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

[LeeFromVA]

I hate the veiled attacks more than the straight forward ones. There was a post on Huffpo about the three traditions from the top 3 Dems. Obama was the Anti-politics candidate and therefore likened to Jimmy Carter and his failed Presidency. Hillary on the other hand was the pragmatist and therefore likened to FDR. Yeah, right. A better comparison for Barack Obama would be Ronald Reagan. I see Obama as coming to the rescue of the Democrats the same way Ronald Reagan came to the rescue of the Republican party at a time when the Democratic party was demoralized with what seemed like a failed presidency, much like what Dubya has done to the Republicans. Reagan offered a glimmer of Hope that we could turn the page. He made it cool to be Republican and he won over many Dems, who would become known as the Reagan Democrats. His appeal was broad and inclusive. He provided inspiration and motivation that America could be great again. To this day Republicans still invoke the name of Ronald Reagan as an example of what's good about the Republican party. What we need at this point in history is someone to finally unite the red and blue states. Someone to motivate people. Someone to lead us, all of us, as one nation. Obama has already won over many Republicans. We need inspiration. We need HOPE. We need Barack Obama. He is the ONE. It's not time for him to wait his turn. The time is now, and he's the one! America can be great again, and the Obama Republicans will turn out to support him.

[fullkelly]

LOL! Don't bad mouth Obama but is's alright to bad mouth Bill Clinton? Sounds just like all the other republicans when they do not have a good response what do they do? PILE ON BILL CLINTON. Bill Clinton it would appear is the all purpose whipping boy.

[Walterba]

I trust that you have in the past parsed the same type of stories about HRC in the same critical manner. Maybe Mark Halperin has been heard and taken into account by the Times to even things out a little bit.

[Countess]

The New York Times including Krugman and the entire media and democratic establishment want Mrs. Clinton elected. They resent outsiders and they not only tolerate but actually promote Clinton's dirty campaign. The 2008 presidential election will be a choice between two corrupt politicians one with brains and the other with balls and both unworthy.

[snruB]

Wasn't voting "present" a strategic tactic utilized by Dems in Illinois to stick it to Republicans? What's wrong with that?