

They have done the same, for people who actualy have been elected president! They recently had a cover of Clintons terrifyingly huge face with "Please don't go Monica, I want to engage in diplomatic relations with you" plastered all over it.

What I dont get is why a mag like Newsweek doesnt get in touch with the candidates camp and ask them to ok the photo being used? Say give them a range of 5 to 10 photos, and say 'pick one'. Seems to me that would really solve the issue, and be fairly painless.

How do you know that isn't what they did? I highly doubt that if they manage to get ahold of Bachmann for a picture shoot they are only going to take one picture and call it a day. Besides, if magazines were only allowed to use official pictures without raising a ruckus, we'd be seeing alot more pictures of Obama in inspirational poses and alot less of him looking tired and worn down.

 

[SuperJay]

What I dont get is why a mag like Newsweek doesnt get in touch with the candidates camp and ask them to ok the photo being used? Say give them a range of 5 to 10 photos, and say 'pick one'. Seems to me that would really solve the issue, and be fairly painless.

In journalism, that's generally considered inappropriate. A news source is not acting as a marketing or PR tool for a political candidate (or for any person being profiled, interviewed, etc). The aim is (ostensibly) objectivity - and having your sources or subjects "approve" your coverage of them is seen as potentially compromising the objectivity of the piece and the magazine / newspaper / etc.

(When I first started writing on a newspaper back in college, I used to want to contact my sources to show them my completed articles, just because it seemed like a nice thing to do. My editors quickly corrected that well-intentioned, but ultimately inappropriate gesture. )

 

[Formaldehyde]

Giving the people who are featured in articles a chance to respond before the article is printed is a precept of responsible journalism:

http://www.journoworld.co.uk/Right_of_Reply.html

Right of Reply

Whenever you are writing a story that contains a criticism of a person or an organisation, you should give them a "right of reply". This means you should put to them any allegations or criticisms you intend to write and give them the chance to respond.

As well as being an important part of making sure your coverage is fair and accurate, it can also help you legally if you ever end up relying on a common law defence in a libel action.

But I agree that giving them the opportunity to select the most flattering photo is absurd. That is entirely a matter for the editors to decide.