Reading The Pictures: Cocaine, Kindergarten -- And Now, The Hand

Is there some rule somewhere that says that big media is required to publish every cheap piece of opposition dirt? Or, is this latest gem -- smack on today's NYT front page -- justified simply to hype the drama as we approach D-day in Iowa?

It is not sad enough the Times had to publicize how Obama voted "present" 3.25% of the time in the Illinois legislature -- rather than " taking a stand." (That, when the article also explains how a "present" vote is often a routine tactical or procedural move in that body.) No, what is more troubling is how the article uses photographs to create a more toxic visual impression of the smear.

The article contains two photos working in tandem. The lead shot shows Obama in the Illinois State Senate waving his hand and looking downward. Paired with the article, and its headline "Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present'," the read is that Barack is voting "present" and then feeling sheepish about it.

From the rather ambiguous caption, however ("Barack Obama leaving the Illinois State Senate in 2004"), what is more likely the case is that Obama is reacting with pride, and a little embarrassment, to recognition and even applause for his service in that chamber .

But that's not all.

Further down the left column is a 1997 black-and-white image of Obama being sworn in as state senator for the first time. Following the bias of the story, the headline and the first image, the way the second photo reads, with Barack's hand only half-raised (which is what you do when you pledge, as opposed to vote) is that Obama has somehow made a career out of failing to commit.

... Now, exactly what was Bill Clinton saying the other day about swiftboating?

For more of the visual, visit BAGnewsNotes.com.

(image 1: Seth Perlman/Associated Press. Illinois. 2004. via nytimes.com. image 2: Illinois Senate via nytimes.com)

Comments

[charon]

I'll take Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, any of 'em, any day, over any Republican.

[mamacat]

Could this be one of those times when "Much ado about nothing" applies?

[Evolin]

Frankly, I do not trust Obama. I surmise he is complicit in the doctored photos of Hillary -trying to make her look old. I know he has commented on age so I suspect him of ageism.
He should have thought that this country has many older (but wiser) voters who will be turned off by this brash upstart of a candidate. I know I am turned off by his attacks on Hillary. and his brashness.
We older voters take offence at mention of age as if it is a crime to be older, as in his attack on Ted Kennedy earlier in his career.
So no I don't trust him and he is young, untried and an unknown. quantity.
I hope ANY of the other candidates will be nominated. Of course my choice is Hillary.

[SDnavyPROUD]

Rule of thumb in order to counter this pro-corporate establishment that increasingly attemps restrict everyone's life...

Whatever message is foisted upon us the "unaware public", do the opposite of whatever their intended outcome would be.

[lindax]

You certainly have queer eyes. Those pictures are perfectly fine, reflecting the captions. All of the sudden, his hand is the issue, not his voting records. Brilliant indeed!

[williscat2000]

I think it is time to start donating to Obama. I feel sort of guilty, as I had been prepared to support Hillary clinton in 08, as she will improve things over bush..but we need more fundamental change..Obama is the only one offering that kind of upside. Rarely does a candidate come along offering the kind of hope in the future that obama brings. He'll souround himself with the cabinet Hillary Clinton would have picked , anyway.

[dutchess2]

Me Too!

I've been excited about the Obama campaign or a long long time...something about his effort appeals.

This morning MSNBC asked him specifically about the 'present' votes...and he explained them as 150 votes out of 4000.... and that it was the strategy used by ALL Illinois Senators when the intent is good, but the wording or consntitutionality needs work, not to signal rejection, but to signal that you're favorable but it needs work.

Sounds like the folks digging for dirt misread what they were looking at...

Which makes it easier than ever to state that Obama will have my vote.

[ebbtide]

no doubt Clinton has his paws all over the NYT, just like Rove had/has. The Hillary/Bill campaign looks cheap and tawdry. How about they address Hillary's war vote in a clear manner. I am sure there are pics of her, with her hand raised, voting for the slaughter to begin.

[SeanGardner]

That Obama has surged to the lead of most IOWA polls and is in the lead (or tied with the lead) in most New Hampshire polls is a testament to his resolve.

Some blacks supporting Clinton said he wasn't "black enough", and said he couldn't defeat the big guns of the so-called first black president, Bill Clinton (but guess who is leading amongst African-Americans nationally: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119759876506928645-dSmOz6FXuP4vNl_0_wNkgx7ROc8_20080113.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top)

There was an e-mail campaign started in 2006 that said he was a "muslim terrorist plant", but that was false: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

They said he was unaccomplished in college but the research reveals him to be a bonafine INTELLECTUAL STUD, and an even handed campus leader: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/

Just today Obama said, "So far, I think, attempts to go negative in a way that's not policy-based have backfired on the people who have gone in that direction." I agree.

Clinton will be in for a rude awakening because she is the chief manufacturer of sophomoric cheap shots and percolating hypocrisy.

And now Hillary is trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Obama voted "present" out of over 4000 plus votes he cast as an Illinois State Senator. But why is she attacking Obama for this, when last week on Charlie Rose, Bill Clinton said that Obama's eight-year experience as a state senator was "insufficient". Meaning it should not count at all.

Either his political experience from Illinois is sufficient or it isn't. You can't dismiss it as Bill Clinton did, and then the same day have Hillary dissect it and attack Obama for 130 "present" votes, or (as you put it Mr. Shaw) ".0325%" of the over 4000 votes Obama cast as a State Senator.

[oogabooga]

Geez guys, find something better to write about.

[MRb1000]

130 votes out of 4000= 3%. America, America he probably have the best voting record compared to most Senators and Congressmen and women. Boy this is stupid. If I were Barack I would get Hillary's record and along with the others and do a ratio of votes to non votes. He would make fools out of most. America you are smarter than this. 3% 3% 3% What are you make a be skink about. Most people are not present 25% of the time in congress or senate. The house and senate men and women just do not show up to vote to protest. What 3%%%

[LizM]

Oh, there's a rule...count on it. It's part of the same rule that says it's OK to ignore, and otherwise dismiss, the most qualified candidate to run for president in a very long time...if a candidate as qualified for the office as Senator Biden is has even ever run before!

[zull2]

Not just report it, but ANALYZE it. They hire a team of "analysts" to sit around and bloviate about this sort of stuff...and frequently, what they have to say isn't any better than the typical run of the mill HuffPo commenter. Except they get paid for it. With money that could obviously be better spent paying reporters and writers. Of course, but for what reason than to have their work chewed up and spat out by zealous editors with far less dedication to reporting the news than they have to their boss and the shareholders.

Remember, if a news outlet or paper is traded publicly, it's not the news. It's a business.

[buzzygirl]

The big media feels that to be relevant, it has to practice objectivity, even when such objectivity falls on its face.

Like a coordinated effort, it seems the decision to go after Obama now is in response to some higher up orders.

Just yesterday, the Washington Post had a story that claimed that Obama was not scrutinized enough as the other candidates.

Today, we get this from the New York Times. And these are papers of record.

As you so aptly pointed out pictures used do not even reflect what the story is about.

On NBC News tonight, you got the same reporting, with nary an Obama person called to rebut the report.

Long ago, you could walk in the supermarkets and see headlines blaring from the tabloids, and you knew they were just so wacked.

These days it is hard to discern from the two. You hardly know which is the National Enquirer or a mainstream media paper.

Uhmmm.

[Rescisco]

Both the original story and this blog discussion are an indication of how easily we are distracted from what matters most in these trying times. Lets get our focus back on the Jamie Lynn saga and the rest of the inbred Spears clan. Oh, I forgot. Our brilliant media can cover both of these "stories" 24-7 and never be so old school as to risk reporting anything relevant.