Strange images
I would never spend money on a Newsweek, or even pick one up to read at the library, but the Aug 29 issue (Republican Convention issue) was dumped in the basket at the coffee shop with McCain Palin on the cover, so I picked it up, just to see how the writers would twist the story to Obama's advantage. Oh, here it is. Table of Contents. "McCain's Surprise Attack." Biden was a huge surprise to me since he's just another white guy with about a thousands years in Congress, but I don't have that issue to see if it was called an "attack." Then leaf through an article on Pakistan, something about open season on gays, then why drill, the "Belief Watch" book review of The Shack, a page of jokes about Palin, something on culture like play dates and guys who won't grow up, a cartoon with Mitt dressed as a woman, until finally 2 full size photos of McCain and Palin with the tops of their heads cut off (this is not unusual in portrait photography these days--my U. of I. Library alumni magazine does this too). It's the cover I find so fascinating. I thought someone had spilled something on Palin's face--a big white glare on her glasses. Even with my freebie photo fixer, I can remove glare and clean up wispy hair. And half of Palin's face is actually darker than Michelle Obama's, whose gorgeous photo on the Feb. 18 cover (it came up for some reason when I clicked on "images") had every flaw photo-shopped, the way you would expect a Hollywood movie star with something to gain from such perfection. Palin's photo added 5-10 years, Obama's subtracted about that many. Why do the Obamas need so much help from the media to look and seem to be different than they are? Hmmmm.
6 comments:
LOL, you have such a fertile imagination. Honestly, I'm willing to bet you could find liberal bias on the RNC webpage.
Yes, isn't it just a hoot to make Michelle the sweet, innocent and flawless Cinderella on her way to the inaugural ball and Sarah the wicked, ugly stepsister with big feet. Really, no bias intended on the magazine's part. (You only need to look at both covers to see it.) Since only liberals pay to read Newsweek, they are definitely playing to their audience.
I've seen both of them, and I still think you have a fertile imagination. I'd even go as far as to say overactive. You are seeking imbalance, and you'll find it. Even when it doesn't exist.
A photographer, for Atlantic I think, has been fired (or reprimanded more likely) for photographing McCain to look as bad as possible. Then she took the worst, photoshopped him with blood and fangs and put it on her website. Yes, photographers can be political--just like movie directors and writers. What makes you think in this day of all things visual, that photographers, artists, cartoonists and editors don't clean up, retouch or deliberately darken photos? I've also written about sketches of Hillary and Obama during the primaries. Same bias was evident.
"When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.
She delivered the image the magazine asked for—a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic. Greenberg is well known for her highly retouched images of bears and crying babies. But she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says."
What media bias? (story from PDNPulse) No hate in art here, move along. It's all in your imagination.
But it wasn't her fault!
“It’s definitely exciting to shoot someone who is in the limelight like that. I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.”
You gotta love these Dems. Nothing's ever their fault.
Post a Comment