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)

Follow Michael Shaw on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagnewsnotes

Comments

[esl]

I think it is an important story and I'm glad the NYT published it. I heard about Obama's present votes before and that he has never called a meeting of the subcommittee he chairs. This is important info for voters to know. I'm sorry, but I want someone to win who actually takes an active part in government, not just an act for the cameras.

[jukesgrrl]

The answer to the question, "Is there some rule somewhere that says that big media is required to publish every cheap piece of opposition dirt?" the answer is, "Of course." If they didn't fill their endless hours of dead airtime and blank newspaper pages with this tripe, followed by copious "analysis" from cheap-to-rent "pundits," they'd have to hire real journalists to do real investigations. That would cost money and, furthermore, the advertisers might not like what the reporters dig up.

With this cheap sleeze, everyone wins (except we the people).

[lovethesinner]

If images are what keep us from discovering the truth, we have no eyes.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Always with the right hand...non­e of these people watch the History channel, or what?
All hail the Most Powerful hand gesture...

[RAMHaiti]

You only notice this photography crap with Obama??
In spite of the fact that Obama is just a phony, these editors slam every one with these bogus pictures. They do it to Hillary, Edwards, Bill, just about everyone. They even do it to the Republicans! Stop crying. By the way will Dr Phil be part of the Obama team too?

[CGrace]

Yes it was a strategic tactic used by the Dems in Illinois to vote "present". This has been reported before. But, not the dirty politics that the Clintons are now using. Why don't they just go back to Arkansas and let Bill chase the bimbos. They are willing to smear a sitting U.S. Senator to win this election? Shame on them. Obama will be President.

[shotput8]

Wait, isn't that a Nazi salute? I have seen the same salute in WWII movies.

Is this guy really a Islamofacist Nazi?

[nuglet304]

oh, please! take a look at almost every picture that huffpo posts of senator clinton and then whine a little more about how the media is unfair to barack obama.

he's getting the break of a lifetime from the media and he's still not able to gain a firm lead in any polls. attribute that to ambivalence about his chances of winning, not a few pictures that most people will never see anyway.

[YankeeCanuck]

I fail to see that particular interpretation in those photos. His hand half-raised? Looked pretty much like a swearing-in pose to me. He looked steadfast, and.. why am I even talking about this?
Why does the press talk about the minutuae of images, the "race", frontrunners, and not the issues?
Oh yeh, that would take research!

Besides, Obama simply cannot look bad in photos. And he's not even my first choice. It's just the truth.

[twanda]

Why should he blubber like a little girl after the nasty personal shots he's taken at Hillary? It's good that he's getting some of his own back.

[foxx]

This is a ridiculous post. I am not an Obama fan and I read that article and the pictures did not make at all the impression on me that you invent here. They were obviously what the captions said they were.

I sure hope people are going to get tired of Obamaites seeing offense everywhere. It's getting pretty old. And maybe it is meant to be a distraction from his lack of coherent policies.

[CaseyBabes]

"Is there some rule somewhere that says the media has to publish every cheap piece of opposition dirt?"
Aw, c'mon, you know more than most that that is what the media does. There's print space to fill, and air time to bombard. They choose a side, promote it, build it up, then boom!, cause the crash. The media loves hearing from the "opposition" as that's cash, baby, green stuff.
So what are we supposed to believe, the American media is doing the job of democracy's fourth estate? Uh huh, more like turning objects into salt when looked at directly.

[Ottovbvs]

Do stop whining. This is the normal give and take of electoral politics. If you are going to start snivelling over something as trivial as this if indeed it's anything other than a figment of your imagination then god help him when he has to face up to a full court press from the Republican slime machine.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I'm sick to death of these campaigns who when their past voting record is called into question, call it an attack/swi­ftboating, etc. Now, I'll agree that the "muslim/hu­ssein/madr­asah stuff is dirty, but calling Obama's "present" votes into question is entirely fair. But what's most troubling about Obama to me is that instead of responding to these fair questions, his campaign simply labels it an attack, which sounds exactly like the sort of behavior he would attack in Hillary. It's obvious that his campaign is playing semantics and politics, perhaps not with the same skill as Hillary, but I don't consider that a selling point. For me, I prefer a candidate who is able to make a simple declarative statement of his or her stand without equivocation. I will not vote for a candidate who questions another's vote when he couldn't even be bothered to vote himself. Which is why I won't vote for either Obama or Clinton. And while you're getting all worked up about questioning Obama's lack of voting record, how about the personal crap that's been circulating about Edwards? Now THAT is swiftboati­ng...the allegations have been headline news, yet nothing has been confirmed or proven...w­orse, it has very little to do with his qualifications to be president.
That being said, I'm for Biden. But Edwards is my second choice.

[BernieO]

You must be paranoid if you think that these pictures are trashing Obama. The Clinton's were accused of murder and drug running (and some pundit like Bob Novak still try to bring the murder charge up). Gore was constantly falsely accused of lying, with made-up statements constantly repeated by the media. Kerry was accused of faking his war heroism.
You'll find out what real trashing is if Obama is the nominee. The right wing attack machine is alive and well.