That only applies to criticism or direct allegations and doesn't typically extend to photographs used in profile pieces, IIRC. (I haven't read the Newsweek article, but I assume isn't not full of potentially libelous claims, is it?) Either way, an unedited, unaltered photograph like that cover shot does not constitute anything remotely close to defamation.
Daily Show Criticizes Newsweek For Running Unflattering Photo Of Michelle Bachmann
- Thread starter Formaldehyde
- Start date
That only applies to criticism or direct allegations and doesn't typically extend to photographs used in profile pieces, IIRC. (I haven't read the Newsweek article, but I assume isn't not full of potentially libelous claims, is it?) Either way, an unedited, unaltered photograph like that cover shot does not constitute anything remotely close to defamation.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I agree, and I made that clear in my edited post above.
And I am quite sure that Newsweek contacted Bachmann before running that article.
And I am quite sure that Newsweek contacted Bachmann before running that article.
Well, content tone and defamation are very different things and more or less unrelated. And yeah, the quality of the article may not be very high, but right of response is generally only invoked when a publication is making direct, potentially harmful (according to defamation law) accusations or allegations. Form's right, it's a responsible journalistic practice in those situations, but it doesn't apply to this cover photo or the article itself - even if the quality of the information presented is less than stellar. (It is Newsweek, after all, which has been bleeding subscribers, staff, and financial backing for years.)
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
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.)
Now wait a second. Its inappropriate for a mag to be considerate of someone for a mag cover because its not a marketing or PR tool for a candidate.....but its ok to purposefully run a bad picture of a candidate?
Uhhhhh. If you purposefully run arent you still engagingin in marketing/PR, just in a negative way?
I mean if ones inappropriate then the reverse should be as well.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
No, it is responsible journalism in all cases which contain any criticism of an individual, regardless of whether or not they may be considered to be defamatory. Again, I am quite certain that Newsweek contacted Bachmann prior to printing this article.
As Jon Stewart pointed out, she is actually quite photogenic. But if you take enough photos of anybody, some of them won't be very flattering. This is especially true of middle-aged women which frequently makes female politicians a victim of this practice.
It doesn't take much at all to highlight them in an unflattering way, as Fox News has repeatedly shown with their selection of photos of Hillary Clinton and others.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Come on, of course its purposefully bad. If it werent we wouldnt be having this conversation, nor would it be a current issue. I mean, even Jon Stewart can see that, and we all know he isnt a fan of hers.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
So Jon Stewart is now a newscaster instead of a comedian exploiting the sordid state of American news and politics to comedic effect?
Here is her official photo from the House website:
Spoiler for size :
And here is her photo from Newsweek:
Yes, she is a bit creapier in the Newsweek photo. Nobody is denying that, and nobody is denying that Newsweek has made some rather poor editorial choices recently. That a non-issue has been turned into an issue is what is being argued about.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Gods, can't you put it in spoiler tags?
---
On an unrelated note, if this woman becomes the next president of the US, I am really stepping up efforts to complete my fallout shelter and stock it full of supplies.
---
On an unrelated note, if this woman becomes the next president of the US, I am really stepping up efforts to complete my fallout shelter and stock it full of supplies.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Do you have any idea how often some Daily Show reference gets used around here as a factual topic of discussion? So, the ONE TIME he actually says something in defense of a republican NOW he's merely a comedian?
Wow. Just wow.
There is a huge difference in the two photos. Hell, the Newsweek one almost makes her look cross-eyed in comparison. So...now its just dismissed as 'poor editorial choices'? I see.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
That's very true. And they have a large number of photographs for any piece they run, so whichever ones you see were a deliberate choice.
I still remember a newspaper from 2000 (don't remember which one) that ran a picture of Gore with his mouth open in an awkward position. It was almost certainly taken in the middle of him saying something, but they chose that particular photo for the cover, out of all the photos they could have chosen. It made him look mentally disabled.
TV stations do the same thing--Downtown might have seen this during his time in New Orleans, but if there's a murder in the hood, WWL will air videotape of people from that neighborhood who fit every crude ghetto stereotype. Then you go over to Fox8 and they somehow found people in that same neighborhood who speak English and have a full set of teeth. That reflects someone's biases, whether subconscious or intentional. We don't know if it's the reporter or the production team who was at fault, but we can conclude that WWL has racists working for them.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Buy an amateur long range radio station. When the bombs fall and I am waiting for the radiation to dissipate, I'll need to kill time by arguing with someone over banalities.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
I tried that before, but I don't think anyone looked at it.
Your spats with Formaldehyde or other members about the quality of the Daily Show for factual information is completely irrelavent. I don't use it for factual information, and I don't ever recall citing it as such on this forum.MobBoss said:
I'm not seeing a difference between "plastic mask" and "plastic mask".
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Yeah. Most people just don't look at spoilers. Perhaps you should consider shrinking and posting it to a hosting website instead...
You're confusing the issue (again) and comparing apples to oranges, but I'll leave it to you to sort out the flawed comparison yourself.
It's an accurate, factual picture of her. Whether it's "bad" or not is irrelevant. They didn't alter it in any way, did they? Is there something untrue about that picture? No. No, there is not. It's standard practice for every media outlet to use imagery that suits the angle of the accompanying article. If this was Fox News Magazine and the piece was called "Michele Bachman: Defender of Freedom!" they'd picture her with an American flag behind her, looking stalwart and righteous and steely-eyed and wholesome and just and compassionate and certainly not crazy, at all. They'd erase the craziness.
Since the angle on the Newsweek piece is called "Michele Bachman: Queen of Rage," they chose a photo that reinforces that angle. I don't personally think it's wrong or right, it's simply how media works. All media, including your cherished Fox News, who would do the exact same thing (if not worse) to their coverage of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other Democratic public figure. The shoe just happens to be on the other foot this time; I don't see you clamoring about lousy pics of Hillary in conservative publications. Double standard much?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Then resize it or something.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Oh come on, its completely relevant.
I just really dont know what to say in the face of this. I really cant believe that there are indeed people that would defend this as its so incredibly obvious to a great many of people regardless of their political affiliation. I am really at a loss for words.
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.
Is Hillary running for President again? 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?
Then just realize you not seeing a difference there puts you in a very, very small minority.
Similar threads
