Reading The Pictures: First Visual Swipe At Obama Administration

Well, the NYT moved pretty fast Thursday in walking back their first visual swipe at the Obama administration.

The top screen shot, which led the on-line edition in the early afternoon, framed Obama's first political appointee, Rahm Emanuel (as well as Obama himself) as overly hard-baked, conniving and conspiratorial (even though their story yesterday emphasized how much Emanuel has smoothed out the rough edges over the years).

In the space of about an hour, however, swapping a Reuters shot for the AP selection on the home page and in the article, we saw a warmer, collegial impression instead.

Sure, Emanuel isn't Bambi, but no presidential Chief of Staff ever is. The larger point, however -- with all the crucial problems and promise in the air -- is that it's a tone we can't afford right now.

For more visual politics, visit BAGnewsNotes.com (and BAGnewsNotes @Twitter).

(images: Charles Rex Argobast/AP. John Gress/Reuters)

Comments

[PatA]

Have you lost your mind? I saw the first photograph and did not see anything wrong, or biased, with it.
You people need to get a life! Huffpost, included.

[johnnynyc]

I'm going to withhold judgement until the body language lady from the No Spin Zone weighs in.

[runforcover]

Hi,

This is my first time commenting on on of your entries, and I really enjoy your analysis of visuals in the news.

BUT this time you are off, probably because you are not a girl. The first picture looks damned good to me (I´m a girl), not just because Rahm is handsome, virile, inteligent, aggressive, focused, savvy, nasty when he needs to be (that is all very clear in his expression!) , but he also looks like a consigliere, right out of The Godfather. I want Obama to have people like that around him. Obama will make the final decision, but the fact that he has chosen just such a tough, smart, sophisticated ball-buster means he is not naive, out of touch or worst, fragile or exposed. Love it. And if you have more pictures of Rahm, please post them!

[wedgie]

What are we all gonna do with ourselves now that he's won?

Certainly not look for boogymen in the closets?
Bugaboos in the basements?
Ect?

How about we all just take a well deserved break?

Yeah.

**

[Charity Froggenhall]

There is nothing I can add to this comment that is either relevant or true!

[avocats]

Here's the problem: the hundreds and thousands of people who were employed in the election cycle following every little hiccup in the campaign are now left with little nut Republican talking points to echo. The Emanuel appointment is the perfect example. As I read the coverage it seemed that only Boehner made any negative remarks, remarks that were completely offset by positive Republican comments. Anyone with a brain knows that Obama cannot afford the Clinton approach--sending in a bunch of hapless kids, who had been great in the campaign but knew little to nothing about how the White House works, and were set adrift. Obama needs an experienced hand. And the Chief of Staff executes policy set by the President, so Obama will continue to set the tone. That said, all the talking heads spent hours discussing the Boehner talking point, because it was all they could think of. Think harder, or get another job.

[letsbepeaceful]

I agree with all of you who see nothing negative whatsoever in the original picture - two men conversing privately, probably in a relatively noisy place. No wonder the MSM get laughed at sometimes...making 'stories' out of nothing.

[waarpe]

puhleeze

[Bitsko]

I think you're stretching a little bit there, Mr. Shaw.

[tedbear]

Do you also think they were conspiring against you?

[indc]

You are making this stuff up... might as well put out a sign for palm reading and such... really, what non-sense... how do you get away with this junk

[GaGal]

I think your "clinical training" is off.... I found absolutely nothing negative about the first photo.

This is the problem with "journalism" today. Always trying to imply something that's not.

[metivo]

I like the first photo better. It just looks more intimate and shows him as a confidential advisor to Obama. What's wrong with that?

[HalBrown]

Since this IS the Internet, and I'm sure more people read the New York Times online than read it in print, it would make sense that they use BOTH pictures.

The old movie newsreels and Life Magazine taught how pictures are worth a thousand words... and now the Internet can and should tell the whole story with words and all the appropriate pictures whenever then can.

In this instance these two pictures depict two newsworthy sides of the Obama-Emanuel relationship.

[rachel2012]

ummm, can one say "paranoia"?

[Ramirez]

"...a tone we can't afford right now."

Which tone is the problem? The "overly hard-baked, conniving and conspiratorial" picture or the "warmer, collegial impression" pic?

I wouldn't worry. The NYT is a team player and I'm sure they will keep tuning their visuals until they get it right.

[SamEllison]

Talking point #101; Blame the NYTimes for everything.
Can I get you a tissue?

[sonomarc]

"NYT is a team player?" Which team would that be? The one they joined in the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Until they embrace journalistic integrity I will trust them only as far as I can spit...